bonginoreport--2020-11-09--Federal Regulations Are Perpetuating Native American Poverty

One of the reasons the United States became the most prosperous nation in the history of the world can be found in the institutions created to protect individual liberty , free markets , and private property rights , all of which incentivize entrepreneurship and innovation .
Unfortunately , the prosperity that exists due to the institutions created by the Founders is not afforded to all American citizens .
Burdensome regulations on reservations prevent Native Americans from partaking in the prosperity .
Native American reservations in the United States are disproportionately poverty stricken .
Research suggests that these problems stem from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ property , and energy development on reservations .
Because of overwhelming regulation , “ tribal sovereignty ” is more a hollow legal concept than a meaningful policy position .
The key to Native American development and tribal sovereignty is not found in more federal funding or oversight , but in policies that clarify property rights and remove transaction costs to doing business .
William F. Buckley , Jr. once said , “ There is an inverse relationship between reliance on the state and self-reliance.
” Native Americans are no exception .
Native Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States and not coincidentally the most impoverished .
Federal control of lands is the legacy of the outdated and racist assumption that Native Americans are incapable of managing their own lands Of the 50 million acres of land on Native American reservations , only five percent of that land is owned privately by individuals .
Another 20 percent is held in individual trusts , meaning that Native Americans can own interest in tracts of land , but the titles are retained by the Bureau of Indian Affairs ( BIA ) , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Interior ( DOI ) .
The remaining 75 percent of tribal land is held in a trust by the BIA and the interest in the land is owned collectively by a tribe .
The “ owners ” in these trust arrangements are not allowed to sell their ownership rights or buy land from other individuals .
It should come as no surprise then that , at 26.2 percent , the Native American poverty rate is almost double that of the rest of the United States .
Federal ownership of tribal lands complicates home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans .
Federal control of lands is the legacy of the outdated and racist assumption that Native Americans are incapable of managing their own lands or that their cultures are incompatible with markets .
Because nearly all tribal land is managed by the federal government , everything that happens on Native American lands must wind its way through an arduous bureaucratic process .
The tribes have little , if any control over those processes , which raises a substantial barrier to economic growth .
The lack of tribal autonomy creates several implications for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quality of life of Native Americans on those reservations directly .
Home ownership , natural resource development , and entrepreneurship on Native American lands are substantially hindered by government oversight .
Federal ownership of tribal lands complicates home buying and real estate development for Native Americans .
Because lands are owned collectively , banks can not repossess the property if an individual tribe member is unable to repay a loan secured by a land title .
That makes the already complicated process of getting a mortgage even more difficult .
Insufficient infrastructure discourages @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lands because of limited and poorly maintained utilities and roads .
The infrastructure issues and the rural nature of most development on reservations make the profit margins for private companies slim , leaving little reason for developers to invest in the reservations .
The issues are difficult to understate .
On the Navajo reservation , 32 percent of homes lack electricity , 31 percent lack plumbing , 38 percent lack running water , and 60 percent lack telephone services .
According to the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority , at the current electricity hook-up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and hundreds of millions of dollars to connect electricity service to the entire Navajo reservation .
One of the most unfortunate consequences of the institutions currently surrounding property rights on Native American Reservations is that they discourage entrepreneurship .
Because of these deterrents , the Indian Housing Authority ( IHA ) often finances housing development , which is a laborious process .
Many Native Americans live in substandard housing conditions because of the long waiting list to get suitable IHA housing .
In 2010 , the US Department of Housing and Urban Development @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 543,000 Native American households have “ severe housing needs , ” defined as “ living conditions that are overcrowded , substandard or cost-burdensome.
” In 2017 , HUD concluded that “ the lack of housing and infrastructure in Indian Country is severe and widespread… .
” In spite of the vast wealth of natural resources on tribal lands , Native Americans remain the most impoverished demographic in the United States , partly because their ability to develop those resources is limited by stringent rules on land development .
The Department of Interior estimates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and mineral resources exist on reservations , accounting for approximately 30 percent of coal reserves , 50 percent of known uranium deposits , and 20 percent of oil and gas reserves in the Western US .
These energy resources are valued at $ 1.5 trillion .
Yet only 2.1 million acres are being developed for energy and minerals production .
Energy development is as controversial on Native American reservations as anywhere else in America .
Reducing barriers to energy production should be done only so tribes have the freedom they ’ ve long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and where .
Right now , the federal government is deciding for them because of the expensive permitting process with which individuals and companies must comply .
On tribal lands , it can take years for potential energy investors to complete the required 49 steps and secure the approval of four federal agencies .
In contrast , only four steps must be completed for developments on non-tribal lands .
Reducing barriers to energy production should be done only so tribes have the freedom they ’ ve long deserved—to decide for themselves what to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acres that already are developed on tribal lands , the government collects the payments from energy companies and pays royalties to individual Native Americans .
Unfortunately , multiple court cases show that those royalties repeatedly have been mismanaged by the federal government .
For example , Cobell v. Salazar was a 13-year long lawsuit that culminated with a $ 3.4 billion settlement paid by the government ( i.e .
taxpayers ) to Native Americans from multiple tribes .
The court ruled that the Department of Interior both failed to properly negotiate transactions on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to enforce the terms and conditions included in the contracts that the DOI brokered .
The $ 3.4 billion settlement is not small , but it ’ s paltry compared to what the federal government prevents the tribes from accessing on their own lands .
In fact , according to an estimate by Terry Anderson and Shawn Regan , just a 5 percent return on the available energy resources would generate an additional $ 75 billion dollars per year for the tribes .
The government agencies involved in permitting energy developments can streamline @ @ @ @ @ @ @ determine where and what they want to develop .
Another aspect of land ownership that undermines economic prosperity is land fractionation from outdated federal policies .
The Dawes Act of 1887 requires that when an individual Native American owns the interest in a tract of land , it must be partitioned up equally among heirs at death .
After a few generations of dividing and subdividing the land , tracts are rendered next to useless because consent from a majority of owners is required to do anything with the land .
In 1992 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one tract of land .
In just 18 years , that number nearly doubled to 1,312,391 .
Fundamentally , the fractionation required by federal policies increases transaction costs for any kind of development that owners may want to pursue .
Individual owners are prohibited from selling their shares unilaterally .
Obtaining permission for developments from all the owners can exceed the property ’ s value , restricting activities like farming , business startups , and real estate development .
In 2012 , the Obama Administration launched a buyback program for all fractionalized land @ @ @ @ @ @ @ settlement .
Essentially , the BIA will buy the interest in fractioned land from individual Native Americans .
The land then goes into a trust that the BIA controls , but the tribe owns an interest in it .
Although that is a step forward , many Native Americans are justifiably skeptical of the BIA .
After all , the motivation for Cobell v. Salazar was to recoup money that had been lost when transacting with the federal government .
Many Native Americans are unhappy with the continued practice of retaining the land @ @ @ @ @ @ @ full control to the tribes and individual Native Americans .
The Dawes Act ’ s fractionation requirements should be reformed to prevent further fractionation .
For example , by allowing individual families to determine how to divvy up inheritances and allowing individuals to sell their shares .
Without action , the number of owners of each parcel will continue to grow , and the property ’ s value will decrease in kind .
One of the most unfortunate consequences of the institutions currently surrounding property rights on Native American Reservations is that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ control businesses , limit access to capital , and make property rights obscure , Native American reservations have few entrepreneurs .
A 2016 article in the Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship concludes that the three key disincentives to entrepreneurship on reservations are : 1 ) poorly defined property rights , 2 ) limited access to financial capital , and 3 ) the arduous business licensing process .
Releasing tribal lands from federal trusts and transferring them into the hands of tribes and individual Native Americans would cut the red tape that blocks economic development @ @ @ @ @ @ @ encouraging entrepreneurship for multiple reasons .
Recent studies have shown that developing areas , like reservations , generally have fewer entrepreneurs because people do not have formal titles to their property .
Informal property rights ’ regimes create what is referred to as “ dead capital ” because land ownership is not recognized or enforced by the legal system .
Because of the absence of secure deeds and titles , potential entrepreneurs can not collateralize their property to finance business pursuits .
Uncertainty about the process and legal requirements involved in starting new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and transparent licensing processes provide clarity in financial transactions and lower the costs of doing business .
They allow for reliability in negotiating property transfers and clearly define the costs and rewards of a given property transaction .
For example , if a potential entrepreneur wants to open a business , but is unsure about the process , it is impossible to accurately assess the potential profitability of the idea .
Tribal Sovereignty Would Unleash the Wealth on Native American Reservations Manny Jules , a former chief of a Canadian tribe , has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Canada .
The tribes , or bands , face challenges to starting businesses similar to those encountered on US tribal lands .
Forbes quotes him pointing out the fundamental change needed in the US as much as it is in Canada , “ Markets haven ’ t been allowed to operate in reserve lands .
We ’ ve been legislated out of the economy .
When you don ’ t have individual property rights , you can ’ t build , you can ’ t be bonded , you can ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ started because people can ’ t leverage property ... We have to become part of the national and global economies.
” The federal government has legislated Native Americans into perpetual poverty .
Releasing tribal lands from federal trusts and transferring them into the hands of tribes and individual Native Americans would cut the red tape that blocks economic development , thereby unleashing prosperity on reservations .
The limited access to banks , grocery stores , restaurants , utility providers , and other basic needs all would become opportunities for entrepreneurial Natives to improve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them .
The history of Native American reservations makes clear that the root of the problem is federal involvement in the Indian economy , which also clarifies at least a part of the solution .
Allowing greater tribal and individual sovereignty will jumpstart wealth creation by Native Americans .
The first steps towards that future can be taken by allowing owners of fractionalized lands to sell their shares without obtaining permission to do so .
Such a policy change would provide those wishing to secure loans for homes or entrepreneurial activities access to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be reduced to the levels that other US citizens experience so that it does not become a barrier to developments and that tribes can determine what is in their best interest .
The federal government has legislated Native Americans into perpetual poverty .
The institutions that federal agencies designed limit opportunities to own homes , develop and invest in their property , and discourage entrepreneurs from starting businesses .
Those are all essential tenets of a prosperous society .
Now is the time for Native Americans to develop their own policies .

One of the reasons the United States became the most prosperous nation in the history of the world can be found in the institutions created to protect individual liberty, free markets, and private property rights, all of which incentivize entrepreneurship and innovation.
Unfortunately, the prosperity that exists due to the institutions created by the Founders is not afforded to all American citizens. Burdensome regulations on reservations prevent Native Americans from partaking in the prosperity.
Native American reservations in the United States are disproportionately poverty stricken. Research suggests that these problems stem from federal oversight over Native American businesses, property, and energy development on reservations. Because of overwhelming regulation, “tribal sovereignty” is more a hollow legal concept than a meaningful policy position. The key to Native American development and tribal sovereignty is not found in more federal funding or oversight, but in policies that clarify property rights and remove transaction costs to doing business.
William F. Buckley, Jr. once said, “There is an inverse relationship between reliance on the state and self-reliance.” Native Americans are no exception. Native Americans are the most regulated demographic in the United States and not coincidentally the most impoverished.
Federal control of lands is the legacy of the outdated and racist assumption that Native Americans are incapable of managing their own lands
Of the 50 million acres of land on Native American reservations, only five percent of that land is owned privately by individuals. Another 20 percent is held in individual trusts, meaning that Native Americans can own interest in tracts of land, but the titles are retained by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), which is housed in the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI). The remaining 75 percent of tribal land is held in a trust by the BIA and the interest in the land is owned collectively by a tribe. The “owners” in these trust arrangements are not allowed to sell their ownership rights or buy land from other individuals. It should come as no surprise then that, at 26.2 percent, the Native American poverty rate is almost double that of the rest of the United States.
Federal ownership of tribal lands complicates home buying and real estate development for Native Americans.
Federal control of lands is the legacy of the outdated and racist assumption that Native Americans are incapable of managing their own lands or that their cultures are incompatible with markets. Because nearly all tribal land is managed by the federal government, everything that happens on Native American lands must wind its way through an arduous bureaucratic process. The tribes have little, if any control over those processes, which raises a substantial barrier to economic growth.
The lack of tribal autonomy creates several implications for economic development on reservations and impacts the quality of life of Native Americans on those reservations directly. Home ownership, natural resource development, and entrepreneurship on Native American lands are substantially hindered by government oversight.
Home Ownership and Real Estate Development Frustrated
Federal ownership of tribal lands complicates home buying and real estate development for Native Americans. Because lands are owned collectively, banks cannot repossess the property if an individual tribe member is unable to repay a loan secured by a land title. That makes the already complicated process of getting a mortgage even more difficult. Insufficient infrastructure discourages private developers from pursuing projects on tribal lands because of limited and poorly maintained utilities and roads.
The infrastructure issues and the rural nature of most development on reservations make the profit margins for private companies slim, leaving little reason for developers to invest in the reservations. The issues are difficult to understate. On the Navajo reservation, 32 percent of homes lack electricity, 31 percent lack plumbing, 38 percent lack running water, and 60 percent lack telephone services. According to the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority, at the current electricity hook-up rate, it would take 35 years and hundreds of millions of dollars to connect electricity service to the entire Navajo reservation.
One of the most unfortunate consequences of the institutions currently surrounding property rights on Native American Reservations is that they discourage entrepreneurship.
Because of these deterrents, the Indian Housing Authority (IHA) often finances housing development, which is a laborious process. Many Native Americans live in substandard housing conditions because of the long waiting list to get suitable IHA housing. In 2010, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) determined that close to 543,000 Native American households have “severe housing needs,” defined as “living conditions that are overcrowded, substandard or cost-burdensome.”
In 2017, HUD concluded that “the lack of housing and infrastructure in Indian Country is severe and widespread… .”
Energy Development
In spite of the vast wealth of natural resources on tribal lands, Native Americans remain the most impoverished demographic in the United States, partly because their ability to develop those resources is limited by stringent rules on land development. The Department of Interior estimates that 15 million acres of untapped energy and mineral resources exist on reservations, accounting for approximately 30 percent of coal reserves, 50 percent of known uranium deposits, and 20 percent of oil and gas reserves in the Western US. These energy resources are valued at $1.5 trillion. Yet only 2.1 million acres are being developed for energy and minerals production.
Energy development is as controversial on Native American reservations as anywhere else in America. Reducing barriers to energy production should be done only so tribes have the freedom they’ve long deserved—to decide for themselves what to develop and where. Right now, the federal government is deciding for them because of the expensive permitting process with which individuals and companies must comply. On tribal lands, it can take years for potential energy investors to complete the required 49 steps and secure the approval of four federal agencies. In contrast, only four steps must be completed for developments on non-tribal lands.
Reducing barriers to energy production should be done only so tribes have the freedom they’ve long deserved—to decide for themselves what to develop and where
On the 2.1 million acres that already are developed on tribal lands, the government collects the payments from energy companies and pays royalties to individual Native Americans. Unfortunately, multiple court cases show that those royalties repeatedly have been mismanaged by the federal government. For example, Cobell v. Salazar was a 13-year long lawsuit that culminated with a $3.4 billion settlement paid by the government (i.e. taxpayers) to Native Americans from multiple tribes. The court ruled that the Department of Interior both failed to properly negotiate transactions on the tribe’s behalf and failed to enforce the terms and conditions included in the contracts that the DOI brokered.
The $3.4 billion settlement is not small, but it’s paltry compared to what the federal government prevents the tribes from accessing on their own lands. In fact, according to an estimate by Terry Anderson and Shawn Regan, just a 5 percent return on the available energy resources would generate an additional $75 billion dollars per year for the tribes. The government agencies involved in permitting energy developments can streamline processes by relying on Native Americans to determine where and what they want to develop.
Land Fractionation Slows Economic Development
Another aspect of land ownership that undermines economic prosperity is land fractionation from outdated federal policies. The Dawes Act of 1887 requires that when an individual Native American owns the interest in a tract of land, it must be partitioned up equally among heirs at death. After a few generations of dividing and subdividing the land, tracts are rendered next to useless because consent from a majority of owners is required to do anything with the land. In 1992, 704,562 people owned an interest in one tract of land. In just 18 years, that number nearly doubled to 1,312,391.
Fundamentally, the fractionation required by federal policies increases transaction costs for any kind of development that owners may want to pursue. Individual owners are prohibited from selling their shares unilaterally. Obtaining permission for developments from all the owners can exceed the property’s value, restricting activities like farming, business startups, and real estate development.
In 2012, the Obama Administration launched a buyback program for all fractionalized land as part of the Cobell v. Salazar settlement. Essentially, the BIA will buy the interest in fractioned land from individual Native Americans. The land then goes into a trust that the BIA controls, but the tribe owns an interest in it. Although that is a step forward, many Native Americans are justifiably skeptical of the BIA. After all, the motivation for Cobell v. Salazar was to recoup money that had been lost when transacting with the federal government. Many Native Americans are unhappy with the continued practice of retaining the land in a trust, rather than granting full control to the tribes and individual Native Americans.
The Dawes Act’s fractionation requirements should be reformed to prevent further fractionation. For example, by allowing individual families to determine how to divvy up inheritances and allowing individuals to sell their shares. Without action, the number of owners of each parcel will continue to grow, and the property’s value will decrease in kind.
Red Tape Thwarts Native American Entrepreneurship
One of the most unfortunate consequences of the institutions currently surrounding property rights on Native American Reservations is that they discourage entrepreneurship. Because federal rules tightly control businesses, limit access to capital, and make property rights obscure, Native American reservations have few entrepreneurs. A 2016 article in the Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship concludes that the three key disincentives to entrepreneurship on reservations are: 1) poorly defined property rights, 2) limited access to financial capital, and 3) the arduous business licensing process.
Releasing tribal lands from federal trusts and transferring them into the hands of tribes and individual Native Americans would cut the red tape that blocks economic development
Clearly defined property rights are essential for encouraging entrepreneurship for multiple reasons. Recent studies have shown that developing areas, like reservations, generally have fewer entrepreneurs because people do not have formal titles to their property. Informal property rights’ regimes create what is referred to as “dead capital” because land ownership is not recognized or enforced by the legal system. Because of the absence of secure deeds and titles, potential entrepreneurs cannot collateralize their property to finance business pursuits.
Uncertainty about the process and legal requirements involved in starting new businesses discourage potential entrepreneurs. Property rights and transparent licensing processes provide clarity in financial transactions and lower the costs of doing business. They allow for reliability in negotiating property transfers and clearly define the costs and rewards of a given property transaction. For example, if a potential entrepreneur wants to open a business, but is unsure about the process, it is impossible to accurately assess the potential profitability of the idea.
Tribal Sovereignty Would Unleash the Wealth on Native American Reservations
Manny Jules, a former chief of a Canadian tribe, has led the charge in privatizing tribal lands in Canada. The tribes, or bands, face challenges to starting businesses similar to those encountered on US tribal lands. Forbes quotes him pointing out the fundamental change needed in the US as much as it is in Canada, “Markets haven’t been allowed to operate in reserve lands. We’ve been legislated out of the economy. When you don’t have individual property rights, you can’t build, you can’t be bonded, you can’t pass on wealth...businesses never get started because people can’t leverage property...We have to become part of the national and global economies.”
The federal government has legislated Native Americans into perpetual poverty.
Releasing tribal lands from federal trusts and transferring them into the hands of tribes and individual Native Americans would cut the red tape that blocks economic development, thereby unleashing prosperity on reservations. The limited access to banks, grocery stores, restaurants, utility providers, and other basic needs all would become opportunities for entrepreneurial Natives to improve their lives and those of others with them.
The history of Native American reservations makes clear that the root of the problem is federal involvement in the Indian economy, which also clarifies at least a part of the solution. Allowing greater tribal and individual sovereignty will jumpstart wealth creation by Native Americans.
The first steps towards that future can be taken by allowing owners of fractionalized lands to sell their shares without obtaining permission to do so. Such a policy change would provide those wishing to secure loans for homes or entrepreneurial activities access to capital. Likewise, federal oversight should be reduced to the levels that other US citizens experience so that it does not become a barrier to developments and that tribes can determine what is in their best interest.
The federal government has legislated Native Americans into perpetual poverty. The institutions that federal agencies designed limit opportunities to own homes, develop and invest in their property, and discourage entrepreneurs from starting businesses. Those are all essential tenets of a prosperous society. Now is the time for Native Americans to develop their own policies.


bonginoreport--2020-11-09--Defense Secretary Mark Esper Fired

Defense Secretary Mark Esper Fired

President Trump on Monday said he fired Secretary of Defense Mark Esper and that Christopher Miller , the director of the National Counterterrorism Center , will take over as acting defense secretary `` effective immediately . ''
“ Mark Esper has been terminated , ” Trump tweeted , his first ousting of a Cabinet official since the election was called for Democratic nominee Joe Biden .
“ I would like to thank him for his service.
” A senior U.S. official told Fox News that White House chief of staff Mark Meadows called Esper and let him know he was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tweet .
Fox News has learned that Esper was involved in meetings at the Pentagon Monday morning , and was behaving as defense secretary .
Sources told Fox News that the president 's announcement caught some of his staff off guard .
TRUMP 'NOT BACKING DOWN , ' CAMPAIGN MANAGER SAYS Recently , there have been reports that Esper could be removed from his post or could be preparing resignation letters , but some members of his staff believed that he would remain through inauguration .
Esper 's firing comes five months after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ invoking the Insurrection Act , '' amid nationwide protests over the summer .
He has not held a press conference in the Pentagon briefing room since July .
`` The option to use active-duty forces in a law enforcement role should only be used as a matter of last resort and only in the most urgent and dire situations , '' Esper said in June .
`` We are not in one of those situations now .
I do not support invoking the Insurrection Act . ''
The president said Miller would immediately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I am pleased to announce that Christopher C. Miller , the highly respected Director of the National Counterterrorism Center ( unanimously confirmed by the Senate ) , will be Acting Secretary of Defense , effective immediately , '' Trump said .
The president added : `` Chris will do a GREAT job ! ''
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP Miller was sworn in as the seventh director of the National Counterterrorism Center in August , after serving as deputy assistant secretary of defense for special operations and combating terrorism .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the special assistant to the president and senior director for counterterrorism and transnational threats at the National Security Council responsible for strategic-level policy making and implementation .
Miller also served in the military from 1983 to 2014 , beginning in the Army Reserve , and later transferred to Special Forces .
Miller participated in combat operations in Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 with the 5th Special Forces Group ( Airborne , ) and many follow-on deployments to both theaters .
Fox News ' Jennifer Griffin , Lucas Tomlinson and Gillian @ @ @ @ @ @

President Trump on Monday said he fired Secretary of Defense Mark Esper and that Christopher Miller, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, will take over as acting defense secretary "effective immediately."
“Mark Esper has been terminated,” Trump tweeted, his first ousting of a Cabinet official since the election was called for Democratic nominee Joe Biden. “I would like to thank him for his service.”
A senior U.S. official told Fox News that White House chief of staff Mark Meadows called Esper and let him know he was being fired before the president’s tweet.
Fox News has learned that Esper was involved in meetings at the Pentagon Monday morning, and was behaving as defense secretary. Sources told Fox News that the president's announcement caught some of his staff off guard.
TRUMP 'NOT BACKING DOWN,' CAMPAIGN MANAGER SAYS
Recently, there have been reports that Esper could be removed from his post or could be preparing resignation letters, but some members of his staff believed that he would remain through inauguration.
Esper's firing comes five months after he said he did "not support invoking the Insurrection Act," amid nationwide protests over the summer. He has not held a press conference in the Pentagon briefing room since July.
"The option to use active-duty forces in a law enforcement role should only be used as a matter of last resort and only in the most urgent and dire situations," Esper said in June. "We are not in one of those situations now. I do not support invoking the Insurrection Act."
The president said Miller would immediately become acting secretary of defense.
"I am pleased to announce that Christopher C. Miller, the highly respected Director of the National Counterterrorism Center (unanimously confirmed by the Senate), will be Acting Secretary of Defense, effective immediately," Trump said.
The president added: "Chris will do a GREAT job!"
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Miller was sworn in as the seventh director of the National Counterterrorism Center in August, after serving as deputy assistant secretary of defense for special operations and combating terrorism.
From 2018 to 2019, Miller served as the special assistant to the president and senior director for counterterrorism and transnational threats at the National Security Council responsible for strategic-level policy making and implementation.
Miller also served in the military from 1983 to 2014, beginning in the Army Reserve, and later transferred to Special Forces. Miller participated in combat operations in Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 with the 5th Special Forces Group (Airborne,) and many follow-on deployments to both theaters.
Fox News' Jennifer Griffin, Lucas Tomlinson and Gillian Turner contributed to this report.


bonginoreport--2020-11-10--Fewer Than Half Believe Biden Legitimately Won the Election

More than a third of registered voters believe Donald Trump legitimately won the presidential election , according to a new Just the News Daily Poll with Scott Rasmussen .
Less than half of all respondents — 49 % — believe Joe Biden legitimately won the race , while 34 % said they believe Trump won the election , and 16 % said they are not sure who really won .
Of Republican respondents , 77 % said they think Trump is the legitimate winner , while just 12 % of Republicans believe Biden is the legitimate winner .
About a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe Trump won .
Among Democrats , 87 % think that Biden is the winner .
Rasmussen noted that the survey was conducted from Thursday night until Saturday early afternoon .
`` During the time of this survey , no television network or other news source had formally called the race for Biden , '' he said .
The survey was comprised of 1,200 registered voters and conducted by Scott Rasmussen from Nov. 5-7 , 2020 .
To see poll 's cross-demographic tabulations , click here .
To see poll 's methodology and @ @ @ @ @ @

More than a third of registered voters believe Donald Trump legitimately won the presidential election, according to a new Just the News Daily Poll with Scott Rasmussen.
Less than half of all respondents — 49% — believe Joe Biden legitimately won the race, while 34% said they believe Trump won the election, and 16% said they are not sure who really won.
Image Just the News Daily Poll With Scott Rasmussen
Of Republican respondents, 77% said they think Trump is the legitimate winner, while just 12% of Republicans believe Biden is the legitimate winner. About a quarter of independent voters also said they believe Trump won.
Among Democrats, 87% think that Biden is the winner.
Rasmussen noted that the survey was conducted from Thursday night until Saturday early afternoon.
"During the time of this survey, no television network or other news source had formally called the race for Biden," he said.
The survey was comprised of 1,200 registered voters and conducted by Scott Rasmussen from Nov. 5-7, 2020.
To see poll's cross-demographic tabulations, click here.
To see poll's methodology and sample demographics, click here.


bonginoreport--2020-11-10--Joe Biden Already Violating the Logan Act

Joe Biden sure is lucky his name isn ’ t “ Michael Flynn , ” because if it was , he ’ d have a Kafkaesque legal battle ahead of himself for years to come .
While Biden has only been crowned the president-elect by the media , he ’ s already in the process of talking to foreign governments about his planned agenda ( if he can remember it ) .
Speaking on MSNBC Monday , Rhodes said that no matter what legal challenges Trump ’ s team launches , none will stick , and Biden is already acting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But here ’ s the thing .
This is going to happen anyway , ” Rhodes said of a presidential transition .
“ Foreign leaders are already having phone calls with Joe Biden , talking about the agenda they ’ re going to pursue January 20th , ” Rhodes admitted .
“ If that reality hasn ’ t sunk in yet for some people in the White House , it will sink in when they have to leave on January 20th .
And they ’ re going to be in for a rude @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Spygate scandal are aware , this sort of behavior is exactly what led the FBI to investigate Michael Flynn .
Flynn spoke to Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak after Trump won in 2016 but before he was sworn into office .
Sally Yates reportedly expressed faux concern that this conversation violated the Logan Act , and the rest is history .
The Logan Act is vague and potentially unconstitutional .
As it criminalized unauthorized negotiations between U.S. citizens and foreign governments , it would have legal ramifications for several individuals if it were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s peace efforts as a private citizen and Dennis Rodman traveling to North Korea ) .
Even the Act ’ s namesake , George Logan , wasn ’ t deterred by it and traveled to Britain in 1810 to try to de-escalate tensions that eventually led to the War of 1812 .
Only two people have been indicted under this Act , in 1803 and 1852 .
That ’ s an average of less than one person per century .
No one has been convicted under the Logan Act .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ someone during a critical presidential transition involving dealings with a foreign power .
Yet this is the law that propelled the Russia collusion narrative among the media into the Trump presidency .
We of course don ’ t actually believe that Biden or anyone in his orbit should be charged under the Act , we ’ re just highlighting the obvious hypocrisy here .
Ted Cruz confronted former FBI head Andy McCabe ( who helped advance the witch hunt against Flynn ) to his face over this hypocrisy earlier today – and received @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ d expect .
Hopefully a Michael Flynn pardon is coming soon .

Joe Biden sure is lucky his name isn’t “Michael Flynn,” because if it was, he’d have a Kafkaesque legal battle ahead of himself for years to come.
While Biden has only been crowned the president-elect by the media, he’s already in the process of talking to foreign governments about his planned agenda (if he can remember it).
As The Blaze reported:
According to Ben Rhodes, one of former President Barack Obama’s top foreign advisers and speechwriters, Biden has begun actively preparing his foreign policy agenda by talking to foreign leaders.
Speaking on MSNBC Monday, Rhodes said that no matter what legal challenges Trump’s team launches, none will stick, and Biden is already acting like the definite election winner. “But here’s the thing. This is going to happen anyway,” Rhodes said of a presidential transition. “Foreign leaders are already having phone calls with Joe Biden, talking about the agenda they’re going to pursue January 20th,” Rhodes admitted. “If that reality hasn’t sunk in yet for some people in the White House, it will sink in when they have to leave on January 20th. And they’re going to be in for a rude awakening here.”
As those who followed the Spygate scandal are aware, this sort of behavior is exactly what led the FBI to investigate Michael Flynn. Flynn spoke to Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak after Trump won in 2016 but before he was sworn into office. Sally Yates reportedly expressed faux concern that this conversation violated the Logan Act, and the rest is history.
The Logan Act is vague and potentially unconstitutional. As it criminalized unauthorized negotiations between U.S. citizens and foreign governments, it would have legal ramifications for several individuals if it were enforced (e.g., Jimmy Carter’s peace efforts as a private citizen and Dennis Rodman traveling to North Korea). Even the Act’s namesake, George Logan, wasn’t deterred by it and traveled to Britain in 1810 to try to de-escalate tensions that eventually led to the War of 1812.
Only two people have been indicted under this Act, in 1803 and 1852. That’s an average of less than one person per century. No one has been convicted under the Logan Act. It’s hardly an ideal legal avenue to prosecute someone during a critical presidential transition involving dealings with a foreign power. Yet this is the law that propelled the Russia collusion narrative among the media into the Trump presidency.
We of course don’t actually believe that Biden or anyone in his orbit should be charged under the Act, we’re just highlighting the obvious hypocrisy here.
Ted Cruz confronted former FBI head Andy McCabe (who helped advance the witch hunt against Flynn) to his face over this hypocrisy earlier today – and received just as unsatisfying a response as you’d expect.
Hopefully a Michael Flynn pardon is coming soon.


bonginoreport--2020-11-10--Oregon Elections Director Fired After Pointing Out Issues With State’s Voting Technology

SALEM , Ore. — Oregon ’ s elections director was abruptly fired in a text message by the secretary of state after he pointed out serious issues with the state ’ s aging and vulnerable technology for running elections .
Elections Director Stephen Trout learned in a text message Thursday night - as his department and county elections officials were still counting votes from the Nov. 3 election - that he was out .
On Friday , Secretary of State Bev Clarno , a Republican appointed to the position by Democratic Gov .
Kate Brown , announced to county clerks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s 36 counties that “ today is also Steve Trout ’ s last day with the Agency.
” Election officials in the state were stunned .
Steve Druckenmiller , the veteran Linn County clerk , said Clarno ’ s action was “ dangerous and so ignorant.
” “ We are still in the election process right now .
We are reconciling , we ’ re dealing with problems right now as far as your signatures and communicating with voters who didn ’ t sign the ballots , ” Druckenmiller said .
“ We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recounts , all of these things .
She doesn ’ t understand elections.
” Clarno ’ s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment .
Trout , in a letter emailed on Nov. 2 to the Republican and Democratic candidates to replace Clarno , who did not run , described problems with the internet technology side of the secretary of state ’ s office .
He also said federal money had been misspent and that $ 11.7 million from the federal government must be returned by Dec. 31 because the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a penny ” of the funds .
This happened even as the Oregon Centralized Voter Registration system is so old that Microsoft no longer supports the Windows Server 2008 system that it operates on .
The secretary of state ’ s office was going to take bids - officially known as request for proposal - in October for a new system , but Clarno paused this project without consulting with the county clerks or Trout , the ousted election director said .
Furthermore , Trout said calls by himself and other election officials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from hacking of election systems went unheeded .

SALEM, Ore. — Oregon’s elections director was abruptly fired in a text message by the secretary of state after he pointed out serious issues with the state’s aging and vulnerable technology for running elections.
Elections Director Stephen Trout learned in a text message Thursday night - as his department and county elections officials were still counting votes from the Nov. 3 election - that he was out.
On Friday, Secretary of State Bev Clarno, a Republican appointed to the position by Democratic Gov. Kate Brown, announced to county clerks and other elections officials in Oregon’s 36 counties that “today is also Steve Trout’s last day with the Agency.”
Election officials in the state were stunned.
Steve Druckenmiller, the veteran Linn County clerk, said Clarno’s action was “dangerous and so ignorant.”
“We are still in the election process right now. We are reconciling, we’re dealing with problems right now as far as your signatures and communicating with voters who didn’t sign the ballots,” Druckenmiller said. “We’re going to have to do recounts, all of these things. She doesn’t understand elections.”
SEE ALSO: Oregon county clerks back fired elections director, raise alarm over software
Clarno’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Trout, in a letter emailed on Nov. 2 to the Republican and Democratic candidates to replace Clarno, who did not run, described problems with the internet technology side of the secretary of state’s office.
He also said federal money had been misspent and that $11.7 million from the federal government must be returned by Dec. 31 because the Legislature did not authorize to “spend a penny” of the funds.
This happened even as the Oregon Centralized Voter Registration system is so old that Microsoft no longer supports the Windows Server 2008 system that it operates on.
The secretary of state’s office was going to take bids - officially known as request for proposal - in October for a new system, but Clarno paused this project without consulting with the county clerks or Trout, the ousted election director said.
Furthermore, Trout said calls by himself and other election officials for third-party verification systems to prevent Oregon from hacking of election systems went unheeded.


bonginoreport--2020-11-10--Cal Cunningham Concedes to Republican Thom Tillis in NC Senate Race

RALEIGH , N.C. ( AP ) — Democrat Cal Cunningham conceded to incumbent Republican U.S. Sen. Thom Tillis in North Carolina on Tuesday , saying “ the voters have spoken ” and it was clear Tillis had won .
With Cunningham ’ s concession , all eyes turned to Georgia , where two U.S. Senate runoff races in January are likely to determine the balance of the upper chamber .
With votes still uncounted and the races in North Carolina and Alaska still too early to call Tuesday , the Senate remained tied 48-48 .
Alaska GOP Sen. Dan Sullivan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gross , an independent running as a Democrat .
If the Senate ended up tied 50-50 , Democratic Vice President-elect Kamala Harris would wield the tiebreaking vote .
Georgia is closely divided , with Democrats making gains on Republicans , fueled by a surge of new voters .
But no Democrat has been elected U.S. senator in 20 years .
In North Carolina , Tillis led Cunningham by 94,500 votes , from among more than 5.4 million votes counted so far .
Additional absentee and provisional ballots are being counted .
Counties finalize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just called Sen. Tillis to congratulate him on winning reelection to a second term in the U.S. Senate and wished him and his family the best in their continued service in the months and years ahead , ” Cunningham said .
“ The voters have spoken and I respect their decision.
” Cunningham accepted defeat after outraising Tillis during what became the most expensive U.S. Senate race in history .
All together , the two campaigns and outside groups spent $ 282 million on the general election , according to the Center for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over a Cunningham sex scandal in the campaign ’ s final month .
Cunningham admitted to a recent extramarital relationship with a public relations consultant .
Tillis said Cunningham ’ s emphasis on his personal story in the campaign made the misconduct a defining issue .
Tillis , 60 , a former IBM consultant and state House speaker from the Charlotte suburbs , was one of President Donald Trump ’ s strongest defenders during impeachment but was criticized by the GOP base last year when he initially took a stance opposite the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Tillis later changed his mind on the issue .
“ This was a hard-fought campaign and I wish nothing but the best to Cal and his family going forward , ” Tillis said in a statement .
“ I am incredibly humbled by the chance to serve the people of North Carolina in the United States Senate for six more years and I pledge to continue keeping my promises and delivering results.
” The race in the presidential battleground state was already being closely watched before word of both Cunningham ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ upended it in early October .
Tillis tested positive for COVID-19 several days after attending a White House event announcing the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court .
Unlike most people at the event , Tillis wore a face mask , but he took it off once indoors .
Many attendees — including Trump — later tested positive .
Tillis campaigned on a record of passing Trump ’ s 2017 tax cuts , confirming conservative judges and helping the country recover from the pandemic .
Cunningham , 47 , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officer .
It was also still too early to call North Carolina ’ s presidential race and several other statewide races .
Trump led President-elect Joe Biden by more than 73,000 votes .
North Carolina counties had yet to process about 27,500 absentee ballots and about 23,000 provisional ballots .
In addition , approximately 93,000 voters requested absentee ballots that had not yet been received as of Tuesday afternoon .
Ballots postmarked by Election Day can be counted as long as they are received by Thursday .

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — Democrat Cal Cunningham conceded to incumbent Republican U.S. Sen. Thom Tillis in North Carolina on Tuesday, saying “the voters have spoken” and it was clear Tillis had won.
With Cunningham’s concession, all eyes turned to Georgia, where two U.S. Senate runoff races in January are likely to determine the balance of the upper chamber.
With votes still uncounted and the races in North Carolina and Alaska still too early to call Tuesday, the Senate remained tied 48-48. Alaska GOP Sen. Dan Sullivan is favored for another term against Al Gross, an independent running as a Democrat. If the Senate ended up tied 50-50, Democratic Vice President-elect Kamala Harris would wield the tiebreaking vote.
Georgia is closely divided, with Democrats making gains on Republicans, fueled by a surge of new voters. But no Democrat has been elected U.S. senator in 20 years.
In North Carolina, Tillis led Cunningham by 94,500 votes, from among more than 5.4 million votes counted so far. Additional absentee and provisional ballots are being counted. Counties finalize their results on Friday.
“I just called Sen. Tillis to congratulate him on winning reelection to a second term in the U.S. Senate and wished him and his family the best in their continued service in the months and years ahead,” Cunningham said. “The voters have spoken and I respect their decision.”
Cunningham accepted defeat after outraising Tillis during what became the most expensive U.S. Senate race in history. All together, the two campaigns and outside groups spent $282 million on the general election, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Tillis benefited from fallout over a Cunningham sex scandal in the campaign’s final month. Cunningham admitted to a recent extramarital relationship with a public relations consultant. Tillis said Cunningham’s emphasis on his personal story in the campaign made the misconduct a defining issue.
Tillis, 60, a former IBM consultant and state House speaker from the Charlotte suburbs, was one of President Donald Trump’s strongest defenders during impeachment but was criticized by the GOP base last year when he initially took a stance opposite the president on how to fund the border wall. Tillis later changed his mind on the issue.
“This was a hard-fought campaign and I wish nothing but the best to Cal and his family going forward,” Tillis said in a statement. “I am incredibly humbled by the chance to serve the people of North Carolina in the United States Senate for six more years and I pledge to continue keeping my promises and delivering results.”
The race in the presidential battleground state was already being closely watched before word of both Cunningham’s extramarital admission and Tillis’ coronavirus diagnosis upended it in early October.
Tillis tested positive for COVID-19 several days after attending a White House event announcing the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. Unlike most people at the event, Tillis wore a face mask, but he took it off once indoors. Many attendees — including Trump — later tested positive.
Tillis campaigned on a record of passing Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, confirming conservative judges and helping the country recover from the pandemic. Cunningham, 47, is a Raleigh attorney and U.S. Army Reserve officer.
It was also still too early to call North Carolina’s presidential race and several other statewide races. Trump led President-elect Joe Biden by more than 73,000 votes.
North Carolina counties had yet to process about 27,500 absentee ballots and about 23,000 provisional ballots. In addition, approximately 93,000 voters requested absentee ballots that had not yet been received as of Tuesday afternoon. Ballots postmarked by Election Day can be counted as long as they are received by Thursday.


bonginoreport--2020-11-10--BLM Rioter Filmed Kicking Man in Head Sentenced to 20 Months in Prison

An Oregon court sentenced a BLM activist to 20 months in prison after he pleaded guilty to kicking a dazed man in the face .
Video captured the moment when he kicked the man after others pulled him from a crashed car , assaulted him , and shoved him to the ground during an August BLM protest .
A court in Portland , Oregon , sentenced Marquise Lee Love , 26 , to 20 months in state prison and an additional 36 months of probation after he pleaded guilty to assaulting a man during a BLM protest on August 17 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sentencing follow a vicious attack on a man who had been pulled from his crashed pickup truck , assaulted , and pushed to the ground by people wearing “ security ” vests .
The man crashed his truck into a tree after attempting to escape other BLM protesters , Breitbart News reported .
A video tweeted by journalist Andy Ngo shows Love running up to the victim from across the street while he sat stunned on the street .
He then kicks the victim in the face — knocking him unconscious .
Police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provide first aid for the beaten man .
Antifa “ street medics ” examined him and said “ he ’ s not responsive , ” Ngo reported .
Later , Portland police arrive to tow the victim ’ s vehicle .
Rioter screamed at police , claiming the cops are protecting white supremacists .
Love pleaded guilty on Monday to third-degree assault and felony riot , Ngo reported .
Bob Price serves as associate editor and senior news contributor for the Breitbart Texas-Border team .
He is an original member of the Breitbart @ @ @ @ @ @ @ panelist on Fox 26 Houston ’ s What ’ s Your Point ?
Sunday-morning talk show .
Follow him on Twitter @ BobPriceBBTX , Parler @ BobPrice , and Facebook .

An Oregon court sentenced a BLM activist to 20 months in prison after he pleaded guilty to kicking a dazed man in the face. Video captured the moment when he kicked the man after others pulled him from a crashed car, assaulted him, and shoved him to the ground during an August BLM protest.
A court in Portland, Oregon, sentenced Marquise Lee Love, 26, to 20 months in state prison and an additional 36 months of probation after he pleaded guilty to assaulting a man during a BLM protest on August 17, KGW8 reported.
The conviction and sentencing follow a vicious attack on a man who had been pulled from his crashed pickup truck, assaulted, and pushed to the ground by people wearing “security” vests. The man crashed his truck into a tree after attempting to escape other BLM protesters, Breitbart News reported.
A video tweeted by journalist Andy Ngo shows Love running up to the victim from across the street while he sat stunned on the street. He then kicks the victim in the face — knocking him unconscious.
This is the moment immediately before. The mob assaults him and makes him sit in the ground while they search his belongings. When he stands up, they brutally beat him. #PortlandRiots #antifa #BlackLivesMatter Video by @livesmattershow pic.twitter.com/tEzpIz6V9U — Andy Ngô (@MrAndyNgo) August 17, 2020
Police eventually respond after other rioters tried to provide first aid for the beaten man. Antifa “street medics” examined him and said “he’s not responsive,” Ngo reported.
Earlier: Rioters stand over the unconscious man’s body after they beat him. They pour water on him and shout in support of Black Lives Matter. Antifa street medics are examining him. He’s not responsive. #PortlandRiots #BlackLiveMatter Video @FromKalen. pic.twitter.com/aI5emSRATI — Andy Ngô (@MrAndyNgo) August 17, 2020
Later, Portland police arrive to tow the victim’s vehicle. Rioter screamed at police, claiming the cops are protecting white supremacists.
Love pleaded guilty on Monday to third-degree assault and felony riot, Ngo reported.
Breaking: Marquise Lee Love, the Portland BLM activist who kicked Adam Haner in the face at a protest, pleaded guilty to third-degree assault & felony riot. He has been sentenced to 20 months in prison. pic.twitter.com/kb23IsT806 — Andy Ngô (@MrAndyNgo) November 10, 2020
I believe this is the first rioter in Portland to be sentenced to prison time out of nearly 1,000 cases this year. If it weren’t for the undercover filming by @livesmattershow & @FromKalen, the assault would not have been documented. Portland journalists actually look other way. — Andy Ngô (@MrAndyNgo) November 10, 2020
Bob Price serves as associate editor and senior news contributor for the Breitbart Texas-Border team. He is an original member of the Breitbart Texas team. Price is a regular panelist on Fox 26 Houston’s What’s Your Point? Sunday-morning talk show. Follow him on Twitter @BobPriceBBTX, Parler @BobPrice, and Facebook.


bonginoreport--2020-11-10--Federal Reserve Officials in Discussions Over Future of Their Asset-Purchase Program

Despite potentially groundbreaking news about a coronavirus vaccine , the economy is still in danger and needs help , San Francisco Federal Reserve President Mary Daly said Tuesday .
Fed officials continue to discuss what they can do to help , and those talks have included stepping up the asset purchase program if necessary , the central bank official told CNBC .
`` We have asset purchases well in place and we are discussing what more we could do if more is needed and what should we do in terms of communicating a plan for asset purchases going forward , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on `` Squawk on the Street . ''
`` Those discussions are always ongoing , but we really had a robust debate '' at least week 's Federal Open Market Committee meeting .
`` I would say discussion more than debate even , '' she added .
`` We 're all dedicated to the same thing — continue the mission to serve the American people with our top policy tools .
I would say our tools are powerful . ''
Daly spoke a day after Pfizer announced its coronavirus vaccine had shown better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ While the news set off an explosive stock market rally and kindled hopes that a major hurdle had been eclipsed in the eight-month pandemic struggle , caution remained that the months ahead would be difficult as new cases continued to ramp up .
`` The vaccine news of course for everyone out there on the globe is welcome news , '' Daly said .
`` But we also have rising coronavirus cases right now in both the U.S. and across the globe , and so that 's my top priority . ''
She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to support the economy and the American people as they move through this virus . ''
Daly described current policy as `` in a really good place '' as it can be adjusted tighter or looser depending on conditions .

Despite potentially groundbreaking news about a coronavirus vaccine, the economy is still in danger and needs help, San Francisco Federal Reserve President Mary Daly said Tuesday.
Fed officials continue to discuss what they can do to help, and those talks have included stepping up the asset purchase program if necessary, the central bank official told CNBC.
"We have asset purchases well in place and we are discussing what more we could do if more is needed and what should we do in terms of communicating a plan for asset purchases going forward," Daly told CNBC's Steve Liesman on "Squawk on the Street."
"Those discussions are always ongoing, but we really had a robust debate" at least week's Federal Open Market Committee meeting. "I would say discussion more than debate even," she added. "We're all dedicated to the same thing — continue the mission to serve the American people with our top policy tools. I would say our tools are powerful."
Daly spoke a day after Pfizer announced its coronavirus vaccine had shown better than 90% effectiveness in trials.
While the news set off an explosive stock market rally and kindled hopes that a major hurdle had been eclipsed in the eight-month pandemic struggle, caution remained that the months ahead would be difficult as new cases continued to ramp up.
"The vaccine news of course for everyone out there on the globe is welcome news," Daly said. "But we also have rising coronavirus cases right now in both the U.S. and across the globe, and so that's my top priority."
She said the Fed needs "to continue to support the economy and the American people as they move through this virus." Daly described current policy as "in a really good place" as it can be adjusted tighter or looser depending on conditions.


bonginoreport--2020-11-10--Lincoln Project Publicly Encourages Harassment of Trump Legal Team Members

Lincoln Project faces backlash for urging people to harass members of Trump ’ s legal team The Lincoln Project on Tuesday tweeted out the contact info of two attorneys working for President Donald Trump ‘ s legal team to challenge the election results from Pennsylvania and appeared to urge its followers to harass the duo .
The Republican anti-Trump group faced fierce backlash from conservatives across Twitter for this action .
It is important to note that this contact info is publicly available on their respective professional biographies on the website of the Porter Wright law firm .
Therefore this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , something which some people have falsely accused the Lincoln Project of .
“ Here are two attorneys attempting to help Trump overturn the will of the Pennsylvanian people , ” the group tweeted , followed by their names , and their phone numbers and emails for work .
After that , the group then said to “ Make them famous.
” Conservatives from across Twitter then criticized the political group for promoting the harassment of people .
Here are some of them : You can follow Douglas Braff on Twitter @ Douglas_P_Braff @

UPDATE:
In a significant turn of events, Attorney General Merrick Garland made a surprising announcement on Friday, elevating Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss to the role of special counsel. This decision marks a shift in focus towards the investigation of the Biden family’s financial matters. The probe, which encompasses Hunter Biden’s tax affairs and any potential connections his father, President Joe Biden, might have with his foreign associates, is slated to extend into the 2024 election cycle. Interestingly, this move comes as former President Donald Trump is simultaneously facing two federal indictments from the same department.
Garland stressed that the decision to appoint Weiss as an independent prosecutor aligns with the “public interest” and adheres to departmental regulations. Importantly, this transition was initiated by Weiss himself, who, earlier this week, conveyed his belief that the investigation had reached a point where he should proceed as a special counsel.
Weiss is no stranger to this intricate landscape. He is the federal prosecutor responsible for bringing charges against President Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, in Delaware. Recent times have witnessed the unfolding of legal proceedings involving Hunter Biden, including a probation-oriented plea arrangement that was ultimately rejected by a judge. In June, Hunter Biden agreed to a deal with federal prosecutors, admitting guilt in two tax-related offenses and a firearm charge, potentially leading to the dismissal of the latter charge. This latest development underscores the intensification of scrutiny into the financial affairs of the Biden family and highlights the evolving legal landscape involving prominent political figures.
—
Attorney General Merrick Garland will speak to the public Friday afternoon. It is highly anticipated because I believe, as do many others, that he may be getting ready to announce the appointment of a Special Counsel to investigate “Hunter Biden” and his financial dealings overseas. Although, welcome there are still too many concerns with the DOJ that need to be addressed and there is little faith among many Americans that anything will be done.
Americans have witnessed the makings and the result of a two tiered justice system since President Trump was elected and then the continuing targeting of Trump even after his term as president.
I’ve spoken about the need for an outside investigation into Hunter Biden and President Biden at length on my podcast, The Sara Carter Show and on Fox News. But I’ve been jaded by the failures of past investigations and the weaponization of the Justice Department to do its job. The failure of the DOJ to be blind and just has been devastating to our nation.
Will Garland appoint a special counsel? I don’t know but as Americans we must demand that our leadership, our bureaucracies and our law makers follow the rule of law without prejudice. If they do not, as we have seen over the past decade with the establishments attacks on President Donald Trump and the weaponization of the system to target him, then our foundation will not only be fractured but it will be irreparable.
Either way, the alleged crimes and obvious financial connections linked to the Biden family with adversarial nations like China and Russia must be thoroughly investigated and the investigation must be made public. The Biden connections and large sums of money taken from government connected energy companies in Ukraine must also be thoroughly vetted and any improprieties must be made public.


bonginoreport--2020-11-10--SCOTUS Appears Likely to Keep Obamacare Intact – Minus the Individual Mandate

`` I think it 's hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate was struck down , '' Roberts told Hawkins , noting that the same Congress `` did not even try to repeal the rest of the act . ''
Roberts was appointed by President George W. Bush .
But Roberts and Kavanaugh suggested that would not doom the rest of the law .
The court 's six conservatives seemed sympathetic to arguments made by Kyle Hawkins , the Texas solicitor general , and acting Justice Department Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was stripped of an accompanying penalty .
The Trump administration , via the Department of Justice , argued in favor of the red states ' challenge .
The Supreme Court upheld the mandate in 2012 under Congress 's taxing power , but Texas and other Republican-led states argued that the reduction of the penalty made that justification no longer workable , and as a result the whole Affordable Care Act must be struck down .
The individual mandate provision , as enacted in 2010 , requires most Americans to obtain health insurance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress reduced the penalty to $ 0 in 2017 .
`` Today , I think the winner in this case was the Affordable Care Act and Congress , '' Michele Goodwin , a law professor at the University of California , Irvine , said in an interview after arguments concluded .
Such a decision would leave in place the central aspects of the 900-plus page legislation , which collectively have transformed American health-care over the past decade , from the expansion of Medicaid in dozens of states to the requirement that insurers cover @ @ @ @ @ @ @ John Roberts , who cast the key vote in 2012 upholding Obamacare , and Justice Brett Kavanaugh , an appointee of President Donald Trump , suggested that the court may cast aside a challenged provision of the law , known as the individual mandate , while leaving the rest of it standing .
During arguments in a case seeking to eliminate Obamacare , two of the court 's conservatives on Tuesday signaled they would not strike down the landmark legislation .
The Affordable Care Act seems likely to withstand its third challenge at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some Republican lawmakers may have wanted the Supreme Court to strike down the law , `` but that 's not our job . ''
Kavanaugh told Donald Verrilli , who was solicitor general under former President Barack Obama , that `` I tend to agree with you that this is a very straightforward case '' and that under the court 's precedents `` we would excise the mandate and leave the rest of the act in place . ''
Verrilli was arguing on behalf of the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives , which along @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by California was defending Obamacare .
Michael Mongan , the solicitor general of California , argued on behalf of the blue states .
Later , Kavanaugh told Hawkins that it `` sure seems '' like Congress in 2017 wanted to lower the individual mandate penalty without getting rid of the Affordable Care Act 's other provisions , such as its protections for those with preexisting conditions .
While Republicans in Congress repeatedly threatened to repeal the entire Affordable Care Act , the party was never able to muster a majority in the House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ An effort at the `` skinny repeal '' of certain provisions , including the individual mandate , failed in 2017 after the late GOP Sen. John McCain of Arizona cast a vote against the effort .
Michael Kimberly , a partner at the law firm McDermott Will & Emery who co-chairs the firm 's Supreme Court and appellate practice group , said that Kavanaugh 's comments were `` strikingly direct . ''
Kimberly said that Kavanaugh 's comments were out of character , suggesting the judge was trying to signal how he would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think the defenders have reason for cautious optimism , '' Kimberly said .
The court 's three liberals , Justices Stephen Breyer , Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan appeared ready to side with the blue states and the House of Representatives .
It takes five votes to gain a majority on the nine-judge panel .
The Democratic-appointees seemed skeptical of the red states ' argument that the mandate was unconstitutional , and sympathetic to California 's claim that those states lacked even the ability to sue , given their failure to prove that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
`` The only thing that changed is something that made the law less coercive , '' Kagan said .
Breyer suggested that allowing the red states to bring their claim could open up challenges to all sorts of laws that would be unlawful if they included penalties , such as hypothetical statutes calling for citizens to plant trees , clean up yards or buy war bonds .
The court 's conservatives seemed more amenable to the claim from red states and the Justice Department that the law 's challengers had been harmed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a law requiring everyone to mow their lawn once a week , even if there was no penalty , there `` will certainly be injury '' to those who did n't comply .
Justice Clarence Thomas said that such a law could still have a `` chilling effect . ''
A ruling siding with the red states by invalidating the individual mandate , but with the blue states by allowing the bulk of the Affordable Care Act to remain standing , would represent a win for Democrats .
Health-care activists said that if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Care Act , more than 20 million people could lose their insurance .
The dispute , which was argued in the shadow of last week 's presidential election , was a central focus of Democrats during the confirmation hearings for Justice Amy Coney Barrett last month .
After the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg , a liberal , died in September , Democrats sought to turn the fight for her replacement , Barrett , into a referendum on the law .
In that regard , Barrett 's questioning on Tuesday was anticlimactic , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into her thinking about the legal issues .
The case had also become a political flash point in the race between Trump and President-elect Joe Biden , who have sketched out vastly different visions for the future of American health care .
Trump pushed to gut the Affordable Care Act , while Biden 's agenda calls for building on the law , which the former vice president played a role in shepherding through Congress in the first place .
The political stakes were amplified by the pandemic , which has killed more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ care a more salient issue .
Efforts to contain the pandemic also caused a devastating recession , which has resulted in millions losing their health-care coverage .
`` The elephant in the room happens to be the political tenor behind all of these issues , '' Goodwin said .
She noted that given Trump 's attacks on the federal judiciary , the chief justice has had to project an air of neutrality more than previous leaders of the court .
`` The chief justice is having to call balls and strikes , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the court does abide by the rule of law , and the court under his jurisdiction will not be partisan , '' Goodwin said .
`` How much of that he controls is limited , '' she added .
`` The reality is this is a court that has been affected by the political tenor of these times . ''
Ahead of the case coming to the Supreme Court , two lower courts sided with Texas , including the 5th U.S .
Circuit Court of Appeals court , and agreed that the individual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , though , did not say whether the rest of the Affordable Care Act would also have to be struck down .
Arguments , which were scheduled to last for 80 minutes , began at 10 a.m .
ET and concluded around noon .
They were conducted by phone as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic and streamed live to the public .
A decision in the case , known as California v. Texas , No .
19-840 , is expected toward the end of June .

"I think it's hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate was struck down," Roberts told Hawkins, noting that the same Congress "did not even try to repeal the rest of the act." Roberts was appointed by President George W. Bush.
But Roberts and Kavanaugh suggested that would not doom the rest of the law.
The court's six conservatives seemed sympathetic to arguments made by Kyle Hawkins, the Texas solicitor general, and acting Justice Department Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall that the individual mandate became unconstitutional when it was stripped of an accompanying penalty.
The Trump administration, via the Department of Justice, argued in favor of the red states' challenge.
The Supreme Court upheld the mandate in 2012 under Congress's taxing power, but Texas and other Republican-led states argued that the reduction of the penalty made that justification no longer workable, and as a result the whole Affordable Care Act must be struck down.
The individual mandate provision, as enacted in 2010, requires most Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty. The GOP-controlled Congress reduced the penalty to $0 in 2017.
"Today, I think the winner in this case was the Affordable Care Act and Congress," Michele Goodwin, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine, said in an interview after arguments concluded.
Such a decision would leave in place the central aspects of the 900-plus page legislation, which collectively have transformed American health-care over the past decade, from the expansion of Medicaid in dozens of states to the requirement that insurers cover those with preexisting conditions.
Chief Justice John Roberts, who cast the key vote in 2012 upholding Obamacare, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, an appointee of President Donald Trump, suggested that the court may cast aside a challenged provision of the law, known as the individual mandate, while leaving the rest of it standing.
During arguments in a case seeking to eliminate Obamacare, two of the court's conservatives on Tuesday signaled they would not strike down the landmark legislation.
The Affordable Care Act seems likely to withstand its third challenge at the Supreme Court.
Roberts acknowledged that some Republican lawmakers may have wanted the Supreme Court to strike down the law, "but that's not our job."
Kavanaugh told Donald Verrilli, who was solicitor general under former President Barack Obama, that "I tend to agree with you that this is a very straightforward case" and that under the court's precedents "we would excise the mandate and leave the rest of the act in place."
Verrilli was arguing on behalf of the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives, which along with a coalition of Democratic states led by California was defending Obamacare. Michael Mongan, the solicitor general of California, argued on behalf of the blue states.
Later, Kavanaugh told Hawkins that it "sure seems" like Congress in 2017 wanted to lower the individual mandate penalty without getting rid of the Affordable Care Act's other provisions, such as its protections for those with preexisting conditions.
While Republicans in Congress repeatedly threatened to repeal the entire Affordable Care Act, the party was never able to muster a majority in the House and Senate willing to do so. An effort at the "skinny repeal" of certain provisions, including the individual mandate, failed in 2017 after the late GOP Sen. John McCain of Arizona cast a vote against the effort.
Michael Kimberly, a partner at the law firm McDermott Will & Emery who co-chairs the firm's Supreme Court and appellate practice group, said that Kavanaugh's comments were "strikingly direct."
Kimberly said that Kavanaugh's comments were out of character, suggesting the judge was trying to signal how he would rule in the case.
"I think the defenders have reason for cautious optimism," Kimberly said.
The court's three liberals, Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan appeared ready to side with the blue states and the House of Representatives. It takes five votes to gain a majority on the nine-judge panel.
The Democratic-appointees seemed skeptical of the red states' argument that the mandate was unconstitutional, and sympathetic to California's claim that those states lacked even the ability to sue, given their failure to prove that they had been harmed by the law.
"The only thing that changed is something that made the law less coercive," Kagan said.
Breyer suggested that allowing the red states to bring their claim could open up challenges to all sorts of laws that would be unlawful if they included penalties, such as hypothetical statutes calling for citizens to plant trees, clean up yards or buy war bonds.
The court's conservatives seemed more amenable to the claim from red states and the Justice Department that the law's challengers had been harmed.
Roberts noted that if Congress passed a law requiring everyone to mow their lawn once a week, even if there was no penalty, there "will certainly be injury" to those who didn't comply. Justice Clarence Thomas said that such a law could still have a "chilling effect."
A ruling siding with the red states by invalidating the individual mandate, but with the blue states by allowing the bulk of the Affordable Care Act to remain standing, would represent a win for Democrats.
Health-care activists said that if the Supreme Court struck down the Affordable Care Act, more than 20 million people could lose their insurance.
The dispute, which was argued in the shadow of last week's presidential election, was a central focus of Democrats during the confirmation hearings for Justice Amy Coney Barrett last month.
After the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal, died in September, Democrats sought to turn the fight for her replacement, Barrett, into a referendum on the law.
In that regard, Barrett's questioning on Tuesday was anticlimactic, as it didn't provide much insight into her thinking about the legal issues.
The case had also become a political flash point in the race between Trump and President-elect Joe Biden, who have sketched out vastly different visions for the future of American health care.
Trump pushed to gut the Affordable Care Act, while Biden's agenda calls for building on the law, which the former vice president played a role in shepherding through Congress in the first place.
The political stakes were amplified by the pandemic, which has killed more than 230,000 in the U.S. and made health care a more salient issue. Efforts to contain the pandemic also caused a devastating recession, which has resulted in millions losing their health-care coverage.
"The elephant in the room happens to be the political tenor behind all of these issues," Goodwin said. She noted that given Trump's attacks on the federal judiciary, the chief justice has had to project an air of neutrality more than previous leaders of the court.
"The chief justice is having to call balls and strikes, and in such a way that it is clear the court does abide by the rule of law, and the court under his jurisdiction will not be partisan," Goodwin said.
"How much of that he controls is limited," she added. "The reality is this is a court that has been affected by the political tenor of these times."
Ahead of the case coming to the Supreme Court, two lower courts sided with Texas, including the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals court, and agreed that the individual mandate was unlawful. The appeals court, though, did not say whether the rest of the Affordable Care Act would also have to be struck down.
Arguments, which were scheduled to last for 80 minutes, began at 10 a.m. ET and concluded around noon. They were conducted by phone as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic and streamed live to the public.
A decision in the case, known as California v. Texas, No. 19-840, is expected toward the end of June.


bonginoreport--2020-11-11--Authors Retract Study Arguing for Effectiveness of Mask Mandates

A study showing that more than a thousand counties in the US saw COVID-19 hospitalizations decrease after passing mask mandates has been withdrawn .
The study , published on October 23 on the medical site medRxiv , had alleged that hospitalizations for COVID-19 decreased in 1,083 US counties after lawmakers passed mask mandates .
The article was updated on November 4 .
“ The authors have withdrawn this manuscript because there are increased rates of SARS- CoV-2 cases in the areas that we originally analyzed in this study , ” the updated abstract reads .
“ New analyses in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States are therefore needed and will be undertaken directly in conjunction with the creators of the publicly-available databases on cases , hospitalizations , testing rates.
” The use of face masks has become an increasingly polarizing topic in the US .
The effectiveness of masks has been a subject of debate , at least in part because public health officials have sent mixed messages .
Early in the coronavirus pandemic , the World Health Organization ( WHO ) , the US Surgeon General , and Dr. Anthony Fauci , a leading member @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Coronavirus Task Force , all advised against using a mask in public if you were healthy .
While the WHO , the Surgeon General , and Fauci eventually modified their position , some of Europe ’ s top health officials have continued to resist calls to mandate or even recommend the use of masks to slow the spread of COVID-19 , saying there is little empirical evidence to suggest they have a positive impact .
“ The studies so far have not shown a dramatic effect , countries such as France and others @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , have still experienced a big spread of the disease , ” Dr. Anders Tegnell , Sweden ’ s top infectious disease expert , recently observed .
One retracted study is hardly enough to prove Tegnell and other European health officials are right .
But it is likely to fuel debate surrounding the ethics of forcing individuals to wear masks , which some argue is a violation of the Principle of Effectiveness , which states public health agencies are only allowed to recommend interventions they know are effective .
It ’ s also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ initially controversial .
Many Americans began wearing masks in public at the onset of the pandemic .
Masks did not become polarizing until governments began mandating their use , which has at times resulted in violent confrontations .
In May , for example , a 22-year-old mother who was not wearing a face covering was wrestled to the ground by New York City police in front of her child after allegedly refusing to comply with requests to cover her nose and mouth .
The encounter prompted the city to end the practice of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The woman , Kaleemah Rozier , announced in June she is suing the city for $ 10 million for excessive force .
Rozier ’ s case offers an example of the unintended consequences of mask mandates .
While the obvious goal of mask mandates is more citizens wearing masks , which may slow the spread of the virus , an unintended consequence is increased interactions between citizens and police .
This is something Americans should keep in mind as we prepare for the possibility of a new presidency .
Former Vice President Joe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ win the White House , has said he will “ go to every governor and urge them to mandate mask wearing in their states .
And if they refuse I 'll go to the mayors and county executives and get local masking requirements in place nationwide.
” Putting aside the troubling thought of nationalizing local police to enforce a federal initiative , this policy would almost certainly lead to a national surge in confrontations between citizens and law enforcement officials .
This would be a mistake .
If 2020 has taught us anything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ routine encounters between citizens and law enforcement can quickly turn deadly .
The possibility of unintended consequences is not mere conjecture .
As economist Antony Davies and political scientist James Harrigan have pointed out , when it comes to sweeping federal policies , unintended consequences are not the exception , they are the rule .
“ Unintended consequences arise every time an authority imposes its will on people .
Seat belt and airbag laws make it less safe to be a pedestrian or cyclist by making it safer for drivers to be less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ article on the Cobra Effect .
“ Payday lending laws , intended to protect low-income borrowers from high lending rates , make it more expensive for low-income borrowers to borrow by forcing them into even more expensive alternatives.
” This is one of the first lessons of economics .
As famed French economist Frédéric Bastiat showed more than a century and a half ago , policymakers must go beyond the initial act or law to see the entire series of effects , to see not just the “ small present good , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Public health researchers should continue to develop sound science that will help individuals make informed decisions on the use of masks .
But Americans should be wary of sweeping mandates that would use local police to enforce a federal mask policy , especially when the science is not yet settled .
Such an approach is constitutionally dubious , and it may end up doing more harm than good .

A study showing that more than a thousand counties in the US saw COVID-19 hospitalizations decrease after passing mask mandates has been withdrawn.
The study, published on October 23 on the medical site medRxiv, had alleged that hospitalizations for COVID-19 decreased in 1,083 US counties after lawmakers passed mask mandates.
The article was updated on November 4.
“The authors have withdrawn this manuscript because there are increased rates of SARS- CoV-2 cases in the areas that we originally analyzed in this study,” the updated abstract reads. “New analyses in the context of the third surge in the United States are therefore needed and will be undertaken directly in conjunction with the creators of the publicly-available databases on cases, hospitalizations, testing rates.”
A study showing that 1,000+ counties in US saw #Covid_19 hospitalizations fall after passing mask mandates has been retracted.
“The authors have withdrawn this manuscript because there are increased rates of SARS-CoV-2 cases in the areas that we originally analyzed..." pic.twitter.com/0s9EdLqCz3 — Jon Miltimore (@miltimore79) November 10, 2020
A Polarizing Subject
The use of face masks has become an increasingly polarizing topic in the US.
The effectiveness of masks has been a subject of debate, at least in part because public health officials have sent mixed messages. Early in the coronavirus pandemic, the World Health Organization (WHO), the US Surgeon General, and Dr. Anthony Fauci, a leading member of the Trump administration's White House Coronavirus Task Force, all advised against using a mask in public if you were healthy.
Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS!
They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!
https://t.co/UxZRwxxKL9 — U.S. Surgeon General (@Surgeon_General) February 29, 2020
While the WHO, the Surgeon General, and Fauci eventually modified their position, some of Europe’s top health officials have continued to resist calls to mandate or even recommend the use of masks to slow the spread of COVID-19, saying there is little empirical evidence to suggest they have a positive impact.
“The studies so far have not shown a dramatic effect, countries such as France and others, which have obligatory mask-wearing in place, have still experienced a big spread of the disease,” Dr. Anders Tegnell, Sweden’s top infectious disease expert, recently observed.
One retracted study is hardly enough to prove Tegnell and other European health officials are right. But it is likely to fuel debate surrounding the ethics of forcing individuals to wear masks, which some argue is a violation of the Principle of Effectiveness, which states public health agencies are only allowed to recommend interventions they know are effective.
It’s also worth pointing out that masks were not initially controversial. Many Americans began wearing masks in public at the onset of the pandemic. Masks did not become polarizing until governments began mandating their use, which has at times resulted in violent confrontations.
In May, for example, a 22-year-old mother who was not wearing a face covering was wrestled to the ground by New York City police in front of her child after allegedly refusing to comply with requests to cover her nose and mouth.
The encounter prompted the city to end the practice of arresting people for not wearing masks.
The woman, Kaleemah Rozier, announced in June she is suing the city for $10 million for excessive force.
The Perils of Force
Rozier’s case offers an example of the unintended consequences of mask mandates. While the obvious goal of mask mandates is more citizens wearing masks, which may slow the spread of the virus, an unintended consequence is increased interactions between citizens and police.
This is something Americans should keep in mind as we prepare for the possibility of a new presidency. Former Vice President Joe Biden, who is currently projected to win the White House, has said he will “go to every governor and urge them to mandate mask wearing in their states. And if they refuse I'll go to the mayors and county executives and get local masking requirements in place nationwide.”
Putting aside the troubling thought of nationalizing local police to enforce a federal initiative, this policy would almost certainly lead to a national surge in confrontations between citizens and law enforcement officials.
This would be a mistake. If 2020 has taught us anything, it’s that even seemingly routine encounters between citizens and law enforcement can quickly turn deadly.
The possibility of unintended consequences is not mere conjecture. As economist Antony Davies and political scientist James Harrigan have pointed out, when it comes to sweeping federal policies, unintended consequences are not the exception, they are the rule.
“Unintended consequences arise every time an authority imposes its will on people. Seat belt and airbag laws make it less safe to be a pedestrian or cyclist by making it safer for drivers to be less cautious,” they wrote in an article on the Cobra Effect. “Payday lending laws, intended to protect low-income borrowers from high lending rates, make it more expensive for low-income borrowers to borrow by forcing them into even more expensive alternatives.”
This is one of the first lessons of economics. As famed French economist Frédéric Bastiat showed more than a century and a half ago, policymakers must go beyond the initial act or law to see the entire series of effects, to see not just the “small present good,” but the evil that may follow.
Public health researchers should continue to develop sound science that will help individuals make informed decisions on the use of masks. But Americans should be wary of sweeping mandates that would use local police to enforce a federal mask policy, especially when the science is not yet settled.
Such an approach is constitutionally dubious, and it may end up doing more harm than good.