Ulster County, NY Vote Stronger for Trump Than for Romney

A comparison of the vote counts for Ulster County, NY (h/t Glenda R. McGee) reveals something interesting: The vote for Clinton was weaker than for Obama while the vote for Trump was stronger than for Romney. 

Ulster County is a mixture of two elements:  rural New Yorkers whose ancestors have lived in the region for generations and are chiefly Republican  and transplanted New York City refugees like me.  The New York City refugees are mostly Democratic. 

Clinton stimulated less interest among the New York City element than Obama had while Trump stimulated more than Romney had. However, the numbers in the region are now overwhelmingly in favor of the Democrats because of the demographic shifts. 

 2012 Ulster County Presidential Votes:

              Obama                              Romney

2012:     47,752                               29,759

               Clinton                              Trump

2016       44,597                               35,239

Source: Glenda R. McGee  

Will Obama Serve Only One Term?

The Rational Review reports that a Daily News poll found that 52% of Americans feel that Obama should serve only one term. But I suspect that 60% of Republicans are unhappy with McCain and Gingrich. Does this mean a window of opportunity for a third party? Or will Hillary Clinton upset Obama in a primary? Perhaps an insurgent Tea Party candidate within the GOP? Although most Americans say that they don't like the way things are going, will they prefer a GWB redux?

Another Rational Review post criticizes the recent "Conservative Manifesto" for failing to note the disconnect between the GOP's failed leadership and the principles the manifesto advocates. (H/t Chris Johansen). Which way are thinking Americans to turn their lonely eyes, now that Joe DiMaggio is gone?

Clintons to Move to Woodstock, NY?

Last August Bill and Hillary Clinton interrupted my usual workout at the exclusive Emerson Resort and Spa in Mount Pleasant, NY, about 15 miles from Woodstock and about 10 miles from my house. Actually, I took President Clinton by surprise when he opened the door to the gym. He sent a secret service agent to scope out the gym instead. On March 13, the Kingston Freeman wrote:

Speculation has been growing around Ulster County in recent weeks that former President Bill Clinton and his wife, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, are buying a home in the community known for its arts and history. The former first couple, whose home is in Westchester County, seems to be enamored of the area — evidenced by multiple visits here — but whether they plan to become local residents is anything but certain...An employee in the Woodstock town assessor’s office said she had heard talk on the street about the Clintons buying a house here but had not seen any deed to prove it....The Woodstock town supervisor’s office also said it had no information, nor did the public relations director at the Emerson Resort & Spa in Mount Tremper, where the Clintons have stayed on two occasions, most recently in December.

Casey Seiler of the Albany Times Union adds:

The Daily Freeman has a piece today about speculation that the Clintons are close to purchasing a house in or around Woodstock. No word from spokesmen at the Clinton Global Initiative or the State Department.

Could anything be more perfect that having America’s echt Boomer power couple — who named their daughter after a Joni Mitchell song, for heaven’s sake — ending their peripatetic late-midlife careers and retiring to the town that gave their generation its pop-cultural watershed moment, or at least the name for it?

Our question for today: Would the Clintons be good, bad or indifferent for the town?

Maybe the Bilderburg Group will start having its meetings at the Emerson. That should be good for the local economy but not so good otherwise! Maybe the Catskills will be become the headquarters of the New World Order...Nah...

Tax Exempt Bonds for Robert Congel

Larwyn just forwarded this article from the Washington, DC Examiner. It is refreshing to see the kind of moral leadership that the Democrats can provide.

>The former first lady in 2004 pushed legislation providing tax-exempt bonds for developer Robert Congel, and another measure providing $5 million for road construction that helped a Congel project. At about the same time, he gave $100,000 to former President Clinton's foundation. Congel has also made multiple donations to Sen. Clinton’s campaigns, according to FEC records.

This story augurs ill for Barack Obama's infrastructure plans. Not that I oppose improvement of infrastructure. It is a state-level responsibility, and the federal government isn't competent to the task, nor is it honest enough.

Peter Paul and the Langbert Modus Ponens

Contrairimairi sent me this video about Hillary Clinton's connection to Marvel comic book writer Stan Lee and entrepreneur Peter Paul. Paul had recruited Bill Clinton to raise capital for his start-up comic book company that employed Marvel's legendary Stan Lee.

Peter Paul says that "my interest in supporting Hillary Clinton was specifically to hire Bill Clinton" to help him raise money for his start up. But Peter Paul had a felony record. Upon learning of Paul's felony conviction, the Clinton's washed their hands of him and denied that they knew him. Peter Paul's representative claims that the Clintons aimed to steal Peter Paul's Japanese business partner. The Paul company collapsed as a result, and the Clintons then attempted to start an identical company sans Paul. Paul's representatives claim that the Clintons took $2 million from Paul and then denied that they took the money from him, the largest election fraud in American history. In turn, states Paul, Interpol imprisoned him in a dangerous Brazilian prison, claiming SEC violations. Paul claims that the Clintons then threw out Paul's civil suit on the basis that he was a fugitive. David Rosen, Hillary Clinton's chief fundraiser, was arrested as part of the case. A Clinton-appointed judge instructed the jury not to tie in the Clintons to Paul's case. If true, this is corruption at the highest level, calling into question the integrity of the American judicial system. Paul claims that what he calls "the media" (what a laugh) have abrogated their responsibilities with respect to the Clintons in this case, and more generally with respect to political reporting.

Please recall the Langbert modus:

If a nation lacks a fair and competent media, it cannot function as a republic.
America lacks a fair and competent media.
Therefore, America is no longer a republic.

Barack Obama: "The B**ch Is Crazy"

Check out this video of Barack Obama talking about Bill and Hillary Clinton (h/t Bob Robbins): "The b**ch is crazy". Mr. Obama is a man of experience. We need him. Really.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lq3NLjdJ4Vc

Clinton Supporters for McCain

Bob Robbins just forwarded a link to Hillary Clinton Forum.net. What is intriguing about this site is that many of the posters are saying that they support McCain. The mainstream media is likely to downplay this phenomenon.

One poster who uses the nom de guerre "Hillary Clinton Rules" writes:

MANY OF US ARE NOW VOTING FOR MAC AND PALIN!!! IT IS WORKING!!!!
Obama and the DNC are going down this November!
the Democratic Party is going to be railroaded on Election Day by it's own party base -- that they disowned!!! LOL
Keep using our posts for reference
The Clintons and the DLC are COMING BACK

Another named "Expat4Hillary" writes:

"They've got my vote in November as well! A war hero and a working mother who each have children in the armed forces deserve my complete respect!"

However, not all agree. A poster named Muzza writes:

"Please only speak for yourself. The forum does not have a collective conscience whereby everyone does the same thing. You are supporting McCain/Palin and that's your choice. Not everyone in here will be doing that."

And someone named joeysky18 adds:

"It probably is the majority opinion, but not all members will vote Republican. Some will vote 3rd party. And some haven't made their decision."

One of the downsides of the World Wide Web is that almost everyone prefers anonymity. We are turning into a nation of academics who feel that they need to remain anonymous (the academic review process is often anonymous).

However, I am gladdened to hear about their choices.

Bill and Hillary Clinton at the Emerson Resort and Spa

I exercise at an exclusive hotel in the Catskills, about 15 minutes from my home, called the Emerson Resort and Spa. Dean Gitter, a visionary entrepreneur who aims to turn the central Catskills into a gaming center, developed the hotel. It is truly a pleasure to be able to work out in a world class hotel, which boasts a beautiful spa as well as a first class gym. The pleasure is enhanced by the Emerson's generosity in extending reduced rates to the good people of the Woodstock-Pine Hill region in the east-central Catskill Mountains.

On Tuesday I was working out at about 5:00 pm and was the only one in the gym. This is part of the joy of being a professor in August. The door opened and I spied someone who looked like Hillary Clinton. The door opened further and Bill Clinton stuck his head in the door. I said "hi" and he did not really respond. About 1/2 hour later as I was nearing the end of my nautilus circuit a secret service agent came in and looked over the weights. About a dozen secret service agents were standing in the lobby when I left.

I did not blog about this until Thursday morning as I did not want to disturb the Emerson's confidentiality. The Catskills badly need exposure of this kind.

I did not get a chance to speak to Bill Clinton, and I have thought for two days what I would have said if I did. This is it. America's relationship with China has not been adequately managed. There will be a serious danger of a nuclear war in the 22nd century. I do not know this for certain, nor does anyone else know or not know. But it is more than a slim chance.

In 2007 Business Network (bnet) quoted former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger (Kissinger was Secretary of State under President Richard M. Nixon.):

''The center of gravity of the world is moving from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The key countries of the world are mostly located in Asia, or will be in the next 50 years,'' he said in a speech about future Sino-U.S. relations.

"When the center of gravity moves from one region to another and another country suddenly becomes very powerful, what history teaches us is that conflict is inevitable," he added.

The country Kissinger is describing is China. Because of today's important concerns about the Middle East and terrorism, the management of the Chinese relationship has been overlooked. The current Olympics highlights Chinese growth.

Kissinger adds concerning Chinese growth:

"There is nothing we can do about it, there is nothing we can do to prevent it, there is nothing we should do to prevent it."

I am fairly good at timing the stock market, and not too many people can say that. Dr. Kissinger has a point. I cannot prove it, but I do believe that there is a risk of nuclear war with China in the 22nd century IF we do not begin to manage the relationship with China more intelligently.

I would have urged President Clinton to make use of contact that he has with Chinese officials to educate them as to the advantage of the path of economic growth, free trade, and peace. The country that innovates fastest is the one that shows that it is best, not the country that displays the greatest military power. David Ricardo offers the Chinese a model that they have not contemplated sufficiently in their history.

President Clinton, please tell the Chinese leadership that a path of freedom, free trade and intellectual expression, as opposed to government control of "salt and iron" and military power, will prove Chinese excellence. I am certain that Mr. Clinton will have the opportunity to interact with high-level Chinese officials in the coming years. He can make an incalculable contribution to America's future by helping the Chinese to conceptualize the path to ascendancy.

We Need a McCain-Obama-Clinton Sit-Up Contest

The Web is abuzz with Barack Obama's embarrassing mistake(see John Amato's Crooks and Liars post here and Michael Goldfarb's Weekly Standard post here , hat tip Larwyn). Mr. Obama said that there are 57 states. Just prior to his confused statement he had attempted to smear Mr. McCain by suggesting that Mr. McCain had "lost his bearings", due to his age. But it is Mr. Obama who is less mentally and physically fit.

I am not a wellness fanatic and even wrote a small book years ago attacking the idea of wellness programs in labor-management administered Taft Hartley Plans. But I base my prediction on a 2007 wellness report in Seek Wellness.com, which asks whether as a smoker Mr. Obama is qualified to be president:

For the record, Senator Obama claims to be a "moderate" smoker who wants to quit. That's good. He has stated many times that he HAS quit, often, but tends to lapse, due to insufficient resolve. A member of AA might suggest, "That ain't quitting." The candidate made this statement in an interview published by the Chicago Tribune: "It's an ongoing struggle. I've been chewing Nicorette strenuously." Well, chew on this, Senator: We all have ongoing struggles. Lose the smoking habit!...Americans haven't elected an unabashed, out-of-the-closet cigarette-smoking president since Franklin D. Roosevelt.

The matter ought to be resolved with a sit-up and push-up contest. Instead of televised debates that skirt important issues, the three candidates should be lined up to compete to see who is physically younger. Chronological age can be quite different from physical age. My prediction:

Sit ups: McCain: 550, Clinton 80, Obama 14
Push ups: McCain: 40, Obama 18, Clinton 2
Jogging: McCain: 1 hour, Clinton 1/2 hour, Obama, 8 minutes.

Let the contest begin!

Obama and Clinton Vie to Impoverish America

There is little question of the comparative advantage of free trade. While specific jobs or professions may be lost or gained due to trade, the net advantage is necessarily positive. Were it not so, the trade would not occur. Two centuries ago the classical economists such as Ricardo and Smith showed that relative price differences among countries create opportunities. If every country focuses on the economic activities at which it is best, the world becomes more productive. Over the long term the higher productivity is translated into higher wages and wealth. In contrast, the arguments that oppose trade are nationalistic and emotional.

At the extreme, countries like North Korea or the communist countries of the immediate post-World War II era that have attempted economic self-sufficiency or autarky have become impoverished. Likewise, countries with substantial protectionism such as India experience high levels of starvation. India, with six decades of protectionism and a high level of income equality leads the world in child starvation. Similarly, the British Corn Laws in the 19th century led to mass starvation in Ireland (with over one million dead). The argument against free trade is the argument for public impoverishment.

It is not surprising that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, two economic illiterates, compete to proclaim their opposition to free trade. Yahoo! reports that Obama questions Clinton's anti-free trade credentials. With economic illiteracy among the public, shoddy education, an ignorant mass media and a corrupt Congress, our government aims to impoverish the average American:

PITTSBURGH - Democratic Sen. Barack Obama on Monday questioned rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's opposition to free trade agreements that some voters contend has eliminated thousands of U.S. jobs and mocked her weekend visit to an Indiana bar as pandering to the working class.

If Only Ralph Nader Supported the Gold Standard

I just saw Ralph Nader on Bloomberg television. He is critical of the bailout of Bear Stearns. To the extent that the major party candidates defend the bailout Ralph Nader is more serious intellectually than they are.

Looking at the minor parties, the Libertarian Party has a free market, limited government orientation but is dominated by vegetarians, nudists and those who favor animal rights.

Ralph Nader is right about the problem of special interests, but he does not fathom the underlying cause, which is big government. Nader supports the disease but complains about the symptom. He was excellent this evening with respect to the Bernanke Fed, but he lacks the intellectual foundation to consider that the Bernanke Fed does what the Fed does, and if he doesn't like it he needs to advocate reestablishing a fixed monetary standard. Rule by minority whine is ineffective.

Now let's look at the major party candidates. Hillary Clinton believes that the problem is lack of regulation and if there were only more regulation, then the bailout can be forgiven. Barack Obama's position is less clear, but I do not sense that he has a coherent strategy, and it certainly is not a free market one.

That leaves us with John McCain. Although Mr. McCain is beholden to the same special interest groups that inspire the bailout, he is not a vegetarian and he, at least in symbol, represents free market impulses. I suspect that the differences among McCain, Obama and Clinton with respect to subsidies to Wall Street are small. Nevertheless, Mr. McCain represents the most free market orientation. If Mr. Nader decided that our seven decade experiment of unlimited freedom to the banks to print money has failed, then he would have my support. Conversely, if the Libertarians would only grow up and focus on a few adult issues, they would have my support. Alas, I am left with Mr. McCain, who is the most logical candidate. In honor of this inspiration, I have sent Mr. McCain my $500 donation.

HBO Should Remake Twin Peaks

I recently re-watched Twin Peaks and still believe that the show is among the top five TV sci-fi/thrillers of all time. I would also include Twilight Zone, One Step Beyond, Outer Limits and X Files.

I have just written to HBO and suggested that they remake the series, perhaps with co-creators David Lynch and Mark Frost. They could also employ the same stars, notably Kyle MacLachlan. Some of the younger actors might play their previous roles grown up. James Hurley (James Marshall) might be the town's auto mechanic and similar roles could be played by Sherilyn Flynn (Audrey Horne, who might be the owner of the Great Northern) Madchen Amick (Shelley Johnson, who might be the new owner of the RR Diner), Dana Ashbrook (Bobby Briggs, who might be a military man) and so on.

One of the tragedies of television is that Twin Peaks aired for only two years (I think 2 1/2 seasons) because of low ratings in its second year. Part of the problem may have been ABC Television's restrictions on Lynch's creativity, which HBO would sidestep. Conversely, the show would attract viewers to HBO because of its cult following.

Sadly, some of the actors, such as Jack Nance (who played Piper Laurie's bumbling husband, Pete Martell), have passed away. In the original series Frank Silva played Killer Bob, the evil parasite spirit who comes from the Black Lodge to inhabit innocent hosts and cause them to become sociopathic murderers, the chief example being Leland Palmer, Laura Palmer's father. Sadly, Silva died of AIDS at the age of 45 in 1995.

I have thought of the ideal replacement for Silva in the new series: Hillary Clinton. Much like Killer Bob, Hillary's spirit aims to inhabit and create havoc and sociopathic behavior. She would fit the Killer Bob role perfectly, and it would keep her from doing harm in the real world. Plus the temperament would be a perfect match. She would not need to act.

Paper Pushers Dominate Campaign Contributions

OpenSecrets.org lists useful data on campaign contributions for the 2008 campaign. I copied information for Obama, Clinton, Huckabee, Giuliani and Paul into the table below. Lawyers prefer the Democrats. They lead the list of donors for both Obama and Clinton, come in fourth for Romney (not shown), second for Giuliani and eighth for Paul.

Retired people are the chief donors to Huckabee, second largest donors to Obama, third to Clinton, third to Giuliani, first to Romney (not shown) and first to Paul. Securities and investment professionals are third on Obama's list, second on Clinton's list, third on Huckabee's first on Giuliani's, second on Romney's (not shown) and seventh for Paul. Educators prefer the Democrats, and appear in Paul's top ten list but not the leading Republicans'.

Retirees and lawyers seem to lead the list. People who work in manufacturing, technology and retail can expect government to exploit them in the years to come.

Ranks of Donors to Presidential Candidates


Rank / Obama / Clinton / Huckabee / Giuliani / Paul

1 / Lawyers / Lawyers / Retired / Sec. & Inv./ Retired
2 / Retired / Sec. & Inv. / Real Estate / Lawyers / Computers
3 / Sec. & Inv. / Retired / Sec. & Inv. / Retired / Misc. Bus.
4 / Misc. Bus. / Real Estate / Health / Real Estate/ Health
5 / Real Estate / Bus. Services / Lawyers / Misc. Fin. / Real Es.
6 / Entertainment / Misc. Bus. / Misc. Finance / Bus. Serv. / Fin
7 / Education / Entertainment / Misc. Bus. / Misc. Bus. / Sec.
8 / Bus. Services / Health / Business Serv. /Health / Lawyers
9 / Health / Education / Manufacturing / Comm. Banks / Educ.
10 / Fin. / Fin. / Civil Servants / Oil and Gas / Bus.Serv.

Phil Orenstein Opposes NOTA and I Respond

Phil Orenstein writes of NOTA:

>"Mitchell,

"I am of two minds on this and I hesitated for a while to respond, but at least I owe you an explanation as a friend. While I understand and fully respect your commitment to ensuring the opportunity for a protest vote, I feel the "lesser of two evils" philosophy should remain the prevailing principle in elections. To take this to it's logical conclusion in the politics of the possible, I feel the presidential campaign would come down to a Clinton-Giuliani choice and any voter educated enough to grasp the real issues and the outright corruption of politics who would be a NOTA voter, would be one less vote for Giuliani, since I believe votes for Clinton come from the uniformed and brainwashed and 6-pack Joes of our country while votes for Giuliani would be from the more informed voters. That said, I deplore the corruption, deceit authoritarianism and utter lack of capable leadership today and especially the spineless Republican party which is now in the process of imploding, especially at the local level (i.e. Queens and NY State), and I understand the rationale for your proposal. In my other mind I would have to say, that many of the apathetic voters who don't show up at the polls, averaging 50% or more in many elections, who are turned off by the corruption and deceit in politics, might be convinced to participate in our democracy, if a protest vote could be registered. However my first mind now prevails as long as I continue to use the email signature below and still fighting for reform in the Republican Party, to which many of my friends and co-workers just shake their heads thinking I'm still tilting at windmills."

My reply to Phil:

1. The ability to offer true consent requires the ability to withhold consent. Voters do this now by remaining absent from the polls. I think it is worthwhile to permit those who want to participate in American democracy but have become convinced of its vacuity to voice their concern explicitly. At present, their views are unnecessarily suppressed by the absence of a "None of the above" (NOTA) option. NOTA increases the degree of choice, and the Republicans and Democrats fear it because neither party offers a meaningful alternative. Since democracy and utilitarianism means maximizing choice, inclusion of NOTA is the most democratic and utilitarian approach.

2. Disenfranchisement and disengagement is true on all sides of the political spectrum. I don't believe that NOTA would affect one candidate more than any other by very much. Many on the left as well as the right do not feel represented.

3. The two parties have more similarities than differences. For instance, I do not see Giuliani as significantly different from Clinton. In New York City, Giuliani failed to reduce the extent of government; catered to city's public sector unions; and oversaw a slight increase in the city's budget when adjusted for inflation. It is true that he is better on several key issues such as Iraq, health care and marginally on trade (although I don't believe that Giuliani has publicly stated that he would eliminate the sugar and other agricultural tariffs that are a national disgrace and that President Bush and the Republicans have supported).* However, these differences do not reflect a fundamental vision that is different from Hillary Clinton's.

4. Neither Giuliani nor Clinton address many of the key issues facing the nation. These include monetary depreciation and inflation, which no major candidate has chosen to discuss; special interest influence in Washington; excess government and regulation, to which both Giuliani and Clinton have been a party; the massive budget deficit that the Republicans have generated; the decline in public morality, most specifically the something-for-nothing mindset that has increasingly influenced Americans of all social positions and all ideological segments and motivated their support for the two political parties; the deterioration of the education system; the breakdown in the structure of democracy, to include gerrymandering and the increased ratio of population to congressional representation which serves politicians and special interests but not the electorate; and the steadfast resistance to clear financial information's being made available to the public through the Government Accounting Standards Board.

5. Neither Democrats nor Republicans propose a vision that reflects an underlying belief in liberty, in transparency, or in limited government. Although my personal opinion is that Giuliani is better than Clinton on issues like health care, Iraq and trade, both Clinton and Giuliani lack vision.

6. It is not clear that Giuliani's or Clinton's positions would translate into actual policy. President Bush did not tell the country that he favored big government. The differences between the parties are typically distorted by misrepresentation, special interest pandering and opportunism. There is no reason to believe that a President Giuliani would stand up to the health care lobby any more than President Bush stood up to the agricultural lobby.

7. Part of the ability of the candidates to mislead the public results from lack of choice. Such choice would be enhanced by NOTA

*See discussion on slickdeals.net:

The libertarian Cato Institute writes of ADM: The Archer Daniels Midland Corporation (ADM) has been the most prominent recipient of corporate welfare in recent U.S. history. ADM and its chairman Dwayne Andreas have lavishly fertilized both political parties with millions of dollars in handouts and in return have reaped billion-dollar windfalls from taxpayers and consumers. Thanks to federal protection of the domestic sugar industry, ethanol subsidies, subsidized grain exports, and various other programs, ADM has cost the American economy billions of dollars since 1980 and has indirectly cost Americans tens of billions of dollars in higher prices and higher taxes over that same period. At least 43 percent of ADM's annual profits are from products heavily subsidized or protected by the American government. Moreover, every $1 of profits earned by ADM's corn sweetener operation costs consumers $10, and every $1 of profits earned by its ethanol operation costs taxpayers $30
Do you want to know who makes HFCS (high fructose corn syrup)? It's Archer Daniels Midland. Do you want to know who pays for HFCS? That's you and I, in the form of the taxes we pay to the U.S. Government. The government spent $41.9 billion on corn subsidies from 1995 to 2004, a trough of money at which ADM gladly ate. ADM buys 12 percent of the nation's corn at a heavily subsidized price from farmers, and turns it into high-fructose corn syrup and ethanol.

Hillary Clinton Shines Shoes

In 2005 President Bush proposed the establishment of 401-k type stock investment accounts for Social Security. The idea came under attack from the Democrats and was stopped. At the time, the stock market was coming off its 2002 lows. Now, the stock market is reaching new highs. It is therefore curious that the Democrats, notably Hillary Clinton, would choose to propose the very same idea during this presidential primary season. I wonder if there is some kind of financial manipulation lurking behind Clinton's proposal.

In an October 11 editorial, the New York Sun points out that Hillary Clinton opposed establishing Social Security investment accounts two years ago but now she is proposing "private accounts" (separate from Social Security) for all Americans. The Sun editorializes

"Given, this isn't giving workers back the money the government is taking in Social Security taxes as President Bush (and most of the Republican candidates for president) would do, but the accounts — even as add-ons to Social Security — are a huge victory in principle for the Bush view."

I find the Clinton proposal odd for several reasons. First, since 1982 I have been putting previously $2,000, now $5,000 (I believe $4,500 if you're under 50) into Individual Retirement Accounts. The idea was created in 1974 as part of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Paul J. Yakoboski of the Employee Benefit Research Institute notes that:

"The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (ERTA) extended the availability of IRAs to all workers, including those with pension coverage. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA '86) retained tax-deductible IRAs for those who did not participate in an employment-based retirement plan (and if married, whose spouse did not participate in such a plan), but restricted the tax deduction among those with a retirement plan to individuals with incomes below specified levels. In addition, TRA '86 added two new categories of IRA contributions: nondeductible contributions, which accumulate tax free until distributed, and partially deductible contributions, which are deductible up to a maximum amount less than the $2,000 maximum otherwise allowable."

Hence, there is absolutely nothing new about retirement accounts for anyone. They are currently available to anyone and everyone, and if you don't have a 401(k) or pension plan, they are tax deductible. It is true that the $4,500 limit is a low percentage of income for anyone earning over $65,000. But there also is such a thing as a SERP, self-employed retirement plan, which serves high earners. As the financially savvy know, Roth IRAs also are available to those who earn less than $150,000. It's not clear to me that the Clinton proposal is more than vacuous, which makes me suspicious. Hillary has to know that IRAs exist, so why would she make this proposal now?

Perhaps Hillary aims to improve benefits for those earning over $65,000 (this is not clear from the Sun article) and doesn't want to say so, but any extensions of the IRA concept will probably have next to no effect on private savings, so this idea would also be vacuous. USA Weekend Magazine pointed out in 2004 when the IRA limits were raised:

>"Even though retirement planning tops the list of Americans' money concerns, astonishingly few people contribute to individual retirement accounts -- a mere 6% of eligible Americans, according to a recent study by the Congressional Budget Office."

Given the small interest in IRAs, what help would extending the IRA concept be? High earners likely save anyway and, more so, typically have access to either a 401(k) (with limits that might bother those earning over $100,000) or a SERP. SERPs have high limits.

An intriguing question that comes to mind is why Hillary would make a proposal which may be a first step toward permitting private accounts in social security at this point in time.

Quoteland.com attributes the following quote to Bernard Baruch, the Wall Street tycoon, in 1929:

"When beggars and shoeshine boys, barbers and beauticians can tell you how to get rich it is time to remind yourself that there is no more dangerous illusion than the belief that one can get something for nothing"

Incidentally, Quoteland also attributes Baruch with the statement "Bears don't live on Park Avenue" (which may explain why I live in West Shokan).

In 2005 the stock market was coming off its 2002 lows. In 2007 the market is at or nearing all-time highs, especially if you have been investing in gold stocks as I have (Randgold (GOLD) courtesy of Howard S. Katz has had a tremendous run and I am breaking out my cigars and champagne.)

The question to ponder is why Hillary would begin to speak about expanding stock market accounts just when the market is reaching all time highs; the dollar is reaching all time lows; inflation is going from very warm to hot; the Chinese are beginning to sell dollars, portending increased inflation; and public awareness of monetary expansion, which has been going on since the 1980s, will result in political pressure to limit monetary expansion aka Fed counterfeiting aka raising the Fed Funds interest rate. That is, inflation will stimulate a declining stock market (the stock market goes up and down because of Fed interest rate policy, i.e., whether the Fed is counterfeiting many new dollars or just a few) because inflation causes public pressure to stop the Fed's counterfeiting; the Fed will then raise interest rates; and the stock market will then decline. Since 1981 the Fed has been counterfeiting many new dollars, which it calls "lowering the Federal Funds rate", and which Howard S. Katz calls "counterfeiting". With increasing inflation, now that the Chinese are tiring of giving billionaire hedge fund managers in the U.S. large welfare subsidies, the risk of a stock market collapse is increasing.

All this makes me wonder why Hillary would begin to think about encouraging small investor interest in the stock market at this point in time.

Several bloggers such as Captain's Quarter's , Cao's blog as well as talk radio have been discussing a nexus between Hillary and speculator George Soros. Whether Soros or others on Wall Street have an interest in seeing an exogenous shock to stimulate stock prices just as the fundamentals are working toward a weakening stock market is a question that deserves some scrutiny.

Another question is what will be the effects, both in terms of actual economic redistribution and in terms of psychology, of the Bush/Clinton proposals to expand stock ownership. The Fed does one thing, increase the money supply. This in turn has two effects: (1)make the rich richer by boosting the stock market because of lower interest rates and (2) make the poor poorer by causing inflation. There is probably some tipping point at which effect (1) becomes outweighed by effect (2) in fact. There is also probably a different tipping point at which effect (1) becomes outweighed by effect (2) in peoples' minds. The two are likely different. If someone has a $100,000 stock account they may be worse off from the net effect of lower interest rates and the higher price of grapefruit, but the higher stock account may be more salient or apparent to them, and they may see themselves as better off. It would not be a far stretch to imagine that Hillary's proposal is linked to the idea of encouraging this kind of wealth illusion, which would have the effect of moderating but not fundamentally changing the effects of Fed policy.

Hillary Clinton Revives the Major Douglas Social Credit Concept--Republicans Should Advocate Peoples' Equity Plan Instead

The New York Daily News reports that Hillary Clinton has proposed a "baby bond" scheme whereby each newborn baby will receive a $5,000 account from the federal government that they could use for college. Blog impresario Larwyn questions whether the idea can be taken seriously. As with any redistribution scheme, baby bonds would have unforeseen effects. For example, they would raise the federal deficit; and they would raise taxes, making it more difficult for moderate-income families to pay for college. Given the parlous state of the US dollar, excessive federal spending and $150 billion in state and federal subsidies to higher education, not to mention persistent college tuition cost inflation, it is difficult to follow how such an idea can be taken seriously. It does not bode well for our country's future that a potential president was incompetent enough to even float this idea.

Hillary's baby bond plan is a throwback to the nonsensical theory of social credit advocated in the 1920s by Major Douglas and described in Wikipedia. Major Douglas's theory of social credit starts with the fallacious belief that prices ought to be linked to the costs of production. Common sense tells us that value does not relate to production costs. The fact that I spent a lot fixing up a house in New Orleans, Louisiana doesn't necessarily mean that the house is worth a lot. Production theories of value have been discredited by Carl Menger and many others who show that value is derived from the utility that consumers place on merchandise, i.e., supply and demand.

The key social credit recommendation, a guaranteed income for
all regardless of whether they work, was a larger scale idea than Hillary's who limits the guaranteed income to only $5,000 to new-born babies, but the concept is parallel.

The social credit concept is just another version of welfare, income redistribution or social security. A simpler way to do this would be to simply cut everyone's income tax by $5,000. Why limit it to to babies? The Republicans ought to counter with a "peoples'" or "taxpayers'" equity plan--an across-the-board $5,000 tax credit to all taxpayers.

Since you can't keep socialists down, the social credit fallacy soon turned into a rationale for anti-Semitism. As Wikipedia notes:

"Some prominent groups and individuals, most notably the poet Ezra Pound and the leaders of the Australian League of Rights, have subscribed to Social Credit as an economic theory, believing that it demonstrated the guilt of "Jewish bankers," who supposedly control the world's economy[citation needed]. Social Credit lays the blame for many economic woes at the feet of private banks, most especially those that practice fractional-reserve banking."

In case you're interested, Wikipedia describes social credit's implications:

"-a 'National Credit Office' to calculate on a statistical basis the amount of credit that should be circulating in the economy;
-a price adjustment mechanism that reflects the real cost of production (aggregate consumption in the same period of time);
-a 'National Dividend' to give a basic guaranteed income to all regardless of whether or not they have a job"

Obviously, a national divided will not come from any "credit surplus" (and it will not be free, as Hillary seems to believe). Nor would any central office have the ability to calculate the amount of credit that should be circulating. Nor should prices be related to the cost of production. All of these ideas lead to widespread poverty, as would Hillary Clinton's election.

While banking and the paper money system are statist institutions that ought to be abolished, a simple way to do so is a gold or other standard such as a fixed monetary rule.

New School, Hillary Clinton and Chinese Interests

Rumors are abounding that left-wing New School University (whose most famous division is the New School for Social Research) in lower Manhattan has been a conduit for Department of Defense funding and as well may have provided a link via Norman Hsu between the Democrats, especially Hillary Clinton, and the Chinese government. Blog impresario Larwyn has sent me some interesting links.

Doug Ross @ Journal asks whether "the New School has been a conduit between China and the Clintons?" He states that Bob Kerrey (not to be confused with John), the New School's president, has obtained DOD grants and speculates that Hillary was involved in procuring the grants. Doug Ross @ Journal also states that "the New School also has deep ties to Bernard Schwartz, former head of Loral, who allegedly instigated donations by the Chinese military to the DNC in exchange for the right to sensitive missile technologies". Moreover, he alleges that the New School gave Norman Hsu, a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton who was associated with earlier corruption scandals, a job, and that the New School has eight $100,000 fundraisers for Hillary Clinton on its board.

Doug Ross @ Journal cites the dailykos.com website, which alleges that Norman Hsu, who has "known connections to the Chinese nationals who were involved in the Clinton scandal of 96" has had "dealings with the Chinese mafia". Dailykos.com states that although Hsu was bankrupt, he made large contributions to the Hillary Clinton's campaign. Dailykos.com adds:

"Bernard L. Schwartz, who worked for the Chinese shell company that the Clintons gave the ballistic missile technology to after Bill Clinton's re-election put Norman Hsu on the Board of Trustees of the New School....Hillary Clinton ear-marked 750,000 dollars to the new school recently as a pork barrel project."

Ross notes that Kerrey had been involved in funding the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency's (real, not a 007 script) declassification project and subsquently became an "expert" in satellites.

Merv of PrairiePundit notes:

>"the Hsu scandal also is reverberating in a heartland Senate race that could be crucial to Democrats’ hopes to expand their congressional majority. If former Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey decides to run for the Senate, it’s clear that he will have to address his connections with Hsu, whom he recruited to serve on the board of the New School under his presidency...Bob Kerrey was not only a receiver of contributions [to the New School]...he actively recruited [Hsu] to the New School...
when Hsu was known as a prominent Democratic donor in New York fundraising circles...In addition to serving on the school’s Board of Trustees, he donated money intended for a school scholarship"

I have long opined that universities are concerned with money first; ideology is secondary at most. It seems that after his time as New School's president, Bob Kerry has some 'splainin' to do!