hotair--2020-12-31--FDA to distillers: Thanks for stepping up on hand sanitizer -- now here's our bill

No good deed goes unpunished .
That ’ s especially true when an entire industry rallies in a time of great national need to produce life-saving products such as hand sanitizer to fill massive shortages .
For their patriotic and heroic efforts , the FDA has given American distillers … a $ 14,000 bill , reported the San Joaquin Valley Sun ’ s Alex Tavlian .
But the true villain behind this may not be the bureaucrats : As major producers of hand sanitizer faced a shrinking workforce and sky-high demand in the spring , one unlikely group of businesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increase the supply for panicked consumers .
Now , the Federal government is expecting distillers who rose to the occasion to alleviate the shortage pay the piper .
Tuesday , the U.S. Food and Drug Administration unveiled a new set of fees for organizations operating as “ monograph drug facilities ” producing over-the-counter drugs .
Hand sanitizer is one of those over-the-counter drugs qualifying for fee assessments by its producers – including makeshift sanitizer producers like distillers .
Now , the annual fees assessed by the Federal government are serving as the final @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an already dismal business year for distillers .
The annual fee amounts to $ 14,060 , and it will hammer hundreds of craft distillers that did nothing more than try to help out .
The same fee applies no matter how much sanitizer each distiller produced , either , or even if the distillers gave it all away , as some did .
No matter — the FDA will require each of them to pay the same flat “ facility fee ” they imposed on Tuesday .
Reason ’ s Jacob Grier reminded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the same distillers when they first stepped up in the crisis .
Remember their insistence on denaturing the alcohol first ?
I had forgotten about it : The main ingredient in sanitizer is ethanol , which they are in the business of making , albeit typically in more fun and tasty formats .
More than 800 distilleries pivoted from spirits to sanitizer , offering it for sale or in many cases donating it to their communities free of charge .
Their prompt action helped ensure supplies of sanitizer when it was otherwise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hand sanitizer to get a buzz , and you can see the absurdity in that regulation .
Besides , hand sanitizer is not priced all that differently than , say , cheap vodka or rum .
A one-liter bottle of Everclear 151 runs $ 17.99 at Total Wine , which has a slightly higher proof rating than hand sanitizers that use 70 % alcohol , and that price comes to fifty-three cents an ounce .
Hand sanitizers sold now at Walgreens run between thirty cents to a dollar an ounce , depending on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get , and it was a lot more expensive than that when supplies ran out in the early spring .
Who would be buying hand sanitizer for that kind of consumption when there was no shortage at all of drinkable spirits ?
Come on , man .
Where did the FDA get the authority to impose these fees in the first place ?
Ironically , Congress granted it — in the CARES Act , the first comprehensive emergency-relief bill of the pandemic : So because the distillers cared , they ran afoul of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In other words , this wasn ’ t a bureaucratic snafu , but a deliberate choice made by Congress to tax the very businesses that were producing desperately needed sanitizers when normal producers ran out .
The FDA didn ’ t create this wretched example of ingratitude — they ’ re just the enforcers of it .
It ’ s too late now for this session of Congress to do anything to fix this issue .
Perhaps the next session of Congress will rethink its F-U to small companies that only wanted to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing ’ s for sure — everyone else will rethink that impulse the next time such an emergency occurs .
Update : Welcome to Google News readers !
Hope you ’ ll stay around and check out some of our other stories .

No good deed goes unpunished. That’s especially true when an entire industry rallies in a time of great national need to produce life-saving products such as hand sanitizer to fill massive shortages. For their patriotic and heroic efforts, the FDA has given American distillers … a $14,000 bill, reported the San Joaquin Valley Sun’s Alex Tavlian. But the true villain behind this may not be the bureaucrats:
As major producers of hand sanitizer faced a shrinking workforce and sky-high demand in the spring, one unlikely group of businesses – craft distillers – stepped up to increase the supply for panicked consumers. Now, the Federal government is expecting distillers who rose to the occasion to alleviate the shortage pay the piper. Tuesday, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration unveiled a new set of fees for organizations operating as “monograph drug facilities” producing over-the-counter drugs. Hand sanitizer is one of those over-the-counter drugs qualifying for fee assessments by its producers – including makeshift sanitizer producers like distillers. Now, the annual fees assessed by the Federal government are serving as the final, crushing financial woe to close out an already dismal business year for distillers.
The annual fee amounts to $14,060, and it will hammer hundreds of craft distillers that did nothing more than try to help out. The same fee applies no matter how much sanitizer each distiller produced, either, or even if the distillers gave it all away, as some did. No matter — the FDA will require each of them to pay the same flat “facility fee” they imposed on Tuesday.
Reason’s Jacob Grier reminded readers about the FDA’s helpfulness to the same distillers when they first stepped up in the crisis. Remember their insistence on denaturing the alcohol first? I had forgotten about it:
The main ingredient in sanitizer is ethanol, which they are in the business of making, albeit typically in more fun and tasty formats. More than 800 distilleries pivoted from spirits to sanitizer, offering it for sale or in many cases donating it to their communities free of charge. Their prompt action helped ensure supplies of sanitizer when it was otherwise unobtainable. (Even then, the FDA needlessly complicated things, imposing additional requirements on top of guidelines published by the World Health Organization for emergency production. The FDA’s mandate that all alcohol used in sanitizer first be denatured—rendering it undrinkable—created a bottleneck that raised costs for distillers and slowed production.)
Imagine trying to drink aloe-gel hand sanitizer to get a buzz, and you can see the absurdity in that regulation. Besides, hand sanitizer is not priced all that differently than, say, cheap vodka or rum. A one-liter bottle of Everclear 151 runs $17.99 at Total Wine, which has a slightly higher proof rating than hand sanitizers that use 70% alcohol, and that price comes to fifty-three cents an ounce. Hand sanitizers sold now at Walgreens run between thirty cents to a dollar an ounce, depending on what you buy and how much you get, and it was a lot more expensive than that when supplies ran out in the early spring. Who would be buying hand sanitizer for that kind of consumption when there was no shortage at all of drinkable spirits? Come on, man.
Where did the FDA get the authority to impose these fees in the first place? Ironically, Congress granted it — in the CARES Act, the first comprehensive emergency-relief bill of the pandemic:
At issue is a provision of the CARES Act that reformed regulation of non-prescription drugs. Under the revised law, distilleries that produced sanitizer have been classified as “over-the-counter drug monograph facilities.” The CARES Act also enacted user fees on these facilities to fund the FDA’s regulatory activities. For small distillers, that means ending the year with a surprise bill for $14,060 due on February 11.
So because the distillers cared, they ran afoul of the CARES Act … and Congress. In other words, this wasn’t a bureaucratic snafu, but a deliberate choice made by Congress to tax the very businesses that were producing desperately needed sanitizers when normal producers ran out. The FDA didn’t create this wretched example of ingratitude — they’re just the enforcers of it.
It’s too late now for this session of Congress to do anything to fix this issue. Perhaps the next session of Congress will rethink its F-U to small companies that only wanted to help out in an emergency. One thing’s for sure — everyone else will rethink that impulse the next time such an emergency occurs.
Update: Welcome to Google News readers! Hope you’ll stay around and check out some of our other stories.


hotair--2020-01-31--Breaking: Lamar Alexander a  no on witnesses

It ’ s not over yet … but it ’ s getting closer and closer to over with this press release e-mailed from the office of retiring Sen. Lamar Alexander ( R-TN ) .
After a late-night session closed out the question session of the trial of Donald Trump , Alexander declared he ’ d heard and seen enough : “ I worked with other senators to make sure that we have the right to ask for more documents and witnesses , but there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s high bar for an impeachable offense .
“ There is no need for more evidence to prove that the president asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son , Hunter ; he said this on television on October 3 , 2019 , and during his July 25 , 2019 , telephone call with the president of Ukraine .
There is no need for more evidence to conclude that the president withheld United States aid , at least in part , to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens ; the House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ call a ‘ mountain of overwhelming evidence.
’ There is no need to consider further the frivolous second article of impeachment that would remove the president for asserting his constitutional prerogative to protect confidential conversations with his close advisers .
“ It was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to encourage that investigation .
When elected officials inappropriately interfere with such investigations , it undermines the principle of equal justice under the law .
But the Constitution does not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president from office and ban him from this year ’ s ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate .
“ The question then is not whether the president did it , but whether the United States Senate or the American people should decide what to do about what he did .
I believe that the Constitution provides that the people should make that decision in the presidential election that begins in Iowa on Monday .
“ The Senate has spent nine long days considering this ‘ mountain ’ of evidence , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president ’ s lawyers , their answers to senators ’ questions and the House record .
Even if the House charges were true , they do not meet the Constitution ’ s ‘ treason , bribery , or other high crimes and misdemeanors ’ standard for an impeachable offense .
“ The framers believed that there should never , ever be a partisan impeachment .
That is why the Constitution requires a 2/3 vote of the Senate for conviction .
Yet not one House Republican voted for these articles .
If this shallow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to succeed , it would rip the country apart , pouring gasoline on the fire of cultural divisions that already exist .
It would create the weapon of perpetual impeachment to be used against future presidents whenever the House of Representatives is of a different political party .
“ Our founding documents provide for duly elected presidents who serve with ‘ the consent of the governed , ’ not at the pleasure of the United States Congress .
Let the people decide.
” Alexander took the middle ground within the caucus .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but says it only rises to the level of “ inappropriate ” rather than “ high crimes or misdemeanors.
” As Alan Dershowitz declared in his presentation , let the public decide .
Roll Call ’ s Katherine Tully-McManus notes that the math is getting very bad for Senate Democrats .
The news for Chuck Schumer wasn ’ t all bad , however : Senators used their second and final day of questioning in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump to tee up debate on whether to subpoena documents and witnesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s inquiry .
The late-night announcement that Tennessee Republican Lamar Alexander will vote against additional witnesses Friday signals there likely won ’ t be enough votes to continue the trial much longer .
… With all eyes on moderates , Republicans and Democrats who reside in the middle took the chance Thursday to dig into remaining uncertainties they had about the case before the next day ’ s critical vote .
Alexander , a moderate and institutionalist , had been mum on the issue until Thursday night .
Among the most scrutinized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first out of the gate after the chamber adjourned Thursday to announce she would vote to consider witnesses .
“ I believe hearing from certain witnesses would give each side the opportunity to more fully and fairly make their case , resolve any ambiguities , and provide additional clarity .
Therefore , I will vote in support of the motion to allow witnesses and documents to be subpoenaed , ” she said in a statement .
Collins was always likely to vote that direction .
She faces a tough re-election campaign in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ centrist boost after the Kavanaugh vote .
Some wondered whether Alexander would join her , given that he ’ s not going to face voters again at all , but he ’ s sticking with the team .
Now it ’ s down to Lisa Murkowski and Mitt Romney , and that only gets Schumer to 50 .
In a tie vote , the motion will fail — and Murkowski ’ s been sending mixed signals ever since Jerrold Nadler accused Republicans of participating in a cover-up .
Will both of them allow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or will they just put an end to the proceedings and get to the acquittal everyone knows is coming ?
We don ’ t know yet … but we ’ re getting close .

It’s not over yet … but it’s getting closer and closer to over with this press release e-mailed from the office of retiring Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN). After a late-night session closed out the question session of the trial of Donald Trump, Alexander declared he’d heard and seen enough:
“I worked with other senators to make sure that we have the right to ask for more documents and witnesses, but there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the United States Constitution’s high bar for an impeachable offense. “There is no need for more evidence to prove that the president asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter; he said this on television on October 3, 2019, and during his July 25, 2019, telephone call with the president of Ukraine. There is no need for more evidence to conclude that the president withheld United States aid, at least in part, to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens; the House managers have proved this with what they call a ‘mountain of overwhelming evidence.’ There is no need to consider further the frivolous second article of impeachment that would remove the president for asserting his constitutional prerogative to protect confidential conversations with his close advisers. “It was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to encourage that investigation. When elected officials inappropriately interfere with such investigations, it undermines the principle of equal justice under the law. But the Constitution does not give the Senate the power to remove the president from office and ban him from this year’s ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate. “The question then is not whether the president did it, but whether the United States Senate or the American people should decide what to do about what he did. I believe that the Constitution provides that the people should make that decision in the presidential election that begins in Iowa on Monday. “The Senate has spent nine long days considering this ‘mountain’ of evidence, the arguments of the House managers and the president’s lawyers, their answers to senators’ questions and the House record. Even if the House charges were true, they do not meet the Constitution’s ‘treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors’ standard for an impeachable offense. “The framers believed that there should never, ever be a partisan impeachment. That is why the Constitution requires a 2/3 vote of the Senate for conviction. Yet not one House Republican voted for these articles. If this shallow, hurried and wholly partisan impeachment were to succeed, it would rip the country apart, pouring gasoline on the fire of cultural divisions that already exist. It would create the weapon of perpetual impeachment to be used against future presidents whenever the House of Representatives is of a different political party. “Our founding documents provide for duly elected presidents who serve with ‘the consent of the governed,’ not at the pleasure of the United States Congress. Let the people decide.”
Alexander took the middle ground within the caucus. He won’t defend what Trump did, but says it only rises to the level of “inappropriate” rather than “high crimes or misdemeanors.” As Alan Dershowitz declared in his presentation, let the public decide.
Roll Call’s Katherine Tully-McManus notes that the math is getting very bad for Senate Democrats. The news for Chuck Schumer wasn’t all bad, however:
Senators used their second and final day of questioning in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump to tee up debate on whether to subpoena documents and witnesses that did not appear during the House’s inquiry. The late-night announcement that Tennessee Republican Lamar Alexander will vote against additional witnesses Friday signals there likely won’t be enough votes to continue the trial much longer. … With all eyes on moderates, Republicans and Democrats who reside in the middle took the chance Thursday to dig into remaining uncertainties they had about the case before the next day’s critical vote. Alexander, a moderate and institutionalist, had been mum on the issue until Thursday night. Among the most scrutinized senators, Maine Republican Susan Collins was first out of the gate after the chamber adjourned Thursday to announce she would vote to consider witnesses. “I believe hearing from certain witnesses would give each side the opportunity to more fully and fairly make their case, resolve any ambiguities, and provide additional clarity. Therefore, I will vote in support of the motion to allow witnesses and documents to be subpoenaed,” she said in a statement.
Collins was always likely to vote that direction. She faces a tough re-election campaign in a purple-to-blue state, and she needs some centrist boost after the Kavanaugh vote. Some wondered whether Alexander would join her, given that he’s not going to face voters again at all, but he’s sticking with the team. Now it’s down to Lisa Murkowski and Mitt Romney, and that only gets Schumer to 50. In a tie vote, the motion will fail — and Murkowski’s been sending mixed signals ever since Jerrold Nadler accused Republicans of participating in a cover-up. Will both of them allow the Senate to fall into a tie, or will they just put an end to the proceedings and get to the acquittal everyone knows is coming?
We don’t know yet … but we’re getting close.


hotair--2020-01-30--Moderate Democrats warn Sanders' policies will lead party to November wipeout

It seems there ’ s a new story like this published once or twice a week now .
They are all slightly different but reflect the same general concern emanating from moderate Democrats , i.e .
Bernie Sanders is going to lead Democrats to disaster .
Today ’ s edition of this story was published by the LA Times under the headline “ Sanders ’ rise fueling internal fight as some Democrats fear a November wipeout.
” Pete Buttigieg , the former mayor of South Bend , Ind.
, stokes anxiety about a Sanders victory in a plea for donations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shade in a new Iowa ad saying , “ This isn ’ t the election to take a risk.
” Third Way , a centrist Democratic group , sent a panicky memo to hundreds of Iowa Democrats warning against a Sanders nomination .
In one of the most assertive moves , a Democratic political action committee is airing a statewide TV spot questioning Sanders ’ ability to beat Trump and raising the issue of his health by reminding viewers of the 78-year-old candidate ’ s heart attack in October .
“ Iowa is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mark Mellman , a veteran Democratic strategist who produced the ad but is not allied with any 2020 candidate .
“ If he wins Iowa , he wins New Hampshire , then very likely wins Nevada , ” Mellman added , naming the first three states to vote .
“ He ’ d be very hard to stop at that point.
” Here ’ s the ad which a pro-Israel Democratic super PAC is now running in Iowa .
Sample quote : “ Michigan , Pennsylvania , Iowa—they ’ re just not going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s some evidence the gist of the ad is correct , i.e .
the rust belt is not going to be fond of some of Sanders ’ policy positions .
Today Sanders introduced a bill designed to create a national ban on fracking .
Elected Democrats have already warned that position is likely to be a loser in the state .
But an even bigger problem for Bernie is his support for Medicare for All .
Today Third Way , the center-left group which has been raising the alarm about a Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is underwater in Michigan , Pennsylvania , and Wisconsin .
Here ’ s a chart the group produced showing the results : Biden ’ s position ( building on the ACA ) polls the best .
As you can see , voters are no more enthusiastic about Trump ’ s repeal and replace plan than Sanders Medicare for All .
That would seem to blunt any advantage in a head to head matchup .
However , Trump could moderate or downplay his plan at any point while everyone knows Sanders will not give @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before you look at the bottom line .
Today , a new analysis of Sanders ’ M4A plan concluded it could shrink the economy by 24 percent between now and 2060 .
That ’ s assuming the plan is financed by deficit spending .
The alternative is to raise income taxes and/or payroll taxes substantially to cover the cost of the plan .
I guarantee that once you include the tax increases in the question about M4A , support for it will drop even further .
As Third Way notes , it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk if he wins the nomination .
“ Imagine Iowa Democratic candidates having to run this year on an agenda that includes tens of trillions in new spending , more than doubling the size of the federal government .
They would also have to defend the largest tax increase since WWII on the middle class and small business.
” Is Sanders going to campaign on behalf of struggling centrists ?
You can bet his favorite surrogate AOC won ’ t .
Instead they will be left to struggle on their own .
Jonathan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of insanity ” and I think that ’ s pretty accurate if you look at the numbers .
But it appears many Democrats aren ’ t really listening to any of these warnings .
They are convinced that America ’ s Corbyn can somehow win back states Trump won in 2016 on a socialist platform .
Good luck with all of that , I guess .

It seems there’s a new story like this published once or twice a week now. They are all slightly different but reflect the same general concern emanating from moderate Democrats, i.e. Bernie Sanders is going to lead Democrats to disaster. Today’s edition of this story was published by the LA Times under the headline “Sanders’ rise fueling internal fight as some Democrats fear a November wipeout.”
Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Ind., stokes anxiety about a Sanders victory in a plea for donations. Former Vice President Joe Biden throws shade in a new Iowa ad saying, “This isn’t the election to take a risk.” Third Way, a centrist Democratic group, sent a panicky memo to hundreds of Iowa Democrats warning against a Sanders nomination. In one of the most assertive moves, a Democratic political action committee is airing a statewide TV spot questioning Sanders’ ability to beat Trump and raising the issue of his health by reminding viewers of the 78-year-old candidate’s heart attack in October. “Iowa is a vital choke point,” said Mark Mellman, a veteran Democratic strategist who produced the ad but is not allied with any 2020 candidate. “If he wins Iowa, he wins New Hampshire, then very likely wins Nevada,” Mellman added, naming the first three states to vote. “He’d be very hard to stop at that point.”
Here’s the ad which a pro-Israel Democratic super PAC is now running in Iowa. Sample quote: “Michigan, Pennsylvania, Iowa—they’re just not going to vote for a socialist.”
There’s some evidence the gist of the ad is correct, i.e. the rust belt is not going to be fond of some of Sanders’ policy positions. Today Sanders introduced a bill designed to create a national ban on fracking. Elected Democrats have already warned that position is likely to be a loser in the state.
But an even bigger problem for Bernie is his support for Medicare for All. Today Third Way, the center-left group which has been raising the alarm about a Sanders nomination, published poll results showing M4A is underwater in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Here’s a chart the group produced showing the results:
Biden’s position (building on the ACA) polls the best. As you can see, voters are no more enthusiastic about Trump’s repeal and replace plan than Sanders Medicare for All. That would seem to blunt any advantage in a head to head matchup. However, Trump could moderate or downplay his plan at any point while everyone knows Sanders will not give an inch.
And these results are before you look at the bottom line. Today, a new analysis of Sanders’ M4A plan concluded it could shrink the economy by 24 percent between now and 2060. That’s assuming the plan is financed by deficit spending. The alternative is to raise income taxes and/or payroll taxes substantially to cover the cost of the plan. I guarantee that once you include the tax increases in the question about M4A, support for it will drop even further.
As Third Way notes, it’s not just Sanders who is at risk if he wins the nomination. “Imagine Iowa Democratic candidates having to run this year on an agenda that includes tens of trillions in new spending, more than doubling the size of the federal government. They would also have to defend the largest tax increase since WWII on the middle class and small business.” Is Sanders going to campaign on behalf of struggling centrists? You can bet his favorite surrogate AOC won’t. Instead they will be left to struggle on their own.
Jonathan Chait called nominating Sanders an “act of insanity” and I think that’s pretty accurate if you look at the numbers. But it appears many Democrats aren’t really listening to any of these warnings. They are convinced that America’s Corbyn can somehow win back states Trump won in 2016 on a socialist platform. Good luck with all of that, I guess.


hotair--2020-01-30--Small government groups find exciting new cause: Dumping on Romney for wanting to call witnesses at

Small government groups find exciting new cause: Dumping on Romney for wanting to call witnesses at Trump's trial

They ’ ve learned the same lesson that Kelly Loeffler has .
If you want to make Republicans eager to support you in 2020 , you don ’ t chatter at them about the national debt or government spending or the looming entitlement crisis .
They don ’ t care .
Not unless there ’ s a Democrat in office and the issues can be weaponized as a partisan cudgel .
We can always worry about running trillion-dollar deficits next year .
Or in 2025 , as electoral circumstances warrant .
If you want to get Republicans excited enough to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your advocacy org , you chatter at them about owning Trump ’ s enemies .
Usually that means the libs , but in special circumstances it might mean dorky old-school Republican Mitt Romney .
This feels like the perfect complement to Rand Paul ’ s tussle with John Roberts today .
Click the image for the full-sized version as it ’ s cut off at the bottom as you see it here : Paul got elected to the Senate in 2010 at the height of tea-party fever , vowing to shrink government before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he spends most of his time running interference for Trump , occasionally getting a political payoff in the form of the president doing something dovish on foreign policy .
( And occasionally getting the opposite . )
As others have noted on political Twitter today , it speaks volumes that one of Congress ’ s few self-described libertarians is more interested in fighting with Roberts over naming the whistleblower than he is in challenging Team Trump ’ s ambitious concept of presidential authority .
But in a way he ’ s stayed true @ @ @ @ @ @ @ free marketeer so he ’ s following the laws of political supply and demand .
Defending Trump at all costs is in high demand , libertarianism is in very short demand , so Paul ’ s adjusted his supply accordingly .
Same for FreedomWorks , one of the highest-profile small-government groups to emerge during the tea-party era .
They have a history with Romney , sort of .
In 2011 they protested his appearances on the presidential campaign trial in New Hampshire because of his questionable conservative resume , most famously his role @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We have to defend our brand against poseurs , ” said one of the group ’ s top organizers .
In 2020 , two days after CBO announced that America is projected to run another unimaginably huge deficit next year and even bigger deficits for the rest of the decade — this , despite a booming economy that should be closing the gap between revenue and expenditures — they ’ re consumed with Romney ’ s vote on witnesses in Trump ’ s trial .
A vote , by the way , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meaningless in deciding the issue .
And that ’ s being cast by a guy who won ’ t face voters in Utah again for nearly five years .
If you were in charge of ad expenditures for FreedomWorks and you *really* wanted to try to influence tomorrow ’ s vote on witnesses , would your money be better spent targeting Romney or targeting Lisa Murkowski and Lamar Alexander , the two Republicans who are most famously on the fence about what to do ?
This ad isn ’ t aimed at Utahns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s version of virtue-signaling to online Trump fans .
“ You hate Romney ?
We hate Romney too .
How about signing up for our mailing list or maybe making a donation ?
” Cynical , but it ’ s not this FreedomWorks ad that hurts the most .
The TV ad below from the Club for Growth is what really hurts , partly because the CFG is — or was — such a well-respected advocate for fiscal conservatism on the right and partly because it ’ s so aggressively stupid in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off as an attack on him for wanting to call witnesses before transitioning into … a demand to call witnesses , specifically Hunter Biden .
Except : 1 .
Romney sounds willing to call Biden .
Two days ago the Washington Examiner asked him if the Bidens should be subpoenaed in exchange for Bolton testifying and he answered , “ I think if you heard from one side , you probably ought to have the chance to hear from a witness from the other side.
” 2 .
Even if he didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surely understands that Biden would be called once the door is opened to calling witnesses because Republicans have the votes to call anyone they want .
Here again , as with the FreedomWorks ad , we have a case of a righty outfit demagoging Romney to do what they want when their effort would be better spent elsewhere .
As of now Romney and Collins are the only two Republicans who *are* willing to let people like Bolton and Biden testify .
If the Club for Growth wants to hear from Hunter so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at McConnell , Cruz , Graham , and the 48 other Senate Republicans who are planning to march in there tomorrow and vote no on all witnesses .
3 .
It takes brass balls to accuse Romney of not being able to “ handle the truth ” at a moment when the GOP is prepared to block Bolton because they fear , for good reason , that he might have something incriminating to say about the president .
This won ’ t be a case of skipping a witness because he has nothing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This is a case of suppressing a witness because he probably does have something to add , maybe a lot , and the inevitable acquittal will smell a little better if his testimony isn ’ t on record when that verdict is issued .
Why is this ad so idiotic when it could have been a straightforward “ Romney ’ s a RINO , there shouldn ’ t be witnesses ” jab ?
Because the CFG knows that attacking Romney and attacking Hunter Biden are two distinct political erogenous zones for its target @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of those zones in hopes of maximizing whatever it is they ’ re hoping to get out of this — social-media engagement , donations , mail-list sign-ups , approving Trump tweets , or some combo of all of that .
It doesn ’ t need to make sense , it just needs to demagogue the right people .
Mission accomplished .

They’ve learned the same lesson that Kelly Loeffler has. If you want to make Republicans eager to support you in 2020, you don’t chatter at them about the national debt or government spending or the looming entitlement crisis. They don’t care. Not unless there’s a Democrat in office and the issues can be weaponized as a partisan cudgel.
We can always worry about running trillion-dollar deficits next year. Or in 2025, as electoral circumstances warrant.
If you want to get Republicans excited enough to line the pockets of your campaign or your advocacy org, you chatter at them about owning Trump’s enemies. Usually that means the libs, but in special circumstances it might mean dorky old-school Republican Mitt Romney.
This feels like the perfect complement to Rand Paul’s tussle with John Roberts today. Click the image for the full-sized version as it’s cut off at the bottom as you see it here:
🚨 FreedomWorks Ad Buy in Salt Lake Tribune Urges @MittRomney to Vote for NO New Witnesses! 🚨#ampFW via https://t.co/2tpUDlQCqG pic.twitter.com/hTwVqTBS3N — FreedomWorks (@FreedomWorks) January 30, 2020
Paul got elected to the Senate in 2010 at the height of tea-party fever, vowing to shrink government before it swallowed Americans’ liberties. Nowadays he spends most of his time running interference for Trump, occasionally getting a political payoff in the form of the president doing something dovish on foreign policy. (And occasionally getting the opposite.) As others have noted on political Twitter today, it speaks volumes that one of Congress’s few self-described libertarians is more interested in fighting with Roberts over naming the whistleblower than he is in challenging Team Trump’s ambitious concept of presidential authority. But in a way he’s stayed true to himself: He’s a free marketeer so he’s following the laws of political supply and demand. Defending Trump at all costs is in high demand, libertarianism is in very short demand, so Paul’s adjusted his supply accordingly.
Same for FreedomWorks, one of the highest-profile small-government groups to emerge during the tea-party era. They have a history with Romney, sort of. In 2011 they protested his appearances on the presidential campaign trial in New Hampshire because of his questionable conservative resume, most famously his role in bringing RomneyCare to Massachusetts. “We have to defend our brand against poseurs,” said one of the group’s top organizers. In 2020, two days after CBO announced that America is projected to run another unimaginably huge deficit next year and even bigger deficits for the rest of the decade — this, despite a booming economy that should be closing the gap between revenue and expenditures — they’re consumed with Romney’s vote on witnesses in Trump’s trial.
A vote, by the way, that’s all but certain to be meaningless in deciding the issue. And that’s being cast by a guy who won’t face voters in Utah again for nearly five years. If you were in charge of ad expenditures for FreedomWorks and you *really* wanted to try to influence tomorrow’s vote on witnesses, would your money be better spent targeting Romney or targeting Lisa Murkowski and Lamar Alexander, the two Republicans who are most famously on the fence about what to do?
This ad isn’t aimed at Utahns, obviously. It’s FreedomWorks’s version of virtue-signaling to online Trump fans. “You hate Romney? We hate Romney too. How about signing up for our mailing list or maybe making a donation?”
Cynical, but it’s not this FreedomWorks ad that hurts the most. The TV ad below from the Club for Growth is what really hurts, partly because the CFG is — or was — such a well-respected advocate for fiscal conservatism on the right and partly because it’s so aggressively stupid in its criticisms of Romney. It starts off as an attack on him for wanting to call witnesses before transitioning into … a demand to call witnesses, specifically Hunter Biden. Except:
1. Romney sounds willing to call Biden. Two days ago the Washington Examiner asked him if the Bidens should be subpoenaed in exchange for Bolton testifying and he answered, “I think if you heard from one side, you probably ought to have the chance to hear from a witness from the other side.”
2. Even if he didn’t want to call Biden, Romney surely understands that Biden would be called once the door is opened to calling witnesses because Republicans have the votes to call anyone they want. Here again, as with the FreedomWorks ad, we have a case of a righty outfit demagoging Romney to do what they want when their effort would be better spent elsewhere. As of now Romney and Collins are the only two Republicans who *are* willing to let people like Bolton and Biden testify. If the Club for Growth wants to hear from Hunter so badly they should have aimed this ad at McConnell, Cruz, Graham, and the 48 other Senate Republicans who are planning to march in there tomorrow and vote no on all witnesses.
3. It takes brass balls to accuse Romney of not being able to “handle the truth” at a moment when the GOP is prepared to block Bolton because they fear, for good reason, that he might have something incriminating to say about the president. This won’t be a case of skipping a witness because he has nothing material to add to the evidence. This is a case of suppressing a witness because he probably does have something to add, maybe a lot, and the inevitable acquittal will smell a little better if his testimony isn’t on record when that verdict is issued.
Why is this ad so idiotic when it could have been a straightforward “Romney’s a RINO, there shouldn’t be witnesses” jab? Because the CFG knows that attacking Romney and attacking Hunter Biden are two distinct political erogenous zones for its target audience and they wanted to stroke both of those zones in hopes of maximizing whatever it is they’re hoping to get out of this — social-media engagement, donations, mail-list sign-ups, approving Trump tweets, or some combo of all of that. It doesn’t need to make sense, it just needs to demagogue the right people. Mission accomplished.


hotair--2020-01-30--Warren: Does this trial contribute to loss of faith in the Chief Justice and the constitution?

This afternoon Elizabeth Warren decided to go full Leeroy Jenkins and toss a rhetorical bomb at Chief Justice John Roberts .
She dragged the rest of the Supreme Court and the constitution in for good measure .
Chief Justice Roberts read her question : “ At a time when large majorities of Americans have lost faith in government , does the fact that the Chief Justice is presiding over an impeachment trial in which Republican senators have thus far refused to allow witnesses or evidence contribute to the loss of legitimacy of the Chief Justice , the Supreme Court , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the point of this exactly ?
A reporter for the Washington Post says others in the chamber were bewildered by it : Outside the chamber , some people on Twitter are suggesting maybe this was Warren ’ s attempt to push Roberts into siding with Dems on witnesses , i.e .
by making this a question about his and the court ’ s legitimacy he might be more inclined to vote accordingly .
For example : Would it really help Roberts ’ legitimacy if Americans are left with the impression that he was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senator currently running for president ?
I don ’ t think that ’ s how judicial independence and legitimacy work .
Others on the left are just pleased Warren is taking a swing at Roberts : Of course not everyone was a fan of this stunt : Rep. Schiff pretty quickly backed away from Warren ’ s question .
“ Senator , I would not say that it contributes to a loss of confidence in the Chief Justice .
I think the Chief Justice has presided admirably.
” He went on to say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ call witnesses it would feed cynicism that “ is corrosive to this institution and our democracy.
” So what point was Warren trying to make ?
Well , she ’ s been fading in the polls and she could really use a viral impeachment bump about now .
I think that ’ s the most likely explanation .
Here ’ s the clip showing the Chief Justice reading Warren ’ s question followed by the first part of Schiff ’ s response :

This afternoon Elizabeth Warren decided to go full Leeroy Jenkins and toss a rhetorical bomb at Chief Justice John Roberts. She dragged the rest of the Supreme Court and the constitution in for good measure. Chief Justice Roberts read her question: “At a time when large majorities of Americans have lost faith in government, does the fact that the Chief Justice is presiding over an impeachment trial in which Republican senators have thus far refused to allow witnesses or evidence contribute to the loss of legitimacy of the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court, and the constitution?”
What was the point of this exactly? A reporter for the Washington Post says others in the chamber were bewildered by it:
As @pkcapitol notes, the seeming attack on Roberts came a day ahead of a potential tie vote where Dems have been courting Roberts to intervene. Pelosi very solicitous today; D sens uniformly respectful. — Mike DeBonis (@mikedebonis) January 30, 2020
Outside the chamber, some people on Twitter are suggesting maybe this was Warren’s attempt to push Roberts into siding with Dems on witnesses, i.e. by making this a question about his and the court’s legitimacy he might be more inclined to vote accordingly. For example:
It was a terrific question by Elizabeth Warren. Maybe it will serve to make Chief Justice Roberts think if the vote for witnesses is 50-50. — Ron Waxman 🏳🌈 (@RonWaxman) January 30, 2020
Warren knows how to leverage power. She knows that Roberts cares most about his legacy as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. And she is laying down a marker that this trial will define him. Brilliant. https://t.co/hC41qM0k5E — 🕷Dante Atkins🕷 (@DanteAtkins) January 30, 2020
Would it really help Roberts’ legitimacy if Americans are left with the impression that he was bullied into the corner by a far-left Senator currently running for president? I don’t think that’s how judicial independence and legitimacy work. Others on the left are just pleased Warren is taking a swing at Roberts:
I support this question. It's outside-the-box thinking—unconventional and cutting—but there's no other way for Chief Justice Roberts to be made to take *some* ownership of the fact that he's knowingly, as an attorney and judge, presiding over a sham trial. https://t.co/pKfDXnEYd7 — Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) January 30, 2020
Warren is the only Democrat so far to put Roberts on the spot. — Brian Fallon (@brianefallon) January 30, 2020
Of course not everyone was a fan of this stunt:
This is a bizarre question. It's hard to believe it's asked in good faith. She knows that Justice Roberts doesn't have trial judge-type powers over impeachment. Otherwise he could entertain a motion to dismiss the whole case. This is the senate's proceeding, not his. https://t.co/DSkVk1N2hE — David French (@DavidAFrench) January 30, 2020
The fact that Senator Warren submitted this question, and the fact that Chief Justice Roberts read it unflinchingly, highlights how well and dutifully he executes his office, and how poorly and cynically she executes hers. https://t.co/mZJhmgf8nn — Adam White (@adamjwhitedc) January 30, 2020
Rep. Schiff pretty quickly backed away from Warren’s question. “Senator, I would not say that it contributes to a loss of confidence in the Chief Justice. I think the Chief Justice has presided admirably.” He went on to say that if the Senate doesn’t call witnesses it would feed cynicism that “is corrosive to this institution and our democracy.”
So what point was Warren trying to make? Well, she’s been fading in the polls and she could really use a viral impeachment bump about now. I think that’s the most likely explanation. Here’s the clip showing the Chief Justice reading Warren’s question followed by the first part of Schiff’s response:
WATCH: Chief Justice Roberts reads an impeachment trial question from Sen. Warren that focuses on Republican senators, witnesses and the legitimacy of the chief justice, the US Supreme Court and the US Constitution. pic.twitter.com/rQpXcbkTnX — MSNBC (@MSNBC) January 30, 2020
1/31 Update: Looks like Warren’s stunt backfired a bit.
https://twitter.com/AaronBlake/status/1223310015630643200


hotair--2020-01-30--WHO declares Coronavirus a world health emergency

Yesterday the World Health Organization ( WHO ) warned that the whole world must be on alert for the coronavirus .
It said an expert committee would meet Thursday to determine if the Wuhan coronavirus outbreak should be declared a public health emergency of international concern .
That committee has decided today to the virus a world health emergency .
Citing the concern over human to human transmissions found in several countries , a world health emergency has been declared .
In just one short week , the WHO has gone from holding back on making such an alert to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As Jazz has noted , the screening for this virus has been slow to come and of the real possibility of quarantines here in the United States .
The Chinese government quarantined millions of its citizens .
President Trump said he is working with the Chinese government to do what can be done to stop the spread of the disease .
Human to human transmission has been confirmed in the United States now – a Chicago man ’ s illness was confirmed Thursday which brings the number of cases confirmed to six in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the WHO gives guidance to world governments to make decisions about protecting its residents .
The W.H.O.
’ s declaration — officially called a “ public health emergency of international concern ” — does not have the force of law .
But it serves notice to all United Nations member states that the world ’ s top health advisory body thinks the situation is grave .
Governments then make their own decisions about whether to close their borders , cancel flights , screen people arriving at airports or take other protective measures .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So far , the countries affected are those capable of handling the financial burdens of the outbreak .
Those countries are China , Japan , Germany , South Korea , the United States , Australia , and Vietnam .
Some borders are being closed to prevent spreading the disease and Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus , the W.H.O.
’ s director-general is pleased with China ’ s aggressive actions to date .
Dr. Tedros , who met with President Xi Jinping in Beijing on Tuesday , said Mr. Xi had led “ a monumental @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was “ struck by the determination of Chinese leadership ” and by how much Mr. Xi personally understood about the outbreak .
China said on Thursday that another 38 people had died from the disease , bringing the total to 170 .
Nearly 8,000 cases have been reported worldwide , almost all of them in mainland China .
On Thursday , Russia closed its 2,600-mile border with China and stopped all trains except for one between Moscow and Beijing .
The Chicago man is married to a woman who was hospitalized after returning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where the virus originated .
Her husband , the new case , didn ’ t travel with her but apparently caught it from her upon her return .
Both are in their 60s .
He is now hospitalized , too .
Don ’ t worry , says the Chicago Department of Public Health and others in the field .
“ This news may raise people ’ s concerns , but I want to state clearly that this development is something that we have been prepared for , ” Allison Arwady , chief medical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , said at a press conference Thursday .
“ It ’ s not totally unexpected that he acquired the virus.
” “ I ’ m not surprised by a sporadic second-generation case , ” said Greg Poland , director of the Mayo Clinic Vaccine Research Group .
“ But everybody ’ s holding their breath to see if we ’ ll have third or fourth generation cases .
Did this spouse spread the virus ?
” In fact , at a press briefing last week , the CDC ’ s Dr. Nancy Messonnier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to see some cases among close contacts of travelers and human-to-human transmission.
” Ngozi Ezike , director of the Illinois Department of Public Health , said 21 people are being investigated for coronavirus .
Health officials said that it is still not yet clear how easily the virus spreads from one person to another .
It does alarm people , though , and for those of us who hold government officials with a bit of natural suspicion aren ’ t necessarily persuaded by claims of preparedness .
There is no vaccine but scientists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strides in that area .
They have successfully grown the coronavirus from a patient .
In the meantime , we can remain vigilant and take normal precautions .
It ’ s cold and flu season anyway so everyone should be taking care to do the basics of frequent hand-washing and remembering to cover mouths when coughing and turning away to sneeze into your sleeve .
Most importantly , get to a doctor if necessary .
Don ’ t panic but stay alert .

Yesterday the World Health Organization (WHO) warned that the whole world must be on alert for the coronavirus. It said an expert committee would meet Thursday to determine if the Wuhan coronavirus outbreak should be declared a public health emergency of international concern. That committee has decided today to the virus a world health emergency.
Citing the concern over human to human transmissions found in several countries, a world health emergency has been declared. In just one short week, the WHO has gone from holding back on making such an alert to deciding it is a necessary action. As Jazz has noted, the screening for this virus has been slow to come and of the real possibility of quarantines here in the United States. The Chinese government quarantined millions of its citizens. President Trump said he is working with the Chinese government to do what can be done to stop the spread of the disease.
Human to human transmission has been confirmed in the United States now – a Chicago man’s illness was confirmed Thursday which brings the number of cases confirmed to six in the United States. The declaration by the WHO gives guidance to world governments to make decisions about protecting its residents.
The W.H.O.’s declaration — officially called a “public health emergency of international concern” — does not have the force of law. But it serves notice to all United Nations member states that the world’s top health advisory body thinks the situation is grave. Governments then make their own decisions about whether to close their borders, cancel flights, screen people arriving at airports or take other protective measures.
There is a money issue, too. So far, the countries affected are those capable of handling the financial burdens of the outbreak. Those countries are China, Japan, Germany, South Korea, the United States, Australia, and Vietnam. Some borders are being closed to prevent spreading the disease and Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the W.H.O.’s director-general is pleased with China’s aggressive actions to date.
Dr. Tedros, who met with President Xi Jinping in Beijing on Tuesday, said Mr. Xi had led “a monumental national response,” and that he was “struck by the determination of Chinese leadership” and by how much Mr. Xi personally understood about the outbreak. China said on Thursday that another 38 people had died from the disease, bringing the total to 170. Nearly 8,000 cases have been reported worldwide, almost all of them in mainland China. On Thursday, Russia closed its 2,600-mile border with China and stopped all trains except for one between Moscow and Beijing.
The Chicago man is married to a woman who was hospitalized after returning from Wuhan, China, the location where the virus originated. Her husband, the new case, didn’t travel with her but apparently caught it from her upon her return. Both are in their 60s. He is now hospitalized, too. Don’t worry, says the Chicago Department of Public Health and others in the field.
“This news may raise people’s concerns, but I want to state clearly that this development is something that we have been prepared for,” Allison Arwady, chief medical officer at Chicago Department of Public Health, said at a press conference Thursday. “It’s not totally unexpected that he acquired the virus.” “I’m not surprised by a sporadic second-generation case,” said Greg Poland, director of the Mayo Clinic Vaccine Research Group. “But everybody’s holding their breath to see if we’ll have third or fourth generation cases. Did this spouse spread the virus?” In fact, at a press briefing last week, the CDC’s Dr. Nancy Messonnier warned that “We are likely going to see some cases among close contacts of travelers and human-to-human transmission.” Ngozi Ezike, director of the Illinois Department of Public Health, said 21 people are being investigated for coronavirus. Health officials said that it is still not yet clear how easily the virus spreads from one person to another.
It does alarm people, though, and for those of us who hold government officials with a bit of natural suspicion aren’t necessarily persuaded by claims of preparedness. There is no vaccine but scientists in Melbourne, Australia have made great strides in that area. They have successfully grown the coronavirus from a patient. In the meantime, we can remain vigilant and take normal precautions. It’s cold and flu season anyway so everyone should be taking care to do the basics of frequent hand-washing and remembering to cover mouths when coughing and turning away to sneeze into your sleeve. Most importantly, get to a doctor if necessary. Don’t panic but stay alert.
I am declaring a public health emergency of international concern over the global outbreak of #2019nCoV, not because of what is happening in #China, but because of what is happening in other countries.https://t.co/HNrxyGeoBA — Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus (@DrTedros) January 30, 2020


hotair--2020-02-03--Elizabeth Warren's history with oil and gas is more than "complicated"

If you ’ ve been following the career and presidential campaign of Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren ( D ) you probably know at least one thing about her .
She ’ s opposed to fossil fuels of all sorts .
She has joined Bernie Sanders in promising to enact a ban on fracking from day one as president .
She will also institute a moratorium on drilling leases , both offshore and on federal lands .
She ’ s a sponsor of the Keep It In the Ground Act in the Senate .
Warren has also publicly pledged not to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 200 from the oil-and-gas industry .
( Wait , if fossil fuel money is “ dirty , ” why is taking any of it okay ?
Isn ’ t that like just trying a little bit of heroin ?
Well… moving on . )
You get the picture .
No oil .
No natural gas .
No coal .
None of it .
But if that ’ s the case , Senator Warren may have some serious explaining to do after an investigative report from the Wall Street Journal revealed some rather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Warren and her family have been dabbling in gas drilling leases and profiting from them for decades .
And some of those arrangements are still active today .
So it ’ s worth noting that , for years , she and her husband reported modest income from natural-gas royalties in her native state of Oklahoma .
Ms. Warren ’ s financial disclosure filed with the Senate in 2012 included $ 504 of income from “ gas well royalty interests ” in Latimer County .
The next year it was $ 203 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ get even more interesting .
Ms. Warren ’ s campaign has posted 11 years of her tax returns , which show gas income from at least 2008 .
That year she filed jointly with her husband , Bruce Mann , who had $ 872 in royalties from gas wells in Oklahoma .
There are smaller amounts—a few hundred dollars—reported over the next several tax returns , before the yearly earnings stop .
You might be thinking that we ’ re only talking about a few hundred dollars here and there , several years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a multimillionaire .
What ’ s the big deal , right ?
Well , if you read on in the WSJ report , it goes deeper than what ’ s found on her tax returns .
Property records show a 2011 sale of all the oil , gas and mineral rights for some of their property to none other than their own son , Alexander .
( Keeping it in the family , I guess . )
The paper trail goes on further , including quite recent events .
There ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Hughes County , Oklahoma , including drilling rights , involving her son and three of her brothers .
The agreements include the payment of royalties for any recovered resources .
And those agreements were slated for three years , so they will still be in effect until at least this summer .
What ’ s the deal , Senator Warren ?
You ’ re going to impose a moratorium on drilling and a ban on fracking , preventing people in states like Pennsylvania from profiting off their own land .
But you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do the same thing for yourselves right up to the present day ?
There ’ s a name for that sort of behavior and it ’ s on the tip of my tongue , but I can ’ t quite think of it just now .
It starts with an “ h ” I think…

If you’ve been following the career and presidential campaign of Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren (D) you probably know at least one thing about her. She’s opposed to fossil fuels of all sorts. She has joined Bernie Sanders in promising to enact a ban on fracking from day one as president. She will also institute a moratorium on drilling leases, both offshore and on federal lands. She’s a sponsor of the Keep It In the Ground Act in the Senate.
Warren has also publicly pledged not to accept any campaign contributions of more than $200 from the oil-and-gas industry. (Wait, if fossil fuel money is “dirty,” why is taking any of it okay? Isn’t that like just trying a little bit of heroin? Well… moving on.) You get the picture. No oil. No natural gas. No coal. None of it. But if that’s the case, Senator Warren may have some serious explaining to do after an investigative report from the Wall Street Journal revealed some rather “dirty stories.” It turns out that Warren and her family have been dabbling in gas drilling leases and profiting from them for decades. And some of those arrangements are still active today.
So it’s worth noting that, for years, she and her husband reported modest income from natural-gas royalties in her native state of Oklahoma. Ms. Warren’s financial disclosure filed with the Senate in 2012 included $504 of income from “gas well royalty interests” in Latimer County. The next year it was $203. Drill a little deeper and the facts get even more interesting. Ms. Warren’s campaign has posted 11 years of her tax returns, which show gas income from at least 2008. That year she filed jointly with her husband, Bruce Mann, who had $872 in royalties from gas wells in Oklahoma. There are smaller amounts—a few hundred dollars—reported over the next several tax returns, before the yearly earnings stop.
You might be thinking that we’re only talking about a few hundred dollars here and there, several years in the past, for someone who is a multimillionaire. What’s the big deal, right? Well, if you read on in the WSJ report, it goes deeper than what’s found on her tax returns. Property records show a 2011 sale of all the oil, gas and mineral rights for some of their property to none other than their own son, Alexander. (Keeping it in the family, I guess.)
The paper trail goes on further, including quite recent events. There’s a 2017 transfer of parcels of property in Hughes County, Oklahoma, including drilling rights, involving her son and three of her brothers. The agreements include the payment of royalties for any recovered resources. And those agreements were slated for three years, so they will still be in effect until at least this summer.
What’s the deal, Senator Warren? You’re going to impose a moratorium on drilling and a ban on fracking, preventing people in states like Pennsylvania from profiting off their own land. But you and your family have been and continue to do the same thing for yourselves right up to the present day? There’s a name for that sort of behavior and it’s on the tip of my tongue, but I can’t quite think of it just now. It starts with an “h” I think…


hotair--2020-02-02--The growing imperial presidency and how Congress can stop it

It was St. George Tucker who issued the first warning about the threat of a powerful executive .
“ The limitations which the constitution has provided to the powers of the president , seem not to be sufficient to restrain this department within its proper bounds , or to preserve it from acquiring and exerting more than a due share of influence , ” the noted jurist wrote in 1803 in his View of the Constitution of the United States .
“ To this cause it may be attributed , that in addition to the very extensive powers , influence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the president of the United States , congress have , from time to time , with a liberal hand , conferred others still more extensive ; many of them altogether discretionary , and not infrequently , questionable as to their constitutionality.
” George ’ s concern was that the president could become almost monarch-like in his or her policy decisions .
Or to use a phrase by former president Barack Obama in 2014 , “ I ’ ve got a pen and I ’ ve got a phone…and I can use that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ executive actions and administrative actions.
” It took over a century for George ’ s warning to come true , however , the extent to which the executive has usurped power from Congress can not be ignored .
History shows Theodore Roosevelt was the first president to assert executive authority through trust-busting , while the Environmental Protection Agency was created via executive order .
However , Thomas Jefferson shares a pivotal role in the establishment of supreme executive power with the Louisiana Purchase .
Congress originally approved the buy for $ X amount @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tell the French the sum was $ Y amount .
Monroe ended up telling Napoleon the price was $ Z , and the deal was struck .
The purchase may have been worth it , but it set the standard for other presidents .
FreedomWorks recently documented the growing imperial presidency in their paper entitled Restoring the Balance of Powers pushing the legislative branch to exert its constitutional duty in policy decisions .
It ’ s a relatively depressing document because it sheds light on the failure of the federal government to follow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress realize the problem , but too few are willing to take steps to address it systematically , ” authors Jason Pye and Joshua Withrow write while pointing out both major parties are to blame for not following the Constitution .
“ But overall , members of Congress often find it politically safer to not have to address and vote on tough issues , and outside interest groups often find it easier to lobby ( privately ) a few key people in the Executive Branch than 535 unruly elected officials in Congress .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ resources at the expense of the rest of us.
” This is a completely unsurprising development despite its disturbingness .
It is easier to let unelected bureaucrats come up with regulations because it allows incumbents to skirt tough questions about their votes during campaigns .
Congress is essentially turning itself into elected advisers of the president where the essential question in elections becomes , “ Do you support the president or not ?
” Not exactly what the Constitution means when it says , “ To make rules for the Government.
” A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are written .
Pye and Withrow note Congress tends to provide the framework but lets federal agencies fill in the blanks like some kind of government version of Mad Libs .
It also lets Congress complain about the regulations without admitting they were the ones who enabled the bureaucrats to begin with .
It would also be unwise to discuss the growing presidential power usurpation without mentioning foreign policy .
Both Republican and Democrat administrations have put U.S. military members into harm ’ s way without congressional authorization ( War Powers Act be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Yemen are all conflicts the United States entered without authorization from Congress .
It ’ s time for Congress to repeal the AUMFs involving Iraq and Afghanistan and either replace them with something new or , more preferably , end the wars and bring the troops home .
These are just some of the problems Congress needs to address to rein in the executive , and it may not be feasible in my lifetime .
The rise of populism in American politics where it ’ s likely we ’ ll see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vs. a populist Democrat ( Bernie Sanders ) in the November election is frightening .
It only enables the president to take more steps towards implementing the “ pen and phone ” policy instead of the usual method of following the rules established at the formation of the Republic .
It is possible we ’ re too far down the proverbial road of no return .
However , it does not mean those who believe in smaller , weaker government should give up and either go home or , worse , join those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

It was St. George Tucker who issued the first warning about the threat of a powerful executive.
“The limitations which the constitution has provided to the powers of the president, seem not to be sufficient to restrain this department within its proper bounds, or to preserve it from acquiring and exerting more than a due share of influence,” the noted jurist wrote in 1803 in his View of the Constitution of the United States. “To this cause it may be attributed, that in addition to the very extensive powers, influence, and patronage which the constitution gives to the president of the United States, congress have, from time to time, with a liberal hand, conferred others still more extensive; many of them altogether discretionary, and not infrequently, questionable as to their constitutionality.”
George’s concern was that the president could become almost monarch-like in his or her policy decisions. Or to use a phrase by former president Barack Obama in 2014, “I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone…and I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions.”
It took over a century for George’s warning to come true, however, the extent to which the executive has usurped power from Congress cannot be ignored. History shows Theodore Roosevelt was the first president to assert executive authority through trust-busting, while the Environmental Protection Agency was created via executive order. However, Thomas Jefferson shares a pivotal role in the establishment of supreme executive power with the Louisiana Purchase. Congress originally approved the buy for $X amount, while Jefferson told James Monroe to tell the French the sum was $Y amount. Monroe ended up telling Napoleon the price was $Z, and the deal was struck. The purchase may have been worth it, but it set the standard for other presidents.
FreedomWorks recently documented the growing imperial presidency in their paper entitled Restoring the Balance of Powers pushing the legislative branch to exert its constitutional duty in policy decisions. It’s a relatively depressing document because it sheds light on the failure of the federal government to follow its own rules.
“Many in Congress realize the problem, but too few are willing to take steps to address it systematically,” authors Jason Pye and Joshua Withrow write while pointing out both major parties are to blame for not following the Constitution. “But overall, members of Congress often find it politically safer to not have to address and vote on tough issues, and outside interest groups often find it easier to lobby (privately) a few key people in the Executive Branch than 535 unruly elected officials in Congress. This result favors those with connections and resources at the expense of the rest of us.”
This is a completely unsurprising development despite its disturbingness. It is easier to let unelected bureaucrats come up with regulations because it allows incumbents to skirt tough questions about their votes during campaigns. Congress is essentially turning itself into elected advisers of the president where the essential question in elections becomes, “Do you support the president or not?”
Not exactly what the Constitution means when it says, “To make rules for the Government.”
A part of this problem is how laws are written. Pye and Withrow note Congress tends to provide the framework but lets federal agencies fill in the blanks like some kind of government version of Mad Libs. It also lets Congress complain about the regulations without admitting they were the ones who enabled the bureaucrats to begin with.
It would also be unwise to discuss the growing presidential power usurpation without mentioning foreign policy. Both Republican and Democrat administrations have put U.S. military members into harm’s way without congressional authorization (War Powers Act be damned!). Libya, Syria, and Yemen are all conflicts the United States entered without authorization from Congress. It’s time for Congress to repeal the AUMFs involving Iraq and Afghanistan and either replace them with something new or, more preferably, end the wars and bring the troops home.
These are just some of the problems Congress needs to address to rein in the executive, and it may not be feasible in my lifetime. The rise of populism in American politics where it’s likely we’ll see a populist Republican (Donald Trump) vs. a populist Democrat (Bernie Sanders) in the November election is frightening. It only enables the president to take more steps towards implementing the “pen and phone” policy instead of the usual method of following the rules established at the formation of the Republic.
It is possible we’re too far down the proverbial road of no return. However, it does not mean those who believe in smaller, weaker government should give up and either go home or, worse, join those pushing for an even more powerful executive.


hotair--2020-02-02--NFL open thread, the Super Bowl "Tickets as low as $5,531!" edition

Ed : After two straight 2-0 weeks , it falls to me to write the final NFL open thread post of the season .
With my postseason record at 6-4 and only this game left , I ’ ve wrapped up the playoff crown , after Jazz beat me for the regular-season title .
It ’ s been an unusual season , with not just one but two teams seemingly spending several weeks of it hoping to win the worst record in football , and Cincinnati finally succeeding at it .
The playoffs have been interesting as well , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all the way to the AFC championship while the Patriots and Ravens , er … didn ’ t even manage to win one playoff game between them .
Who would ’ ve guessed that ?
In the end , though , we have two credible and dominant teams coming into this game , the 49ers and the Chiefs , neither one of which got in by a fluke .
Jazz : I managed my first playoff 2-0 in the conference championships , bringing me to a slightly less dismal 4-6 record .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t do anything for my prospects .
I doff my cap to my friend Ed for a brilliant post-season performance and a well deserved win for the second part of our season .
I ’ ll be forced to huddle up with my regular season trophy for comfort .
If nothing else , we can join in with at least 90 % of the country and be thankful that we won ’ t be watching the Patriots today .
I have no idea what the new season will hold for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but we ’ ll be sure to meet you back here for the usual fun and games .
( Well.. games , anyway . )
Ed : Let ’ s break this down by squads : • Offense — The two teams are almost identical on the O-side .
The 49ers gained 381 yards per game during the regular season , and the Chiefs gained 379 .
San Francisco scored 29.9 points per game , and the Chiefs scored 28.2 points per game .
The big difference here — and it came up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the 49ers rush for 45 more yards per game , allowing them to control the clock .
That works against most opponents , but … it ’ s not going to work against the Chiefs , whose offensive is explosive and quick .
The Titans tried to play that game against Kansas City with Derrick Henry and got stuffed .
A healthy Patrick Mahomes can come back in a hurry , much more so than Aaron Rodgers and Green Bay could , as we saw in both .
Advantage : Kansas City @ @ @ @ @ @ @ • Defense — If we look at yards allowed , it ’ s no contest that San Francisco comes out on top .
However , Kansas City gave up slightly fewer points during the regular season ( 308 to 310 ) .
Their defense is on the field longer because their offense scores more points quickly against most opponents .
Both teams give up over 110 yards rushing per game , but KC ’ s passing defense gives up 53 yards more per game than San Francisco ’ s .
Advantage : 49ers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ teams and turnovers — There ’ s not a lot of great data available on special teams , but it ’ s worth noting that only KC has scored on a kickoff or punt in the regular season .
Both have decent punt games , but the Chiefs are slightly better on limiting returns on punts ( 4.7 yards to SF ’ s 5.7 yards ) .
The Chiefs ’ field-goal percentage is better at 89.5 % , while the 49ers only made 76.9 % of their attempts , but SF ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 93.8 % ) .
Now that Robby Gould is back for the 49ers , though , it ’ s probably closer to even .
On turnovers , however , Kansas City is a +8 for the year , while San Francisco is only +4 .
The difference is mainly in the 49ers ’ s propensity to fumble ( 13 , to KC ’ s 5 ) .
Note well that the Chiefs have eleven more takeaways this season than the 49ers .
Overall advantage : Kansas City .
This should be an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that San Francisco jumps out to an early lead , but that Patrick Mahomes turns it on in the second quarter and never looks back .
Kansas City 31-21 over San Francisco .
Whatever happens , though , I ’ ll be watching from my home rather than buying the $ 5,531 tickets Vivid Seating is hawking at the moment .
I can buy a whole lotta televisions with that kind of cash .
Jazz : Ed already poached most of the good data , so I won ’ t rehash all of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , these two teams are very evenly matched , and Ed is correct in saying that neither of them got here on a fluke or some botched call by a ref at a key moment .
They both fought for every yard they logged and each has a fair shot at hoisting the Lombardi Trophy when the dust settles .
While both teams have plenty going for them on both sides of the ball , the 49ers have arguably been more impressive on defense .
This is somewhat offset by the fact that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ game on offense , grinding out yards while the Chiefs rely on Patrick Mahomes ’ cannon of an arm and Travis Kelce and Tyreek Hill taking turns hauling them in .
But as Ed mentions , Kansas City ’ s defense winds up spending a lot of time on the field , leaving them more worn out in the second half .
Also , Mahomes ’ doesn ’ t face the kind of rushing pressure he ’ ll be seeing from Kyle Shanahan and company every week .
I ’ m envisioning a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s , where Kansas City puts up some big passing yards and takes the lead early , but as the game plays out , the defensive pressure starts to wear down both Mahomes and his front four .
After that , mistakes start happening while San Francisco just grinds out the yards and the points for a second half comeback .
As in previous years , if I have to pick between the stronger defense and the stronger offense in a championship scenario , I ’ ll almost always put my trust @ @ @ @ @ @ @ City to be the more sympathetic team in my heart and I kind of hope I ’ m wrong , but I ’ ll go with the 49ers over the Chiefs 27-24 in an exciting finish .

Ed: After two straight 2-0 weeks, it falls to me to write the final NFL open thread post of the season. With my postseason record at 6-4 and only this game left, I’ve wrapped up the playoff crown, after Jazz beat me for the regular-season title. It’s been an unusual season, with not just one but two teams seemingly spending several weeks of it hoping to win the worst record in football, and Cincinnati finally succeeding at it. The playoffs have been interesting as well, with massive surprises like the Tennessee Titans going all the way to the AFC championship while the Patriots and Ravens, er … didn’t even manage to win one playoff game between them. Who would’ve guessed that?
In the end, though, we have two credible and dominant teams coming into this game, the 49ers and the Chiefs, neither one of which got in by a fluke.
Jazz: I managed my first playoff 2-0 in the conference championships, bringing me to a slightly less dismal 4-6 record. But since Ed also nailed both games it didn’t do anything for my prospects. I doff my cap to my friend Ed for a brilliant post-season performance and a well deserved win for the second part of our season. I’ll be forced to huddle up with my regular season trophy for comfort. If nothing else, we can join in with at least 90% of the country and be thankful that we won’t be watching the Patriots today. I have no idea what the new season will hold for the Jets or the Steelers next fall, but we’ll be sure to meet you back here for the usual fun and games. (Well.. games, anyway.)
Ed: Let’s break this down by squads:
Offense — The two teams are almost identical on the O-side. The 49ers gained 381 yards per game during the regular season, and the Chiefs gained 379. San Francisco scored 29.9 points per game, and the Chiefs scored 28.2 points per game. The big difference here — and it came up in the NFC championship game — is that the 49ers rush for 45 more yards per game, allowing them to control the clock. That works against most opponents, but … it’s not going to work against the Chiefs, whose offensive is explosive and quick. The Titans tried to play that game against Kansas City with Derrick Henry and got stuffed. A healthy Patrick Mahomes can come back in a hurry, much more so than Aaron Rodgers and Green Bay could, as we saw in both . Advantage: Kansas City, at least by an edge.
The two teams are almost identical on the O-side. The 49ers gained 381 yards per game during the regular season, and the Chiefs gained 379. San Francisco scored 29.9 points per game, and the Chiefs scored 28.2 points per game. The big difference here — and it came up in the NFC championship game — is that the 49ers rush for 45 more yards per game, allowing them to control the clock. That works against most opponents, but … it’s not going to work against the Chiefs, whose offensive is explosive and quick. The Titans tried to play that game against Kansas City with Derrick Henry and got stuffed. A healthy Patrick Mahomes can come back in a hurry, much more so than Aaron Rodgers and Green Bay could, as we saw in both . Advantage: Kansas City, at least by an edge. Defense — If we look at yards allowed, it’s no contest that San Francisco comes out on top. However, Kansas City gave up slightly fewer points during the regular season (308 to 310). Their defense is on the field longer because their offense scores more points quickly against most opponents. Both teams give up over 110 yards rushing per game, but KC’s passing defense gives up 53 yards more per game than San Francisco’s. Advantage: 49ers, but only slightly.
If we look at yards allowed, it’s no contest that San Francisco comes out on top. However, Kansas City gave up slightly fewer points during the regular season (308 to 310). Their defense is on the field longer because their offense scores more points quickly against most opponents. Both teams give up over 110 yards rushing per game, but KC’s passing defense gives up 53 yards more per game than San Francisco’s. Advantage: 49ers, but only slightly. Special teams and turnovers — There’s not a lot of great data available on special teams, but it’s worth noting that only KC has scored on a kickoff or punt in the regular season. Both have decent punt games, but the Chiefs are slightly better on limiting returns on punts (4.7 yards to SF’s 5.7 yards). The Chiefs’ field-goal percentage is better at 89.5%, while the 49ers only made 76.9% of their attempts, but SF’s better at extra points (98% to 93.8%). Now that Robby Gould is back for the 49ers, though, it’s probably closer to even. On turnovers, however, Kansas City is a +8 for the year, while San Francisco is only +4. The difference is mainly in the 49ers’s propensity to fumble (13, to KC’s 5). Note well that the Chiefs have eleven more takeaways this season than the 49ers. Overall advantage: Kansas City.
This should be an exciting game. I’d predict that San Francisco jumps out to an early lead, but that Patrick Mahomes turns it on in the second quarter and never looks back. Kansas City 31-21 over San Francisco. Whatever happens, though, I’ll be watching from my home rather than buying the $5,531 tickets Vivid Seating is hawking at the moment. I can buy a whole lotta televisions with that kind of cash.
Jazz: Ed already poached most of the good data, so I won’t rehash all of that broken down by squads. Overall, these two teams are very evenly matched, and Ed is correct in saying that neither of them got here on a fluke or some botched call by a ref at a key moment. They both fought for every yard they logged and each has a fair shot at hoisting the Lombardi Trophy when the dust settles.
While both teams have plenty going for them on both sides of the ball, the 49ers have arguably been more impressive on defense. This is somewhat offset by the fact that they have relied heavily on their ground game on offense, grinding out yards while the Chiefs rely on Patrick Mahomes’ cannon of an arm and Travis Kelce and Tyreek Hill taking turns hauling them in. But as Ed mentions, Kansas City’s defense winds up spending a lot of time on the field, leaving them more worn out in the second half. Also, Mahomes’ doesn’t face the kind of rushing pressure he’ll be seeing from Kyle Shanahan and company every week.
I’m envisioning a scenario pretty much the opposite of Ed’s, where Kansas City puts up some big passing yards and takes the lead early, but as the game plays out, the defensive pressure starts to wear down both Mahomes and his front four. After that, mistakes start happening while San Francisco just grinds out the yards and the points for a second half comeback. As in previous years, if I have to pick between the stronger defense and the stronger offense in a championship scenario, I’ll almost always put my trust in the defense. I find Kansas City to be the more sympathetic team in my heart and I kind of hope I’m wrong, but I’ll go with the 49ers over the Chiefs 27-24 in an exciting finish.


hotair--2020-02-02--Denver's "gun court" wouldn't punish teen gun crimes as strictly

There ’ s a new plan afoot in the Mile High City and it ’ s got a lot of justice reform advocates pretty excited .
You see , Denver has been experiencing a marked upswing in gun violence in recent years , particularly when it comes to gun crimes committed by teenagers .
This has residents feeling uneasy and looking to their elected leaders for answers and stability .
Preparing to deliver just that , the city ’ s leadership is rolling out a new proposal tailored to this issue .
What ’ s being planned is something called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s also been described as a “ gun court ” designed to handle the specific needs of young people engaged in gun violence .
So will they be finding ways to crack down on such threats ?
Not exactly .
They ’ re more looking to “ rescue ” the perpetrators from “ going down the criminal justice rabbit hole.
” ( CBS Denver ) The plan was to create a handgun intervention program , or a “ gun court.
” It is modeled much like other specialized courts for issues like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prevent young people charged with gun possession from escalating to more serious crimes and empower them to make better life choices , a spokesperson for the Denver DA ’ s Office explained .
“ At the heart of this program is the Community Accountability Board , ” spokesperson Carolyn Tyler told CBS4 in an email .
“ Youth offenders will be held accountable by and derive guidance from members of this board.
” “ I think anything we can do on the front end to hopefully deter a young person from going further @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is necessary , ” McMillan told CBS4 ’ s Kelly Werthmann .
The people planning this initiative are dancing around the risk of saying precisely what they ’ re talking about here .
But the truth is obvious and has been for a while .
Denver is dealing with an escalating gang violence problem .
The Denver Post published a deep dive on the subject last October .
In addition to the usual gangs engaged in illegal drug and weapons sales , the city is dealing with a new breed of so-called “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ schools and detention centers , are generally small in terms of the number of members and frequently engage in gun violence to control turf .
They are also frequently not tied to any particular neighborhood and roam across the city .
So what is this new “ gun court ” going to do to deal with this plague ?
They ’ re going to focus on “ family interventions , gun education , counseling and community resources.
” Their overarching goal is to “ prevent young people charged with gun possession from escalating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make better life choices.
” Look , I completely understand how heartbreaking it must be for many families to learn that one of their children has gotten involved with the gangs and taken to breaking the law and packing weapons .
This is particularly true when the young people almost inevitably wind up either behind bars or in an early grave .
So if Denver thinks they have the tools to reach out and intervene in a young person ’ s life and put them back on the straight and narrow , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your best effort .
But at the same time , they should keep in mind the staggering lack of success so many other cities have had in this area .
They ’ re talking about kids in the age range of 16-19 .
By that time , too many kids are already lost causes , sadly .
And if you ’ re catching them after they ’ ve already been convicted or arrested for violent crimes involving a gun , something tells me a lot of them won ’ t derive much benefit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like they ’ ve already figured out how they work . )
Meanwhile , the victims of gun crimes are going to be watching if you set up a revolving door for those who are shooting people or committing armed robbery .
I suppose I could see trying to “ intervene ” to save one of these young people after their first offense , but if they go back to their old ways and commit another crime , they need to be in jail , not a rehab clinic .
These feel-good programs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the back and talk about how woke they are .
But they don ’ t accomplish the first , fundamental responsibility of the municipal government which is keeping law-abiding citizens safe in their homes and on the streets .

There’s a new plan afoot in the Mile High City and it’s got a lot of justice reform advocates pretty excited. You see, Denver has been experiencing a marked upswing in gun violence in recent years, particularly when it comes to gun crimes committed by teenagers. This has residents feeling uneasy and looking to their elected leaders for answers and stability. Preparing to deliver just that, the city’s leadership is rolling out a new proposal tailored to this issue.
What’s being planned is something called the “Community Accountability Board.” It’s also been described as a “gun court” designed to handle the specific needs of young people engaged in gun violence. So will they be finding ways to crack down on such threats? Not exactly. They’re more looking to “rescue” the perpetrators from “going down the criminal justice rabbit hole.” (CBS Denver)
The plan was to create a handgun intervention program, or a “gun court.” It is modeled much like other specialized courts for issues like substance abuse. The idea is to prevent young people charged with gun possession from escalating to more serious crimes and empower them to make better life choices, a spokesperson for the Denver DA’s Office explained. “At the heart of this program is the Community Accountability Board,” spokesperson Carolyn Tyler told CBS4 in an email. “Youth offenders will be held accountable by and derive guidance from members of this board.” “I think anything we can do on the front end to hopefully deter a young person from going further down into the criminal justice rabbit hole is necessary,” McMillan told CBS4’s Kelly Werthmann.
The people planning this initiative are dancing around the risk of saying precisely what they’re talking about here. But the truth is obvious and has been for a while. Denver is dealing with an escalating gang violence problem. The Denver Post published a deep dive on the subject last October. In addition to the usual gangs engaged in illegal drug and weapons sales, the city is dealing with a new breed of so-called “hybrid gangs.” These groups form in schools and detention centers, are generally small in terms of the number of members and frequently engage in gun violence to control turf. They are also frequently not tied to any particular neighborhood and roam across the city.
So what is this new “gun court” going to do to deal with this plague? They’re going to focus on “family interventions, gun education, counseling and community resources.” Their overarching goal is to “prevent young people charged with gun possession from escalating to more serious crimes and empower them to make better life choices.”
Look, I completely understand how heartbreaking it must be for many families to learn that one of their children has gotten involved with the gangs and taken to breaking the law and packing weapons. This is particularly true when the young people almost inevitably wind up either behind bars or in an early grave. So if Denver thinks they have the tools to reach out and intervene in a young person’s life and put them back on the straight and narrow, I say God bless. Give it your best effort.
But at the same time, they should keep in mind the staggering lack of success so many other cities have had in this area. They’re talking about kids in the age range of 16-19. By that time, too many kids are already lost causes, sadly. And if you’re catching them after they’ve already been convicted or arrested for violent crimes involving a gun, something tells me a lot of them won’t derive much benefit from “gun education.” (Sounds like they’ve already figured out how they work.)
Meanwhile, the victims of gun crimes are going to be watching if you set up a revolving door for those who are shooting people or committing armed robbery. I suppose I could see trying to “intervene” to save one of these young people after their first offense, but if they go back to their old ways and commit another crime, they need to be in jail, not a rehab clinic. These feel-good programs allow city leaders to pat themselves on the back and talk about how woke they are. But they don’t accomplish the first, fundamental responsibility of the municipal government which is keeping law-abiding citizens safe in their homes and on the streets.