RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://pjmedia.com/columns/john-stossel/2023/06/21/less-freedom-n1704919

Politicians claim their bills bring us good things. Free health care! Child care! A cellphone for all!

But government isn’t Santa Claus. Government is force. Most every law takes away a little of our money or freedom or both.

The Heritage Foundation ranks economic freedom across the globe. The United States once ranked No. 4 in the world, but we’ve been in decline. This year, as my new video explains, we’re 25th.

“If you care about living a prosperous life, you should care about what government economic policies are,” says The Heritage Foundation’s Derrick Morgan.   

The foundation ranks countries’ economic freedom based on things like rule of law, regulatory efficiency, open markets, fiscal health, etc. 

The big reason the USA fell in the rankings is that Congress spends so much more money than government can squeeze out of us in taxes.  

https://issuesinsights.com/2023/06/21/the-great-white-hunter-privilege/

Presidential son Hunter Biden got the deal of a lifetime when he agreed to plead guilty to a pair of federal tax charges and a single federal firearm offense. He will reportedly be placed on probation for the former and dodge punishment altogether for the latter.

In effect, he just has to say “sorry” for “​​owing in excess of $100,000 in federal income taxes” in 2017 and 2018 but failing to pay “the income tax due for either year.” To walk away from the charge that he lied on a form during a gun purchase (he said he did not have a drug problem), he evidently has to do no more than attend a diversion program.

Could any of us have received such a cushy arrangement for the same crimes from the Justice Department? Could a son of Donald Trump, or the son of any prominent Republican lawmaker, get off so easy?

C’mon, man. We all know the answer. It’s good to be a Biden.

Clearly it was too much to ask that prosecutors make an example out of Hunter. Federal prosecutors are throwing their books at January 6 offenders as a warning to anyone who might want to protest for the wrong side, but apparently Democratic Party status has its privileges.

Naturally, Republicans are angry. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis complained about Hunter’s “sweetheart deal.” Rep. James Comer of Kentucky called it a “slap on the wrist.” Oklahoma Rep. Kevin Hern said the president’s son was treated with “kid gloves.”

Which means the story now in the media will be about how the GOP is weaponizing the plea deal for political purposes. The offenses of a presidential son? Covered and smothered like Waffle House hash browns.

Meanwhile, probes into Joe “The Big Guy” Biden’s classified document stashes and credible accusations of him selling his office to foreign interests for financial gain are being slow walked – if they’re moving at all. It seems the Justice Department can investigate and prosecute only one document case at a time, the sole focus in the foreseeable future being the legal action against Donald Trump.

Bribery? That can wait until either Biden is out of office – and too old prosecute, because that would just be cruel, the same people now propping up the shell of a man will say – or the Democrats have such a tight grip on the federal government that neither man can be touched.

God save the queen, man, and Democrats save their own.

https://www.commentary.org/articles/matthew-continetti/midge-decter-reflections/

In the 1970s, there were very few Jewish thinkers on the political right, and no more than a tiny handful of them were women. One was Midge Decter, who had already established her bona fides among the New York intellectuals as a journalist and editor when she, along with her husband, Norman Podhoretz, helped found the persuasion that became known as neoconservative. A year after her death, Matthew Continetti reflects on Decter’s legacy:

Midge’s Gifts
Washington Commentary
by Matthew Continetti

Keeping up with Midge Decter wasn’t easy. Born in Saint Paul, Minnesota, in 1927, she never stopped taking on responsibilities: as a daughter, sister, spouse, mother, grandmother, and great-grandmother; as a social critic, commentator, and author; as a book and magazine editor; as a political activist and foreign-policy maven; and as a friend and mentor.

Decter’s first adult job was as a typist at COMMENTARY during the late 1940s. Though she left the office for other pursuits, her presence continued to be felt in her many essays and reviews for the magazine and, indirectly, in the editorships of her husband Norman and her son John. Between the 1960s and 2000s, she seemed to be everywhere—writing, speaking, arguing, fighting, caring, teaching.

The Heritage Foundation was among her favorite places. It was an association Decter did not expect. She was a Jewish New York intellectual, a former liberal Democrat who, along with her husband, became part of the neoconservative movement in the 1970s. Geography as well as opinion separated the neocons from Heritage, the D.C.-based think tank known as the policy engine of the populist, Christian New Right.

Imagine, then, Decter’s surprise in the spring of 1981 when Heritage’s co-founder and longtime president, Ed Feulner, asked her to join the organization’s board of trustees. She quickly said yes, telling Feulner, “You must always join the side you are on.”

That side was well represented at Heritage on a sunny afternoon in May. A group of scholars, readers, colleagues, and admirers met to discuss Decter’s work and legacy one year after her death at age 94. The gathering served as a reminder that the confusions, problems, and dilemmas that animated Decter’s public life have not gone away. In some cases, they have grown worse. Which makes Decter’s wisdom and example more important than ever.

A few of the speakers shared anecdotes. Feulner told the story of Decter’s first encounter with conservative grassroots activist Phyllis Schlafly. These two critics of women’s liberation took to each other immediately. Decter once said that it was “easy” to get along with Schlafly: “She’s been doing my dirty work for years.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-growing-india-is-good-for-the-us-modi-state-visit-8-percent-reform-65f1047d?mod=opinion_lead_pos6

When India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi visits the U.S. this week, Americans should pay careful attention to his vision for 8% growth. Both countries would benefit greatly from faster growth.

India has entered the 25-year period leading to the 100th anniversary of its independence with a growth plan. Called Amrit Kaal, which roughly translates to “Golden Era,” it is Mr. Modi’s rallying cry and blueprint for India to reach 8% growth and a much higher median income. Faster growth in India would help the U.S. by allowing new opportunities for trade and investment, less dependence on China, and better balance for the bipolar world economy.

Eight percent sounds out of reach in a world of weak growth, but India has grown by 6% or more in recent years and is building from a relatively low base ($2,200 per capita). When offered sound policies and the tolerance inherent in rules-based government, people from anywhere in the world can achieve fast compound growth rates. China’s economy grew 10% a year throughout its 1993-2012 era of currency stability, market and price liberalization, and tolerance for growing businesses.

India has shown that it can hold down external indebtedness and that the rupee can be relatively stable. It should build on that. Key reforms would shrink spending and bureaucracy and allow increased investment and jobs in medium-size companies. India’s job creation is shaped like a barbell, with startups and small businesses on one side facing daunting barriers to expansion from overgrown government, regulation and high taxes. On the other side are the government and a few big companies as massive employers. While Mr. Modi’s budget calls for more government investment, it is critical that investment shift to the private sector, particularly so small businesses can grow. Reforms offer big potential upside in three particular areas.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/propublica-misleads-its-readers-alito-gifts-disclosure-alaska-singer-23b51eda?mod=opinion_lead_pos5

Editor’s note: Justin Elliott and Josh Kaplan of ProPublica, which styles itself “an independent, nonprofit newsroom that produces investigative journalism with moral force,” emailed Justice Alito Friday with a series of questions and asked him to respond by noon EDT Tuesday. They informed the justice that “we do serious, fair, accurate reporting in the public interest and have won six Pulitzer Prizes.” Here is Justice Alito’s response:

ProPublica has leveled two charges against me: first, that I should have recused in matters in which an entity connected with Paul Singer was a party and, second, that I was obligated to list certain items as gifts on my 2008 Financial Disclose Report. Neither charge is valid.

• Recusal. I had no obligation to recuse in any of the cases that ProPublica cites. First, even if I had been aware of Mr. Singer’s connection to the entities involved in those cases, recusal would not have been required or appropriate. ProPublica suggests that my failure to recuse in these cases created an appearance of impropriety, but that is incorrect. “There is an appearance of impropriety when an unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of all relevant facts would doubt that the Justice could fairly discharge his or her duties” (Statement on Ethics Principles and Practices appended to letter from the Chief Justice to Senator Durbin, April 25, 2023). No such person would think that my relationship with Mr. Singer meets that standard. My recollection is that I have spoken to Mr. Singer on no more than a handful of occasions, all of which (with the exception of small talk during a fishing trip 15 years ago) consisted of brief and casual comments at events attended by large groups. On no occasion have we discussed the activities of his businesses, and we have never talked about any case or issue before the Court. On two occasions, he introduced me before I gave a speech—as have dozens of other people. And as I will discuss, he allowed me to occupy what would have otherwise been an unoccupied seat on a private flight to Alaska. It was and is my judgment that these facts would not cause a reasonable and unbiased person to doubt my ability to decide the matters in question impartially.

Second, when I reviewed the cases in question to determine whether I was required to recuse, I was not aware and had no good reason to be aware that Mr. Singer had an interest in any party. During my time on the Court, I have voted on approximately 100,000 certiorari petitions. The vast majority receive little personal attention from the justices because even a cursory examination reveals that they do not meet our requirements for review.