TheFrontPageCover
~ Featuring ~
Free Markets ... Really
Robin Smith
.
What’s Really Driving the Homelessness Crisis
by Christopher Rufo
{ dailysignal.com } ~ The homelessness crisis in America’s West Coast cities is beginning to draw national attention. There are now an estimated 166,752 people on the streets in California, Oregon, and Washington... and sensational stories of human despair and the return of medieval diseases have captured the public imagination. Even President Donald Trump has tweeted about the “very bad and dangerous conditions” in San Francisco and warned that leaders must take action “to clean up these hazardous waste and homeless sites before the whole city rots away.” There has been remarkably little clarity, however, on the key question: What’s really driving the homelessness crisis in West Coast cities? For the past decade, progressive political leaders, activists, and media organizations have insisted that housing costs are the primary cause of homelessness. There is some truth to that: It’s obvious that in the largest West Coast cities, where a one-bedroom apartment rents for at least $2,000 a month, it’s more difficult for low-income individuals to afford stable housing. However, as an emerging body of evidence shows, homelessness in America’s West Coast cities—particularly unsheltered homelessness—is not driven primarily by high housing costs, but rather by three interrelated phenomena: addiction, mental illness, and permissive public policies. In cities such as Los Angeles, Seattle, and San Francisco, residents have complained about rampant public drug consumption, psychotic episodes, and millions of used hypodermic needles that have been discarded on city streets. Still, despite the obvious visible evidence, progressive political leaders have insisted on the fiction that addiction and mental illness are only a small part of the homelessness crisis. Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan insists that only “1 in 4” of the homeless struggle with drugs and alcohol, while Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti does not even list addiction as one of the major causes of homelessness on his official website. However, as the Los Angeles Times has demonstrated in a recent investigation, “mental illness and substance abuse … are much more pervasive in Los Angeles County’s homeless population than officials have previously reported.”....
Coronavirus Crisis: Where Is
the Bold Leadership?
by ADAM JANNETTI
{ spectator.org } ~ Until now, most international bodies have remained cautiously optimistic regarding the spread of coronavirus (COVID-19), refusing to take hard measures necessary to prevent the spread of the disease... This hesitancy is understandable, given that the Western world has not experienced a major pandemic since the outbreak of HIV/AIDS in the 1980s and given world leaders’ desire to maintain solidarity with those countries hit hardest by the outbreak. As a military officer, I can also appreciate their desire to maintain calm. Calm people are rational people, and calm people mean calm markets and civil order. Still, it seems likely that there are more factors at play constraining action. As the virus continues to spread and casualties mount, it is becoming increasingly obvious that what the world needs is neither Pollyannaism nor cowardly political calculations, but decisive leaders willing to make tough decisions to prevent greater future problems. Paralysis does no one favors in the long run. To most casual observers, the lack of common sense was on display as early as mid-January, when, despite revelations that the virus was airborne, that patients could spread the disease before demonstrating symptoms, and that it had already jumped from China to neighboring Thailand, Vietnam, Taiwan, South Korea, Australia, and Japan, the World Health Organization (WHO) refused to declare a global health emergency for several more weeks it finally did so on January 30. This not only downplayed the problem, but delayed the delivery of resources to infected areas and postponed the gathering of experts to study the problem and issue recommendations.To date, the WHO has still not declared the situation a pandemic, despite the number of cases reaching almost 80,000 and affecting 37 countries in all six WHO regions, with hot spots as widespread as South Korea, Iran, and Italy. The WHO also has sought to downplay the seriousness of the virus by reporting a mortality rate of 2.5 percent. This, however, fails to consider the “lag effect” by comparing the number of deaths to the number of total cases, rather than comparing deaths to recoveries. These numbers also assume that countries are reporting accurate data, a big assumption that local reporters and netizens in face-saving countries like China and Iran have called into question. More accurate counting reveals that close to 22 percent of patients experience “serious or critical” symptoms, and 9 percent of resolved cases have led to death. In a world of almost eight billion people, a 9-percent mortality rate could mean deaths well into the hundreds of millions, eclipsing the 1918 Spanish influenza’s 20 to 50 million. When countries like Australia and the U.S. instituted sensible travel restrictions to and from China, the WHO criticized these measures and advised that they be lifted. Counterintuitively, it went so far as to argue that such travel restrictions would actually promote the spread of the disease rather than slow it. The European Union has likewise failed to institute travel restrictions, taking a hands-off approach by allowing individual member states to institute their own restrictions. In a continent without internal borders, though, the pitfalls of this approach are blindingly obvious... https://spectator.org/coronavirus-crisis-where-is-the-bold-leadership/?utm_source=American%20Spectator%20Emails&utm_campaign=5cb3bf830d-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_02_25_03_14&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_797a38d487-5cb3bf830d-104608113 .
What the New Self-Reliance Rule
Means for Immigrants
by Lora Ries
{ dailysignal.com } ~ Politicians across the political spectrum have a penchant for bragging about how their parents or ancestors came to the U.S. with next to nothing, but worked hard to provide a better life for their children... Yet when the Department of Homeland Security proposed taking self-reliance into account in weighing applications for green cards or immigration visas, liberals condemned the proposal as harsh and sued to block the proposed rule from taking effect. Initially, they won court injunctions in several jurisdictions. Now, however, all have been dismissed. And so, the Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds rule took effect nationwide Monday. If you think that means poor immigrants must now abandon all hope of entering the U.S. or becoming permanent residents, think again. The left has tremendously overblown the scope of this rule. The rule defines a “public charge” as one who receives one or more designated public benefits for more than 12 months, in the aggregate, within any 36-month period such that, for example, receipt of two benefits in one month counts as two months. The rule defines “public benefit” to include any federal, state, local, or tribal cash benefits for income maintenance including Social Security, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, General Assistance, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, most forms of Medicaid, Section 8 Housing/Rental Assistance, and public housing. Benefits not considered include emergency medical assistance, disaster relief, national school lunch programs, the Women, Infants and Children nutrition program, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, foster care and adoption subsidies, government-subsidized student and mortgage loans, energy assistance, food pantries, homeless shelters, and Head Start... https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/02/25/what-the-new-self-reliance-rule-means-for-immigrants/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=what-the-new-self-reliance-rule-means-for-immigrants?utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MorningBell&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWldObVkyTmhOamMxWVdRMiIsInQiOiJlMlk1bytNTm1qM0RMV28wNjEzZWo3OXBRT3hCNE5nRTljckh3U056UXluUitvQkhWeWE5NUsrdzRTdlRwdlRDOTZEUEdsVCtGbWI2Nnp0WjRXaEFvXC9aM0xUSDBKSTNHOU9cL1RYZXFQSHNvRENpMU81bUo4dlpsd2hTNTJFYXoyIn0%3D .
Iran Is Still As Committed
As Ever To Destroying Israel
by Michael Peck
{ nationalinterest.org } ~ Key point: Israel would not make it easy. How might Iran retaliate for a U.S. drone strike that killed its most important general? By attacking Israel... A senior Iranian official has already threatened to strike Israel if America were to respond militarily to any Iranian retaliation for the death of Lieutenant General Qassem Soleimani, the chief of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Quds Force, and the driving force behind Iran’s network of proxy armies such as Hezbollah. "If the US takes any action after our military response, we will level Tel Aviv and Haifa to the ground," said Mohsen Rezayee, Secretary of Iran's Expediency Council and a former IRGC commander, according to Iran’s Fars News Agency. The council advises Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, and also has legislative powers. Ironically, that would be the sort of strategy employed by Iran’s former number one enemy, Saddam Hussein. During Operation Desert Storm in 1991, Saddam fired 39 Scud ballistic missiles at Israel, in an attempt to provoke Israel into attacking Iraq and thus splitting the U.S.-led coalition of European and Arab states. The attempt nearly succeeded: Israel was barely dissuaded by U.S. pressure from retaliating. Iran’s rhetoric suggests that the main target of its ire is the U.S. But to borrow the language of the Bible, attacking Israel would offer Iran both a blessing and a curse. Tehran has a plethora of lethal options that could be employed against its arch-nemesis. Its proxy Hezbollah in Lebanon could conduct small ground raids into northern Israel, or even unleash some of its estimated 150,000 Iranian-supplied rockets though at the risk of triggering a full-scale Israel-Lebanon war that could drag in Iran and perhaps the United States.There is also Hamas in Gaza, no stranger to rocketing Israeli towns and which has recently reconciled with Iran after a split over the Syrian conflict. More important, there is Syria, which has become an Iranian firebase on Israel’s border, with thousands of Iranian troops and advisers, plus a sizeable contingent of Hezbollah and other non-Syrian Shia troops propping up the Syrian regime. These forces can hit Israeli troops and settlements in the Golan Heights. All of these methods offer two blessings from Iran’s standpoint... https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/iran-still-committed-ever-destroying-israel-123146?utm_source=Middle+East+Forum&utm_campaign=076c0b1524-MEF_Peck_2020_02_25_03_35&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_086cfd423c-076c0b1524-33703665&goal=0_086cfd423c-076c0b1524-33703665&mc_cid=076c0b1524&mc_eid=f33b9e6c12 .
‘That Is What Kobe Bryant Does To Me’: Michael Jordan’s Touching Joke About ‘Crying Jordan’
Meme At Bryant’s Memorial
By Emily Jashinsky
{ thefederalist.com } ~ With tears streaming down his face, Michael Jordan brought some cathartic levity to Kobe Bryant’s public memorial service on Monday... Addressing a packed Staples Center, the NBA icon referenced the famous “Crying Jordan” meme during his eulogy. “Now he’s got me. I’m going to have to look at another crying meme for the next…” Jordan trailed off amid massive applause. Cameras captured high-profile mourners including Bryant’s widow Vanessa and Steph Curry breaking into laughter. “I told my wife I wasn’t going to do this because I didn’t want to see that for the next three or four years,” he joked. “That is what Kobe Bryant does to me.” Concluding a poignant speech, Jordan finished, “Please, rest in peace, little brother.” The audience responded with a standing ovation. https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/24/michael-jordan-jokes-about-crying-jordan-meme-at-kobe-bryants-memorial/?utm_source=The+Federalist+List&utm_campaign=8279617aab-RSS_The_Federalist_Daily_Updates_w_Transom&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-8279617aab-83771801 .
‘God Knew They Couldn’t Be On This Earth
Without Each Other’: Vanessa Bryant’s Searing Tribute To Her Husband And Daughter
By Emily Jashinsky
{ thefederalist.com } ~ Vanessa Bryant delivered heartbreaking remembrances of her late daughter and husband during a star-studded public service at the Staples Center on Monday, an event organizers billed as a “celebration of life.”... As the first speaker introduced by emcee Jimmy Kimmel, Bryant took the stage after a video montage and a performance by Beyonce. She delivered reflections on the lives of Kobe and Gianna, setting the tone for a memorial that was both painful and warm. Tissue in hand, Bryant read from prepared remarks. Starting with Gianna, she remembered how her 13-year-old daughter “always kissed me goodnight, and kissed me good morning.”Calling Gianna “one of my very best friends,” Bryant said, “she was daddy’s girl but I know she loved her mama.” “Her smile was like sunshine. Her smile took up her entire face, like mine. Kobe always said she was me,” Bryant shared. The grieving mother described her daughter as “competitive like her daddy,” “tender and loving on the inside,” “an incredible athlete,” “so energetic,” “confident but not in an arrogant way,” “our shepherd,” and a girl who would have grown to be “the best player in the WNBA.” Bryant tearfully mourned the future she will never have with her daughter: “We didn’t get the chance to teach her how to drive a car. I won’t be able to tell her how gorgeous she looks on her wedding day. I’ll never get to see my baby girl walk down the aisle, have a father-daughter dance with her daddy, dance on the dance floor with me, or have babies of her own.”....
.
Free Markets ... Really
Robin Smith: A new group is causing a bit of a stir among talkingheads, columnists, and policy wonks on the Right. American Compass, a new organization set to supposedly reclaim the conservative mantle of capitalism that aims to serve all Americans from the supposed wild west of libertarian free markets, announced its founding last week. It features folks associated with Sens. Marco Rubio and rino-Mitt Romney, along with the Heritage Foundation’s PAC and Hillsdale College, among other notable policy wells.
The group’s argument is simply that the economy under President Donald Trump is being run by free-market fundamentalism and is leaving many behind.
Yet to accept the premise of the American Compass folks, one would have to believe that federal, state, and local governments are pretty much hands-off in their approach to markets. Clearly, that’s just not so. Governments at all three levels routinely pick winners and losers, which always ends up yielding more regulation. That in turn creates imbalance and the redistribution of wealth, which permits bad behavior among individuals who, in completely free markets, would instead stand responsible for behavior and choices.
Sounding a great deal like social justice lite, American Compass Executive Director Oren Cass declares, “Conservative economics will take seriously the effects of social and market forces on each other. It will concern itself with the pernicious effects that the high level of economic inequality can have on the social fabric, the market’s functioning and people’s well-being.”
Instead of focusing on this new group that will get big money, write papers, and posit a new intellectual approach to markets, what if conservatives just addressed the perverted incentives and the constructs of a market that still picks winners and losers?
Let’s take a look.
A growing number of Americans are not embracing socialism because of the failure of capitalism or the mythically unfettered free market. Socialism is popularized in theory because much of America’s economy is influenced by corporatism and cronyism posing as capitalism.
Socialism is an economy of wealth redistribution void of merit or responsibility with concentrated power in the hands of the governing elite overseeing said redistribution. Cronyism is a framework of business where success results from government picking winners and losers with targeted tax breaks or protection laws that either prohibit competition or assist in erecting barriers to competition. Corporatism merges aspects of capitalism and socialism without the complete destruction of private-property rights, but it essentially protects big companies from free-market forces for some identified “public good” that typically serves the well-connected interests of the governing elite over the consumer or other competing interests.
It is not “free-market capitalism” to allow banking, health systems, big tech, and all things big to find protections from competition and distortions of market forces under the premise of a “public good” when the government selectivity protects certain interests and not the power of the individual consumer.
Critics of capitalism are angered with misbehaving capitalists. Bad actors give any effort, cause, or endeavor a bad name. The greedy, the immoral, and the corrupt who operate behind the guise of free markets but are predatory or exploitive give capitalism a bad name. Hence, laws and regulations are put in place to deal with the bad actors and, thus, change the market influence and forces. As William F. Buckley Jr. often quoted, “The trouble with socialism is socialism. The trouble with capitalism is capitalists.” The solution isn’t to fight the straw man of supposedly unfettered markets.
~The Patriot Post
David Limbaugh
Cal Thomas
Gary Bauer
Laura Hollis
Hans von Spakovsky
