theamericanconservative--2020-08-17--Turns Out Michelle Obama’s Obesity Campaign Was a Flabby Flop

One thing you wo n't hear about the feted former first lady at the DNC tonight : kids actually gained weight under her program .
Former First Lady Michelle Obama is the keynote speaker this evening for the first night of the Democratic National Convention .
The New York Times has hailed her as one of the “ creative geniuses who defined culture in 2016 ” and the Associated Press christened her a “ luminary with international influence ” in the same year .
But don ’ t expect the media to tell you that today , Ms. Obama ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proven a disastrous failure .
In 2010 , Ms. Obama launched her “ Let ’ s Move ” campaign for “ solving the problem of childhood obesity in a generation.
” She proclaimed a goal of reducing the percentage of overweight and obese children by 2.5 percent by 2015 .
She was speedily awarded sainthood for her lofty aspirations .
But , despite glowing press coverage for the “ Let ’ s Move ” campaign , even more children are super-sizing nowadays .
The percentage of overweight youth rose from 14.9 percent in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while the percentage of obese youth rose from 16.9 percent to 18.5 percent , according to the Centers for Disease Control .
As the New York Times noted in January , reports that the child obesity problem had stabilized were “ an illusion .
If anything , things have gotten worse.
” The most visible legacy of “ Let ’ s Move ” is a vast increase in the number of children consuming government-subsidized meals .
Ms. Obama helped push the Healthy , Hunger-Free Kids Act through Congress in 2010 .
That bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ school meals that were intensely unpopular with students ( such as smaller lunch sizes and blander food ) .
Some reforms were necessary because USDA school feeding programs have been a perpetual dietary disaster .
A 2010 University of Michigan study found that low-income kids who did not eat subsidized school meals were much less likely to become fat .
Unfortunately , the Healthy , Hunger-Free Kids Act pretended that all the dietary perils vanished when Obama signed the law .
Any school with 40 percent of low-income students can now provide federally-subsidized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though most children ’ s families would not qualify for aid .
Breakfast enrollment surged more than 30 percent after 2010 , feeding almost 15 million kids each morning prior to the COVID school shutdowns .
Ms. Obama declared in 2010 that , because children ’ s nutrition is so important , “ We can ’ t just leave it up to the parents.
” But schools have a worse record of providing healthy fare than do most parents .
That ’ s because schools offer breakfasts with “ carb loading ” more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Homer Simpson is the patron saint of school breakfast programs .
Donuts and other high-sugar pastries have a starring role in morning menus across the nation .
USDA bans schools from serving whole milk , but approves providing chocolate skim milk—even though each half pint contains almost half the daily added sugar that the American Heart Association recommends for kids .
The Center for Investigative Reporting warned that “ sugar levels in school meals are more than double what is recommended for the general public.
” A 2014 analysis by the Johns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that USDA ’ s “ new requirements do not limit the amount of added sugar in school meals ” and may “ be perpetuating eating habits linked to obesity , diabetes and other diet-related diseases.
” To massively expand the program , the Obama administration rewarded schools that encourage all children to eat free breakfasts in the classroom ( a policy championed by Ms. Obama ) .
But breakfast in the classroom programs “ may contribute to excess calorie intake , ” according to a 2013 American Journal of Public Health analysis .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ report found that providing breakfast in the classroom more than doubled “ the likelihood of eating two breakfasts.
” That report also found no improvement in daily nutrient intake from expanded school breakfast programs .
School officials in some areas scorned parents who protested schools feeding their kid a second breakfast and deluging them with sugary fare .
What could possibly go wrong from a handout program blessed by the most revered First Lady since Eleanor Roosevelt ?
Plenty , according to a growing number of scientific reports .
According to a 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Nutrition and Dietetics , “ Receiving school breakfasts more than doubled the odds of becoming obese for children from families below the federal poverty line compared with children of similar socioeconomic backgrounds who did not regularly receive school breakfasts.
” The adverse impacts of school meals are compounded by another federal program that stretches American waistlines .
President Obama strove to boost food stamp enrollment as rapidly as possible , and total recipients rose from 28 million in 2008 to 44 million in 2016 .
Walter Willett , chair of Harvard University @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2015 , “ We ’ ve analyzed what [ food stamp ] participants are eating and it ’ s horrible food .
It ’ s a diet designed to produce obesity and diabetes.
” A 2017 study published in BMC Public Health found that food stamp recipients were twice as likely to be obese as eligible non-recipients .
Almost half of the women collecting food stamps are obese , according to a 2011 analysis .
Thanks to Obama ’ s expansion of food stamps and other programs , federal food programs were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2013 .
The Trump administration has sought to curtail this gravy train but has faced stiff resistance in Congress .
Ms. Obama ’ s campaign for more free kiddie meals might have made sense if most low-income children were gaunt , but overeating has long been a much greater public health peril .
A 2012 Journal of the American Medical Association editorial noted that “ seven times as many [ low-income ] children are obese as are underweight.
” Children in lower-income families were almost twice as likely to be overweight or obese @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obama ’ s “ government knows best ” and “ government feeds best ” recipes have been disasters for American children .
Nothing that Ms. Obama , who now receives up to $ 200,000 for each speech she gives , can say or do can compete with the trays of free donuts that schools offer to children .
But regardless of the dire results of her dietary crusades , most of the media will still portray her as a savior of children this week .
James Bovard is the author of Lost Rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Policy Hooligan .
He is also a USA Today columnist .
Follow him on Twitter @ JimBovard .

Former First Lady Michelle Obama is the keynote speaker this evening for the first night of the Democratic National Convention. The New York Times has hailed her as one of the “creative geniuses who defined culture in 2016” and the Associated Press christened her a “luminary with international influence” in the same year. But don’t expect the media to tell you that today, Ms. Obama’s biggest initiative as First Lady has proven a disastrous failure.
In 2010, Ms. Obama launched her “Let’s Move” campaign for “solving the problem of childhood obesity in a generation.” She proclaimed a goal of reducing the percentage of overweight and obese children by 2.5 percent by 2015. She was speedily awarded sainthood for her lofty aspirations.
But, despite glowing press coverage for the “Let’s Move” campaign, even more children are super-sizing nowadays. The percentage of overweight youth rose from 14.9 percent in 2009-2010 to 16.6 percent in 2015-2016, while the percentage of obese youth rose from 16.9 percent to 18.5 percent, according to the Centers for Disease Control. As the New York Times noted in January, reports that the child obesity problem had stabilized were “an illusion. If anything, things have gotten worse.”
The most visible legacy of “Let’s Move” is a vast increase in the number of children consuming government-subsidized meals. Ms. Obama helped push the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act through Congress in 2010. That bill made some revisions to nutritional standards for school meals that were intensely unpopular with students (such as smaller lunch sizes and blander food). Some reforms were necessary because USDA school feeding programs have been a perpetual dietary disaster. A 2010 University of Michigan study found that low-income kids who did not eat subsidized school meals were much less likely to become fat.
Unfortunately, the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act pretended that all the dietary perils vanished when Obama signed the law. Any school with 40 percent of low-income students can now provide federally-subsidized free breakfast and lunch to all students—even though most children’s families would not qualify for aid.
Breakfast enrollment surged more than 30 percent after 2010, feeding almost 15 million kids each morning prior to the COVID school shutdowns. Ms. Obama declared in 2010 that, because children’s nutrition is so important, “We can’t just leave it up to the parents.” But schools have a worse record of providing healthy fare than do most parents.
That’s because schools offer breakfasts with “carb loading” more appropriate for marathon runners than for schoolchildren. Homer Simpson is the patron saint of school breakfast programs. Donuts and other high-sugar pastries have a starring role in morning menus across the nation. USDA bans schools from serving whole milk, but approves providing chocolate skim milk—even though each half pint contains almost half the daily added sugar that the American Heart Association recommends for kids. The Center for Investigative Reporting warned that “sugar levels in school meals are more than double what is recommended for the general public.”
A 2014 analysis by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health noted that USDA’s “new requirements do not limit the amount of added sugar in school meals” and may “be perpetuating eating habits linked to obesity, diabetes and other diet-related diseases.”
To massively expand the program, the Obama administration rewarded schools that encourage all children to eat free breakfasts in the classroom (a policy championed by Ms. Obama). But breakfast in the classroom programs “may contribute to excess calorie intake,” according to a 2013 American Journal of Public Health analysis. A 2015 National Bureau of Economic Research report found that providing breakfast in the classroom more than doubled “the likelihood of eating two breakfasts.” That report also found no improvement in daily nutrient intake from expanded school breakfast programs.
School officials in some areas scorned parents who protested schools feeding their kid a second breakfast and deluging them with sugary fare. What could possibly go wrong from a handout program blessed by the most revered First Lady since Eleanor Roosevelt? Plenty, according to a growing number of scientific reports. According to a 2016 study published in Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, “Receiving school breakfasts more than doubled the odds of becoming obese for children from families below the federal poverty line compared with children of similar socioeconomic backgrounds who did not regularly receive school breakfasts.”
The adverse impacts of school meals are compounded by another federal program that stretches American waistlines. President Obama strove to boost food stamp enrollment as rapidly as possible, and total recipients rose from 28 million in 2008 to 44 million in 2016. Walter Willett, chair of Harvard University’s Department of Nutrition, observed in 2015, “We’ve analyzed what [food stamp] participants are eating and it’s horrible food. It’s a diet designed to produce obesity and diabetes.” A 2017 study published in BMC Public Health found that food stamp recipients were twice as likely to be obese as eligible non-recipients. Almost half of the women collecting food stamps are obese, according to a 2011 analysis.
Thanks to Obama’s expansion of food stamps and other programs, federal food programs were feeding more than 100 million Americans in 2013. The Trump administration has sought to curtail this gravy train but has faced stiff resistance in Congress.
Ms. Obama’s campaign for more free kiddie meals might have made sense if most low-income children were gaunt, but overeating has long been a much greater public health peril. A 2012 Journal of the American Medical Association editorial noted that “seven times as many [low-income] children are obese as are underweight.” Children in lower-income families were almost twice as likely to be overweight or obese as children from higher-income families.
Michelle Obama’s “government knows best” and “government feeds best” recipes have been disasters for American children. Nothing that Ms. Obama, who now receives up to $200,000 for each speech she gives, can say or do can compete with the trays of free donuts that schools offer to children. But regardless of the dire results of her dietary crusades, most of the media will still portray her as a savior of children this week.
James Bovard is the author of Lost Rights, Attention Deficit Democracy, and Public Policy Hooligan. He is also a USA Today columnist. Follow him on Twitter @JimBovard.


theamericanconservative--2020-08-17--Why Trump Should Announce at Gettysburg

Why Trump Should Announce at Gettysburg

President Donald J. Trump delivers remarks at the 75th Commemoration of D-Day Thursday , June 6 , 2019 , at the Normandy American Cemetery in Normandy , France .
( Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead ) With the in-person elements of the Democratic National Convention all but cancelled , Joe Biden is set to deliver his acceptance speech from somewhere in Delaware—maybe his basement , which is a fitting , depressing locale for the defining moment of Biden ’ s ( please , God ) final bid at the Oval Office .
Donald Trump has some different ideas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intention to accept the Republican nomination either at the White House or at Gettysburg .
Asked about the possibility of a Gettysburg setting , historian Douglas Brinkley told CNN , “ What an utterly terrible idea that is.
” After a minute or two of moralizing , Brinkley circled back to his central piece of unsolicited advice : “ I can ’ t think of a worse idea.
” Well , I can ’ t think of a better one .
Admittedly , there are legal objections that may be raised against an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal land , assisted by dozens or hundreds of federal employees .
( There are a number of prohibitions against partisan activities in such circumstances . )
But as even Norman L. Eisen—who served in the Obama White House and as counsel to the House Judiciary Committee during Trump ’ s impeachment process—admitted to the New York Times , “ Applicable law does provide a variety of technical exemptions , which a clever lawyer might stitch together to claim that this is permissible.
” The president has more than a few clever lawyers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the trouble ?
What makes this such a good idea that Trump should risk serious legal action or , at the very least , substantial outrage from his critics mere weeks before election day ?
The short answer : because it would be awesome .
For decades , these speeches have been conducted in convention centers and sports arenas , against hulking metal and concrete backdrops draped—or worse , lit up—with some gauche combination of red , white , and blue .
Trump ’ s 2016 RNC acceptance speech was a masterpiece of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and long as hell — with all the expected theatrical trappings .
A pulsing mob of fired-up supporters filled Cleveland ’ s Quicken Loans Arena , cheering and jeering at the designated moments .
It was effective then .
It would be disastrous now .
As much as he might like to , Trump can no longer present himself as the bombastic agitator against the status quo .
He is the incumbent now .
What ’ s more , the current social chaos demands a more restrained and positive voice .
While this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s comfort zone , it is hardly out of his wheelhouse altogether .
For an idea of the approach that would best suit the moment and the man , we might look back on two of Trump ’ s strongest speeches yet .
Both were at places of monumental cultural or historical importance , and each of the speeches was deeply connected with the site of its delivery .
Both focused on what might be termed existential questions : concerns about not just the politics of the day , but the future of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of our history .
These are the kinds of speeches that rarely make their way into party conventions , as speakers tend to target the other candidate and party with a laser focus .
But there is no reason why they shouldn ’ t .
Given Trump ’ s consideration of a major historical site and the speeches he has given at such places in the past , we may be poised to see the first .
On June 6th of last year , Trump traveled to Normandy to commemorate the 75th anniversary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his conduct was thoroughly presidential .
Optically , it was one of his finest moments , and remains a year later perhaps his most polished and compelling appearance as president .
His remarks reminded listeners ( beside those obstinate few who insist on denouncing everything he does ) that he is the leader of the whole nation .
They encouraged us to look back on our past and forward to our future .
They are worth recalling at length : In defeating that evil , [ the veterans of the war ] left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a thousand years , but for all time—for as long as the soul knows of duty and honor ; for as long as freedom keeps its hold on the human heart .
To the men who sit behind me , and to the boys who rest in the field before me , your example will never , ever grow old .
Your legend will never tire .
Your spirit—brave , unyielding , and true—will never die .
The blood that they spilled , the tears that they shed , the lives that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made , did not just win a battle .
It did not just win a war .
Those who fought here won a future for our nation .
They won the survival of our civilization .
And they showed us the way to love , cherish , and defend our way of life for many centuries to come .
If he can redeliver words like these at Gettysburg , Trump may prove himself not only capable of attaining a second term , but worthy of it .
At Normandy , he was able @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of our nation ’ s most dramatic existential conflicts and to ground his reflections in the here and now .
Despite his frequent irreverence elsewhere , he proved that when circumstances truly require it he can be solemn , serious , respectful—presidential .
The benefits of a similar showing at Gettysburg , so long as it is conducted properly and sincerely , could be immense .
For an even better idea of an effective Gettysburg speech , we can look to Mount Rushmore , where just last month the president spoke against calls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in turn on the importance of the legacy of each of the men remembered there .
In his remarks on Lincoln , he even named the field he now has his eye on : Does Trump have a deeply vested personal interest in the relevance of 1863 ’ s troubles to today ’ s ?
I wouldn ’ t bet on it .
But that does not disqualify him as a messenger .
And the message is one we desperately need to hear .
Much talk has been made in the last four @ @ @ @ @ @ @ revival .
But for all the talk , we have seen very little of the right kind of nationalism come to fruition .
A real effort toward that end might begin with an acceptance speech that reclaims our national story , delivered on one of that story ’ s most vital pieces of ground .
Just imagine if the GOP nominee , instead of orating for an hour and a half on tax cuts , defense spending , and Democrat corruption , could stand in the place where thousands shed blood in defense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their sacrifice is not so distant as we might think—that , in fact , their cause may not yet be won .
Imagine an acceptance speech that looks further back than last April and further forward than November .
It would be a “ stunt ” in some sense , and certain members of the media will be sure to pillory the president for it .
There is a performative element to all politics—especially good politics .
But it would not be merely a stunt : what happened at Gettysburg—what makes the place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nor even of political implications for the present day .
There is a right way to go about a battlefield acceptance speech , one that honors the memory of the men who died there and looks at our world honestly through their eyes .
He should go to Gettysburg not in spite of its sacredness but because of it .
A Gettysburg performance is almost certain to be deeper , more dramatic , more persuasive than any speech in any stadium , precisely because , in connecting our present to our past , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the seriousness rightly due them .
One can not help but wonder if the people jumping to condemn the choice before it ’ s made might be entirely aware of that fact .
They say it would come across as insincere and insensitive , that voters would be enraged at his partisan use of hallowed ground .
Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Postsuggests that Trump will suffer by comparison to Lincoln , who delivered his own famous address there in 1863 .
But one wonders if these objections might reveal a bit of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suffer by comparison ?
What if he manages to channel his predecessor at least enough to deliver an effective and compelling message , to revive some part of his spirit and his memory , to reinvigorate the sense of victory in existential conflict , the drama and gravity , that are soaked in the ground at Gettysburg ?
When we recall his trips to France and South Dakota , it does not seem out of the question .
This could be a defining , and redefining , moment .
Trump may yet secure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for nationalism—by delivering on a promise he made last month at Rushmore : “ We will teach our children to know that they live in a land of legends .
”

With the in-person elements of the Democratic National Convention all but cancelled, Joe Biden is set to deliver his acceptance speech from somewhere in Delaware—maybe his basement, which is a fitting, depressing locale for the defining moment of Biden’s (please, God) final bid at the Oval Office.
Donald Trump has some different ideas: the incumbent president has announced his intention to accept the Republican nomination either at the White House or at Gettysburg. Asked about the possibility of a Gettysburg setting, historian Douglas Brinkley told CNN, “What an utterly terrible idea that is.” After a minute or two of moralizing, Brinkley circled back to his central piece of unsolicited advice: “I can’t think of a worse idea.”
Well, I can’t think of a better one.
Admittedly, there are legal objections that may be raised against an incumbent delivering a party acceptance speech on federal land, assisted by dozens or hundreds of federal employees. (There are a number of prohibitions against partisan activities in such circumstances.) But as even Norman L. Eisen—who served in the Obama White House and as counsel to the House Judiciary Committee during Trump’s impeachment process—admitted to the New York Times, “Applicable law does provide a variety of technical exemptions, which a clever lawyer might stitch together to claim that this is permissible.” The president has more than a few clever lawyers.
But why should he go to the trouble? What makes this such a good idea that Trump should risk serious legal action or, at the very least, substantial outrage from his critics mere weeks before election day?
The short answer: because it would be awesome.
For decades, these speeches have been conducted in convention centers and sports arenas, against hulking metal and concrete backdrops draped—or worse, lit up—with some gauche combination of red, white, and blue. Trump’s 2016 RNC acceptance speech was a masterpiece of the form: partisan, energetic, and long as hell — with all the expected theatrical trappings. A pulsing mob of fired-up supporters filled Cleveland’s Quicken Loans Arena, cheering and jeering at the designated moments. It was effective then. It would be disastrous now.
As much as he might like to, Trump can no longer present himself as the bombastic agitator against the status quo. He is the incumbent now. What’s more, the current social chaos demands a more restrained and positive voice. While this may be out of the president’s comfort zone, it is hardly out of his wheelhouse altogether.
For an idea of the approach that would best suit the moment and the man, we might look back on two of Trump’s strongest speeches yet. Both were at places of monumental cultural or historical importance, and each of the speeches was deeply connected with the site of its delivery. Both focused on what might be termed existential questions: concerns about not just the politics of the day, but the future of our way of life and the preservation of our history.
These are the kinds of speeches that rarely make their way into party conventions, as speakers tend to target the other candidate and party with a laser focus. But there is no reason why they shouldn’t. Given Trump’s consideration of a major historical site and the speeches he has given at such places in the past, we may be poised to see the first.
On June 6th of last year, Trump traveled to Normandy to commemorate the 75th anniversary of D-Day. Throughout the whole affair his conduct was thoroughly presidential. Optically, it was one of his finest moments, and remains a year later perhaps his most polished and compelling appearance as president. His remarks reminded listeners (beside those obstinate few who insist on denouncing everything he does) that he is the leader of the whole nation. They encouraged us to look back on our past and forward to our future. They are worth recalling at length:
In defeating that evil, [the veterans of the war] left a legacy that will last not only for a thousand years, but for all time—for as long as the soul knows of duty and honor; for as long as freedom keeps its hold on the human heart. To the men who sit behind me, and to the boys who rest in the field before me, your example will never, ever grow old. Your legend will never tire. Your spirit—brave, unyielding, and true—will never die. The blood that they spilled, the tears that they shed, the lives that they gave, the sacrifice that they made, did not just win a battle. It did not just win a war. Those who fought here won a future for our nation. They won the survival of our civilization. And they showed us the way to love, cherish, and defend our way of life for many centuries to come.
If he can redeliver words like these at Gettysburg, Trump may prove himself not only capable of attaining a second term, but worthy of it. At Normandy, he was able simultaneously to conjure up images of one of our nation’s most dramatic existential conflicts and to ground his reflections in the here and now. Despite his frequent irreverence elsewhere, he proved that when circumstances truly require it he can be solemn, serious, respectful—presidential. The benefits of a similar showing at Gettysburg, so long as it is conducted properly and sincerely, could be immense.
For an even better idea of an effective Gettysburg speech, we can look to Mount Rushmore, where just last month the president spoke against calls to erase our history. He spoke in turn on the importance of the legacy of each of the men remembered there. In his remarks on Lincoln, he even named the field he now has his eye on:
At Gettysburg 157 years ago, the Union bravely withstood an assault of nearly 15,000 men, and threw back Pickett’s Charge. Lincoln won the Civil War. He issued the Emancipation Proclamation. He led the passage of the 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery for all time, and ultimately his determination to preserve our nation and our Union cost him his life. For as long as we live, Americans will uphold and revere the immortal memory of President Abraham Lincoln.
Does Trump have a deeply vested personal interest in the relevance of 1863’s troubles to today’s? I wouldn’t bet on it. But that does not disqualify him as a messenger. And the message is one we desperately need to hear.
Much talk has been made in the last four years of Trump’s supposed nationalist revival. But for all the talk, we have seen very little of the right kind of nationalism come to fruition. A real effort toward that end might begin with an acceptance speech that reclaims our national story, delivered on one of that story’s most vital pieces of ground. Just imagine if the GOP nominee, instead of orating for an hour and a half on tax cuts, defense spending, and Democrat corruption, could stand in the place where thousands shed blood in defense of our Constitution and remind us that their sacrifice is not so distant as we might think—that, in fact, their cause may not yet be won. Imagine an acceptance speech that looks further back than last April and further forward than November.
It would be a “stunt” in some sense, and certain members of the media will be sure to pillory the president for it. There is a performative element to all politics—especially good politics. But it would not be merely a stunt: what happened at Gettysburg—what makes the place so sacred—is not devoid of politics, nor even of political implications for the present day. There is a right way to go about a battlefield acceptance speech, one that honors the memory of the men who died there and looks at our world honestly through their eyes. He should go to Gettysburg not in spite of its sacredness but because of it. A Gettysburg performance is almost certain to be deeper, more dramatic, more persuasive than any speech in any stadium, precisely because, in connecting our present to our past, it could elevate our temporal politics to the seriousness rightly due them.
One cannot help but wonder if the people jumping to condemn the choice before it’s made might be entirely aware of that fact. They say it would come across as insincere and insensitive, that voters would be enraged at his partisan use of hallowed ground. Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post suggests that Trump will suffer by comparison to Lincoln, who delivered his own famous address there in 1863. But one wonders if these objections might reveal a bit of fear: what if Trump does not suffer by comparison? What if he manages to channel his predecessor at least enough to deliver an effective and compelling message, to revive some part of his spirit and his memory, to reinvigorate the sense of victory in existential conflict, the drama and gravity, that are soaked in the ground at Gettysburg? When we recall his trips to France and South Dakota, it does not seem out of the question.
This could be a defining, and redefining, moment. Trump may yet secure a win—for himself, for conservatism, for nationalism—by delivering on a promise he made last month at Rushmore: “We will teach our children to know that they live in a land of legends.”


theamericanconservative--2020-08-17--Why Trump Should Accept His Nomination at Gettysburg


theamericanconservative--2020-08-18--When Half of NYC’s Tax Base Leaves and Never Comes Back

The separateness in New York , and by extension much of the nation curled around it from America ’ s eastern edge , stands out .
There are the hyper-wealthy and there are the multi-generational poor .
They depend on each other , but with COVID who needs who more has changed .
It ’ s easy to stress how far apart the rich and the poor live , even though the mansions of the Upper West Side are less than a mile from the crack dealers uptown .
The rich don ’ t ride public transportation , they don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ schools , they shop and dine in very different places with private security to ensure everything stays far enough apart to keep it all together .
But that misses the dependencies which until now have simply been a given in the ecosystem .
The traditional view has been the rich need the poor to exploit as cheap labor—textbook economic inequality .
But with COVID as the spark , the ticking bomb of economic inequality may soon go off in America ’ s greatest city .
Things are changing and New York , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ itself what it wants to be when it grows up .
It ’ s snapshot simple .
The wealthy and the companies they work for pay most of the taxes .
The poor consume most of the taxes through social programs .
COVID is driving the wealthy and their offices out of the city .
No one will be left to pay for the poor , who are stuck here , and the city will collapse in the transition .
A classic failed state scenario .
New York City is home to 118 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ city .
New York City is also home to nearly one million millionaires , more than any other city in the world .
Among those millionaires some 8,865 are classified as “ high net worth , ” with more than $ 30 million each .
They pay the taxes .
The top one percent of NYC taxpayers pay nearly 50 percent of all personal income taxes collected in New York .
Personal income tax in the New York area accounts for 59 percent of all revenues .
Property taxes add in more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , about half of that generated by office space .
Now for how the other half lives .
Below those wealthy people in every sense of the word the city has the largest homeless population of any American metropolis , which includes 114,000 children .
The number of New Yorkers living below the poverty line is larger than the population of Philadelphia , and would be the country ’ s 7th largest city .
More than 400,000 New Yorkers reside in public housing .
Another 235,000 receive rent assistance .
That all costs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ York City Housing Authority needs $ 24 billion over the next decade just for vital repairs .
That ’ s on top of a yearly standard operating cost approaching four billion dollars .
A lot of the money used to come from Washington before a multibillion-dollar decline in federal Section 9 funds .
So today there is a shortfall and repairs , including lead removal , are being put off .
NYC also has a $ 34 billion budget for public schools , many of which function as distribution points for child food @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and a range of social services .
The budget for a city as complex as New York is a mess of federal , state , and local funding sources .
It can be sliced and diced many ways , but the one that matters is the starkest : the people and companies who pay for New York ’ s poor are leaving even as the city is already facing a $ 7.4 billion tax revenue hit from the initial effects of the coronavirus .
The money is there ; New York ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worth by $ 44.9 billion during the pandemic .
It ’ s just not here .
New York ’ s Governor Andrew Cuomo has seen a bit of the iceberg in the distance .
He recently took to MSNBC to beg the city ’ s wealthy , who fled the coronavirus outbreak , to return .
Cuomo said he was extremely worried about New York City if too many of the well-heeled taxpayers who fled COVID decide there is no need to move back .
“ They are in their Hamptons homes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talk to them literally every day .
I say .
‘ When are you coming back ?
I ’ ll buy you a drink .
I ’ ll cook .
But they ’ re not coming back right now .
And you know what else they ’ re thinking , if I stay there , they pay a lower income tax because they don ’ t pay the New York City surcharge .
So , that would be a bad place if we had to go there.
” Included in the surcharge are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taxes .
The recent repeal of the federal allowance for state and local tax deductions ( SALT ) costs New York ’ s high earners some $ 15 billion in additional federal taxes annually .
“ They don ’ t want to come back to the city , ” Partnership for NYC President Kathryn Wylde warned .
“ It ’ s hard to move a company… but it ’ s much easier for individuals to move , ” she said , noting that most offices plan to allow remote work indefinitely .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ re going to lose more of our tax base then we ’ ve already lost.
” While overall only five percent of residents left as of May , in the city ’ s very wealthiest blocks residential population decreased by 40 percent or more .
The higher-earning a neighborhood is , the more likely it is to have emptied out .
Even the amount of trash collected in wealthy neighborhoods has dropped , a tell-tale sign no one is home .
A real estate agent told me she estimates about a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mid-range 300 unit building are empty .
The ones for sale or rent attract few customers .
She says it ’ s worse than post-9/11 because at least then the mood was “ How do we get NYC back on its feet ?
” instead of now , when we just stand over the body and tsk tsk through our masks .
Enough New Yorkers are running toward the exits that it has shaken up the greater area ’ s housing market .
Another real estate agent describes the frantic bidding in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blood sport.
” “ We are seeing 20 offers on houses .
We are seeing things going 30 percent over the asking price .
It ’ s kind of insane.
” Fewer than one-tenth of Manhattan office workers came back to the workplace a month after New York gave businesses the green light to return to the buildings they ran from in March .
Having had several months to notice what not paying Manhattan office rents might do for their bottom line , large companies are leaving .
Conde Nast , the publishing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new World Trade Center , is moving out .
Even the iconic paper The Daily News ( which published the famous headline “ Ford to City : Drop Dead ” when New York collapsed in 1975 without a federal bailout ) closed its physical newsroom to go virtual .
Despite the folksy image of New York as a paradise of Mom and Pop restaurants and quaint shops , about 50 percent of those who pay most of the taxes work for large firms .
Progressive pin-up Mayor De Blasio has lost touch with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to address economic inequality by simply throwing free money to the poor and limiting the ability of the police to protect them , and us , from rising crime , his COVID focus has been on shutting down schools and converting139 luxury hotels to filthy homeless shelters .
Alongside AOC , he has called for higher taxes on fewer people and demanded more federal funds .
As for the wealthy who have paid for his failed social justice experiments to date , he says “ We don ’ t make decisions based on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fair-weathered friends , but they will be replaced by others.
” What others ?
The concentration of major corporations once pulled talent to the city from across the globe ; if you wanted to work for JP Morgan on Wall Street , you had to live here .
That ’ s why NYC has skyscrapers ; a lot of people once needed to live and especially work in the same place .
Not any more .
Technology and work-at-home changes have eliminated geography .
For the super wealthy , New York once topped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ live based on four factors : wealth , investment , lifestyle and future .
The first meant a desire to live among other wealthy people ( we know where that ’ s headed ) , investment returns on real estate ( not looking great , if you can even find a buyer ) , lifestyle ( now destroyed with bars , restaurants , shopping , museums , and theaters closed indefinitely , coupled with rising crime ) and… The future .
New York pre-COVID had the highest projected GDP growth of any city @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the question if COVID continues to hollow out the city , who will be left to pay for New York ?
As one commentator said , NYC risks leading America into becoming “ Brazil with Nukes , ” a future of constant political and social chaos , with a ruling class content to wall itself off from the greater society ’ s problems .
Peter Van Buren , a 24-year State Department veteran , is the author of We Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s War : A Novel of WWII Japan , and Ghosts of Tom Joad : A Story of the 99 Percent .

The separateness in New York, and by extension much of the nation curled around it from America’s eastern edge, stands out. There are the hyper-wealthy and there are the multi-generational poor. They depend on each other, but with COVID who needs who more has changed.
It’s easy to stress how far apart the rich and the poor live, even though the mansions of the Upper West Side are less than a mile from the crack dealers uptown. The rich don’t ride public transportation, they don’t send their kids to public schools, they shop and dine in very different places with private security to ensure everything stays far enough apart to keep it all together.
But that misses the dependencies which until now have simply been a given in the ecosystem. The traditional view has been the rich need the poor to exploit as cheap labor—textbook economic inequality. But with COVID as the spark, the ticking bomb of economic inequality may soon go off in America’s greatest city. Things are changing and New York, and by extension America, needs to ask itself what it wants to be when it grows up.
It’s snapshot simple. The wealthy and the companies they work for pay most of the taxes. The poor consume most of the taxes through social programs. COVID is driving the wealthy and their offices out of the city. No one will be left to pay for the poor, who are stuck here, and the city will collapse in the transition. A classic failed state scenario.
New York City is home to 118 billionaires, more than any other American city. New York City is also home to nearly one million millionaires, more than any other city in the world. Among those millionaires some 8,865 are classified as “high net worth,” with more than $30 million each.
They pay the taxes. The top one percent of NYC taxpayers pay nearly 50 percent of all personal income taxes collected in New York. Personal income tax in the New York area accounts for 59 percent of all revenues. Property taxes add in more than a billion dollars a year in revenue, about half of that generated by office space.
Now for how the other half lives. Below those wealthy people in every sense of the word the city has the largest homeless population of any American metropolis, which includes 114,000 children. The number of New Yorkers living below the poverty line is larger than the population of Philadelphia, and would be the country’s 7th largest city. More than 400,000 New Yorkers reside in public housing. Another 235,000 receive rent assistance.
That all costs a lot of money. The New York City Housing Authority needs $24 billion over the next decade just for vital repairs. That’s on top of a yearly standard operating cost approaching four billion dollars. A lot of the money used to come from Washington before a multibillion-dollar decline in federal Section 9 funds. So today there is a shortfall and repairs, including lead removal, are being put off. NYC also has a $34 billion budget for public schools, many of which function as distribution points for child food aid, medical care, day care, and a range of social services.
The budget for a city as complex as New York is a mess of federal, state, and local funding sources. It can be sliced and diced many ways, but the one that matters is the starkest: the people and companies who pay for New York’s poor are leaving even as the city is already facing a $7.4 billion tax revenue hit from the initial effects of the coronavirus. The money is there; New York’s wealthiest individuals have increased their net worth by $44.9 billion during the pandemic. It’s just not here.
New York’s Governor Andrew Cuomo has seen a bit of the iceberg in the distance. He recently took to MSNBC to beg the city’s wealthy, who fled the coronavirus outbreak, to return. Cuomo said he was extremely worried about New York City if too many of the well-heeled taxpayers who fled COVID decide there is no need to move back. “They are in their Hamptons homes, or Hudson Valley or Connecticut. I talk to them literally every day. I say. ‘When are you coming back? I’ll buy you a drink. I’ll cook. But they’re not coming back right now. And you know what else they’re thinking, if I stay there, they pay a lower income tax because they don’t pay the New York City surcharge. So, that would be a bad place if we had to go there.”
Included in the surcharge are not only NYC’s notoriously high taxes. The recent repeal of the federal allowance for state and local tax deductions (SALT) costs New York’s high earners some $15 billion in additional federal taxes annually.
“They don’t want to come back to the city,” Partnership for NYC President Kathryn Wylde warned. “It’s hard to move a company… but it’s much easier for individuals to move,” she said, noting that most offices plan to allow remote work indefinitely. “It’s a big concern that we’re going to lose more of our tax base then we’ve already lost.”
While overall only five percent of residents left as of May, in the city’s very wealthiest blocks residential population decreased by 40 percent or more. The higher-earning a neighborhood is, the more likely it is to have emptied out. Even the amount of trash collected in wealthy neighborhoods has dropped, a tell-tale sign no one is home. A real estate agent told me she estimates about a third of the apartments even in my mid-range 300 unit building are empty. The ones for sale or rent attract few customers. She says it’s worse than post-9/11 because at least then the mood was “How do we get NYC back on its feet?” instead of now, when we just stand over the body and tsk tsk through our masks.
Enough New Yorkers are running toward the exits that it has shaken up the greater area’s housing market. Another real estate agent describes the frantic bidding in the nearby New Jersey suburbs as a “blood sport.” “We are seeing 20 offers on houses. We are seeing things going 30 percent over the asking price. It’s kind of insane.”
Fewer than one-tenth of Manhattan office workers came back to the workplace a month after New York gave businesses the green light to return to the buildings they ran from in March. Having had several months to notice what not paying Manhattan office rents might do for their bottom line, large companies are leaving. Conde Nast, the publishing company and majority client in the signature new World Trade Center, is moving out. Even the iconic paper The Daily News (which published the famous headline “Ford to City: Drop Dead” when New York collapsed in 1975 without a federal bailout) closed its physical newsroom to go virtual. Despite the folksy image of New York as a paradise of Mom and Pop restaurants and quaint shops, about 50 percent of those who pay most of the taxes work for large firms.
Progressive pin-up Mayor De Blasio has lost touch with his city. After years of failing to address economic inequality by simply throwing free money to the poor and limiting the ability of the police to protect them, and us, from rising crime, his COVID focus has been on shutting down schools and converting 139 luxury hotels to filthy homeless shelters. Alongside AOC, he has called for higher taxes on fewer people and demanded more federal funds. As for the wealthy who have paid for his failed social justice experiments to date, he says “We don’t make decisions based on a wealthy few. Some may be fair-weathered friends, but they will be replaced by others.”
What others? The concentration of major corporations once pulled talent to the city from across the globe; if you wanted to work for JP Morgan on Wall Street, you had to live here. That’s why NYC has skyscrapers; a lot of people once needed to live and especially work in the same place. Not any more. Technology and work-at-home changes have eliminated geography.
For the super wealthy, New York once topped the global list of desirable places to live based on four factors: wealth, investment, lifestyle and future. The first meant a desire to live among other wealthy people (we know where that’s headed), investment returns on real estate (not looking great, if you can even find a buyer), lifestyle (now destroyed with bars, restaurants, shopping, museums, and theaters closed indefinitely, coupled with rising crime) and…
The future. New York pre-COVID had the highest projected GDP growth of any city. Now we’re left with the question if COVID continues to hollow out the city, who will be left to pay for New York? As one commentator said, NYC risks leading America into becoming “Brazil with Nukes,” a future of constant political and social chaos, with a ruling class content to wall itself off from the greater society’s problems.
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People, Hooper’s War: A Novel of WWII Japan, and Ghosts of Tom Joad: A Story of the 99 Percent.


theamericanconservative--2020-08-18--Should Joe Biden Apologize for His Party’s Support of Slavery?

In his eulogy for John Lewis , Barack Obama called the filibuster rule a “ Jim Crow relic.
” This is a historical impossibility since the filibuster predates the Civil War .
That ’ s no matter .
It ’ s been clear for many years that the left will call any opposition to it ’ s goals racist no matter the consequences , or absurdity of their propositions .
They ’ ve pursued this strategy so ruthlessly that almost all Republicans politicians obsequiously obey the left ’ s marching orders if they think they ’ ll get called racist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the filibuster is extreme , and if they ’ re going to try to tie it to race then Republicans should reply in an equally forceful manner .
Republicans should demand that Joe Biden use his acceptance speech to formally apologize for his party ’ s support of slavery .
Republicans should respond to Obama ’ s provocation , and all woke demands , by demanding the Democrats use their convention to apologize for slavery .
There is an unbroken institutional connection between the party of Joe Biden and the Democrats who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a focus of the Trump campaign , but it would be an effective attack that could deter rhetoric like Obama ’ s .
Democrats will stop accusing their enemies of racism if they know this will result in a conversation about whether or not they ought to apologize for slavery .
The left wants us to use dubious concepts like “ institutional racism ” to advance their agenda , but are members of an institution that actually supported slavery .
Republican representative Louie Gohmert recently tried to pass a resolution banning the Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for slavery .
This is bad framing because it takes it too far and makes it easy to dismiss him as a crackpot .
Instead it should just be a consistent question .
“ Should the Democrats formally apologize for being the party of slavery ?
” Asking Joe Biden to do this in his acceptance speech could demoralize potential Biden voters , slow the cultural revolution , and deter accusations of racism from the Biden campaign .
Republicans may dismiss this for different reasons .
Some may object to such juvenile and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not a synonym for weakness .
There are many moderate and good faith defenses of the filibuster , but they won ’ t survive accusations of racism .
True moderation is inherently fragile , therefore it needs to be protected with hardball tactics .
It is prudent and moderate to ask Democrats to address their history with slavery when they call the filibuster a relic of Jim Crow .
Other Republicans may object to one more toxic relitigation of history that is fundamentally unserious .
Yet a consistent request for the Democrats to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of slavery could deter unserious woke rhetoric in the future .
Many people don ’ t actually know about this aspect of history .
The majority of Americans don ’ t know the Democrat ’ s connection to slavery .
Conservatives have heard it a million times , and so may be frustrated by hacky , and cliche attempts to link all Republican enemies to the Confederacy .
Despite our familiarity , this old conservative talking point will have new salience in the current woke environment where Planned Parenthood actually denounced their founder @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t realize that the Democrats supported slavery .
Few people understand that the Democratic Party has continually existed since its role in the Civil War .
Conservatives know that Democratic Senator Robert Byrd was a member of the KKK in his early life , and the Trump campaign has halfheartedly brought this up .
This is a clear connection between the Democrats who supported slavery and Biden .
It ’ s very easy for voters to understand .
People who genuinely believe the woke rhetoric but were never taught about the Democrats ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to sustained efforts .
If the Trump campaign asks Biden to apologize at the convention , it may force Democrats to adopt a nuanced position on race and history .
The predictable response will be about how the parties switched , but this is going to be less effective in the era of the 1619 Project .
Democrats are told that America was “ built on slavery ” and therefore its entire founding is irredeemably racist .
They ’ ve given themselves very little wiggle room to defend the Democratic Party .
Why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the convention ?
If they ’ re the party of antiracism , doesn ’ t it just make sense ?
The goal is simply to get Democrats to talk about this .
It ’ s simply to get liberal writers to publish essays making a nuanced argument about history .
This could help neutralize the Democrats ’ primary electoral strategy .
If the Biden campaign knows they will have to talk about the Democrats and slavery every time they bring up race , they will be less likely to bring it up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make this election about race , and say that the election is a “ battle for the soul of this nation.
” As part of this project , they paint normal and mainstream views on immigration or trade as somehow racist .
Republicans genuinely hate being called racist , and so get goaded into arguing that the Democrats are the real racists .
If they want to do this effectively , they should point out that immigration , trade , and slavery are all issues revolving around the need for cheap labor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of cheap immigrant labor an ugly reminder of the Democrats racist past ?
It is important for our national healing that the Democrats finally address their history .
Some will be tempted to respond to Obama ’ s provocation about the filibuster by writing long essays about the true history of the rule .
Some will try to bring up various ways that the history of the filibuster proves that Democrats are the real racists .
Yet this will continue a conversation that helps the Democrats .
They want to argue about whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a racist past instead of talking about their naked and cynical will to power .
Turn the tables .
Is the Democratic Party a vestige from a racist past ?
How can anyone who calls himself an antiracist voluntarily join an organization that profited off of black bodies ?
Should Joe Biden use his acceptance speech to issue a formal apology for the Democratic Party ’ s support of slavery ?
James McElroy is a New York City-based novelist and essayist .

In his eulogy for John Lewis, Barack Obama called the filibuster rule a “Jim Crow relic.” This is a historical impossibility since the filibuster predates the Civil War. That’s no matter. It’s been clear for many years that the left will call any opposition to it’s goals racist no matter the consequences, or absurdity of their propositions.
They’ve pursued this strategy so ruthlessly that almost all Republicans politicians obsequiously obey the left’s marching orders if they think they’ll get called racist. The Democrat’s new position on the filibuster is extreme, and if they’re going to try to tie it to race then Republicans should reply in an equally forceful manner.
Republicans should demand that Joe Biden use his acceptance speech to formally apologize for his party’s support of slavery.
Republicans should respond to Obama’s provocation, and all woke demands, by demanding the Democrats use their convention to apologize for slavery. There is an unbroken institutional connection between the party of Joe Biden and the Democrats who defended slavery. This should not be a focus of the Trump campaign, but it would be an effective attack that could deter rhetoric like Obama’s. Democrats will stop accusing their enemies of racism if they know this will result in a conversation about whether or not they ought to apologize for slavery.
The left wants us to use dubious concepts like “institutional racism” to advance their agenda, but are members of an institution that actually supported slavery. Republican representative Louie Gohmert recently tried to pass a resolution banning the Democrats from Congress because of their historic support for slavery. This is bad framing because it takes it too far and makes it easy to dismiss him as a crackpot. Instead it should just be a consistent question. “Should the Democrats formally apologize for being the party of slavery?” Asking Joe Biden to do this in his acceptance speech could demoralize potential Biden voters, slow the cultural revolution, and deter accusations of racism from the Biden campaign.
Republicans may dismiss this for different reasons. Some may object to such juvenile and partisan tactics. Yet, moderation is not a synonym for weakness. There are many moderate and good faith defenses of the filibuster, but they won’t survive accusations of racism. True moderation is inherently fragile, therefore it needs to be protected with hardball tactics. It is prudent and moderate to ask Democrats to address their history with slavery when they call the filibuster a relic of Jim Crow. Other Republicans may object to one more toxic relitigation of history that is fundamentally unserious. Yet a consistent request for the Democrats to atone for their party’s support of slavery could deter unserious woke rhetoric in the future. Many people don’t actually know about this aspect of history.
The majority of Americans don’t know the Democrat’s connection to slavery. Conservatives have heard it a million times, and so may be frustrated by hacky, and cliche attempts to link all Republican enemies to the Confederacy. Despite our familiarity, this old conservative talking point will have new salience in the current woke environment where Planned Parenthood actually denounced their founder. Similarly, most Americans don’t realize that the Democrats supported slavery. Few people understand that the Democratic Party has continually existed since its role in the Civil War. Conservatives know that Democratic Senator Robert Byrd was a member of the KKK in his early life, and the Trump campaign has halfheartedly brought this up. This is a clear connection between the Democrats who supported slavery and Biden. It’s very easy for voters to understand. People who genuinely believe the woke rhetoric but were never taught about the Democrats’ historical connection to slavery are probably susceptible to sustained efforts.
If the Trump campaign asks Biden to apologize at the convention, it may force Democrats to adopt a nuanced position on race and history. The predictable response will be about how the parties switched, but this is going to be less effective in the era of the 1619 Project. Democrats are told that America was “built on slavery” and therefore its entire founding is irredeemably racist. They’ve given themselves very little wiggle room to defend the Democratic Party. Why shouldn’t they issue an apology at the convention? If they’re the party of antiracism, doesn’t it just make sense? The goal is simply to get Democrats to talk about this. It’s simply to get liberal writers to publish essays making a nuanced argument about history. This could help neutralize the Democrats’ primary electoral strategy.
If the Biden campaign knows they will have to talk about the Democrats and slavery every time they bring up race, they will be less likely to bring it up at all. The Biden campaign wants to make this election about race, and say that the election is a “battle for the soul of this nation.” As part of this project, they paint normal and mainstream views on immigration or trade as somehow racist. Republicans genuinely hate being called racist, and so get goaded into arguing that the Democrats are the real racists. If they want to do this effectively, they should point out that immigration, trade, and slavery are all issues revolving around the need for cheap labor. Is Joe Biden’s defense of cheap immigrant labor an ugly reminder of the Democrats racist past? It is important for our national healing that the Democrats finally address their history.
Some will be tempted to respond to Obama’s provocation about the filibuster by writing long essays about the true history of the rule. Some will try to bring up various ways that the history of the filibuster proves that Democrats are the real racists. Yet this will continue a conversation that helps the Democrats. They want to argue about whether or not the filibuster is a vestige of a racist past instead of talking about their naked and cynical will to power. Turn the tables. Is the Democratic Party a vestige from a racist past? How can anyone who calls himself an antiracist voluntarily join an organization that profited off of black bodies? Should Joe Biden use his acceptance speech to issue a formal apology for the Democratic Party’s support of slavery?
James McElroy is a New York City-based novelist and essayist.


theamericanconservative--2020-08-18--Bizarro Robin Hood: Taking from the Middle Class to Give to the Rich

On the ( virtual ) campaign trail , former vice president and presidential candidate Joe Biden offers voters the same “ friend of the working class ” pitch he ’ s offered over the course of his political career .
The former vice president and U.S .
Senator has repeatedly railed against income inequality , but as voters have come to realize in elections past , campaign rhetoric rarely matches reality .
Biden ’ s current “ Build Back Better ” agenda would result in massive giveaways to wealthy Americans and politically connected corporations rather than struggling Americans .
Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a genuine agenda to help working class Americans .
It ’ s understandable that politicians and presidential candidates try to market themselves as down-to-Earth and relatable .
In the midst of a struggling economy and crippling pandemic , Americans want elected officials who can empathize with their plight and offer realistic solutions .
Too often , these “ solutions ” amount to a brazen giveaway of taxpayer dollars to well-off citizens .
For example , subsidies targeting “ renewable ” technologies disproportionately benefit affluent households who would have made green purchases anyway .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Research Institute scholar Dr. Wayne Winegarden , roughly 80 percent of electric vehicle ( EV ) tax credits accrue to households earning $ 100,000 or more .
This misguided policy has not only benefited higher income households , but also already-subsidized automakers with record-high stock market valuations .
This tax credit has been phased out for well-heeled automakers such as Tesla , since Tesla and other manufacturers have manufactured more than the initial subsidy threshold of 200,000 EVs .
But , according to a statement by the Biden campaign , “ Biden will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to incentivize the purchase of these vehicles.
” President Biden would likely push to make the tax credit open-ended , ensuring that manufacturers could continue to benefit from the credit even after producing hundreds of thousands of vehicles .
The EV giveaway is one of many Robin Hood-in-reverse policies championed by the presidential contender .
Under Biden ’ s higher education policy , undergraduate federal student loan holders would only have to pay 5 percent of their discretionary income ( over $ 25,000 ) toward loans over a twenty-year period .
After twenty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That generous policy disproportionately benefits the top quartile of households with the highest earnings , who hold 34 percent of outstanding education debt according to a 2019 Urban Institute analysis .
The proposal puts taxpayers on the hook for the loan debt of the wealthy .
For example , if a student from a wealthy household accumulates $ 150,000 in debt at a 4-year college and earns a comfortable $ 80,000 per year in discretionary income coming out of the college , that repayment would only equal $ 2,750 per year .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ income reached $ 130,000 per year over the 20-year repayment period , taxpayers would still be subsidizing roughly $ 70,000 of the student ’ s tuition at the end of the payment period .
Even the presidential candidate ’ s progressive-sounding tax plan would spell disaster for America ’ s working families .
President Biden would hike the corporate tax rate from 21 to 28 percent , which would result in higher prices , lower wages , and fewer opportunities for struggling Americans .
According to a Tax Foundation analysis , raising the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lead to 187,000 fewer jobs and result in a nearly 1 percent pay cut for workers .
It ’ s little wonder that American Enterprise Institute scholars Kyle Pomerleau , Jason DeBacker , and Richard W. Evans conclude that , under the Biden plan , “ The bottom 95 percent of taxpayers would generally face a tax increase due entirely to the corporate income tax increases.
” Biden hardly has a monopoly on costly , regressive policies .
President Trump ’ s tariff policies have disproportionately hit households struggling to pay the bills @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 400 in annual trade taxes on middle-and-lower class families is a terrible plan , regardless of the political party responsible .
Meanwhile , there have been troubling revelations that taxpayer dollars from the Paycheck Protection Program ( championed by President Trump and both parties ) funded the endeavors of rich celebrities such as Kanye West and Robert De Niro .
It ’ s up to each presidential candidate to assure hard-working Americans that they won ’ t be forced to foot sky-high bills and fund the lifestyles of their wealthier neighbors .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ given the political duopoly ’ s history of Robin-Hood-in-reverse policies .
The onus is on the political class to prove that they ’ ll serve the working class .
Ross Marchand is the Vice President of Policy for the Taxpayers Protection Alliance .

On the (virtual) campaign trail, former vice president and presidential candidate Joe Biden offers voters the same “friend of the working class” pitch he’s offered over the course of his political career.
The former vice president and U.S. Senator has repeatedly railed against income inequality, but as voters have come to realize in elections past, campaign rhetoric rarely matches reality. Biden’s current “Build Back Better” agenda would result in massive giveaways to wealthy Americans and politically connected corporations rather than struggling Americans. Biden should replace these Robin Hood-in-reverse policies with a genuine agenda to help working class Americans.
It’s understandable that politicians and presidential candidates try to market themselves as down-to-Earth and relatable. In the midst of a struggling economy and crippling pandemic, Americans want elected officials who can empathize with their plight and offer realistic solutions. Too often, these “solutions” amount to a brazen giveaway of taxpayer dollars to well-off citizens. For example, subsidies targeting “renewable” technologies disproportionately benefit affluent households who would have made green purchases anyway.
According to a 2018 analysis by Pacific Research Institute scholar Dr. Wayne Winegarden, roughly 80 percent of electric vehicle (EV) tax credits accrue to households earning $100,000 or more. This misguided policy has not only benefited higher income households, but also already-subsidized automakers with record-high stock market valuations. This tax credit has been phased out for well-heeled automakers such as Tesla, since Tesla and other manufacturers have manufactured more than the initial subsidy threshold of 200,000 EVs. But, according to a statement by the Biden campaign, “Biden will restore the full electric vehicle tax credit to incentivize the purchase of these vehicles.” President Biden would likely push to make the tax credit open-ended, ensuring that manufacturers could continue to benefit from the credit even after producing hundreds of thousands of vehicles.
The EV giveaway is one of many Robin Hood-in-reverse policies championed by the presidential contender. Under Biden’s higher education policy, undergraduate federal student loan holders would only have to pay 5 percent of their discretionary income (over $25,000) toward loans over a twenty-year period. After twenty years, the remainder will be forgiven. That generous policy disproportionately benefits the top quartile of households with the highest earnings, who hold 34 percent of outstanding education debt according to a 2019 Urban Institute analysis. The proposal puts taxpayers on the hook for the loan debt of the wealthy.
For example, if a student from a wealthy household accumulates $150,000 in debt at a 4-year college and earns a comfortable $80,000 per year in discretionary income coming out of the college, that repayment would only equal $2,750 per year. Even if the student’s discretionary income reached $130,000 per year over the 20-year repayment period, taxpayers would still be subsidizing roughly $70,000 of the student’s tuition at the end of the payment period.
Even the presidential candidate’s progressive-sounding tax plan would spell disaster for America’s working families. President Biden would hike the corporate tax rate from 21 to 28 percent, which would result in higher prices, lower wages, and fewer opportunities for struggling Americans. According to a Tax Foundation analysis, raising the corporate tax rate to 28 percent would lead to 187,000 fewer jobs and result in a nearly 1 percent pay cut for workers. It’s little wonder that American Enterprise Institute scholars Kyle Pomerleau, Jason DeBacker, and Richard W. Evans conclude that, under the Biden plan, “The bottom 95 percent of taxpayers would generally face a tax increase due entirely to the corporate income tax increases.”
Biden hardly has a monopoly on costly, regressive policies. President Trump’s tariff policies have disproportionately hit households struggling to pay the bills on time. Levying more than $400 in annual trade taxes on middle-and-lower class families is a terrible plan, regardless of the political party responsible. Meanwhile, there have been troubling revelations that taxpayer dollars from the Paycheck Protection Program (championed by President Trump and both parties) funded the endeavors of rich celebrities such as Kanye West and Robert De Niro.
It’s up to each presidential candidate to assure hard-working Americans that they won’t be forced to foot sky-high bills and fund the lifestyles of their wealthier neighbors. But that’s a hard sell, given the political duopoly’s history of Robin-Hood-in-reverse policies. The onus is on the political class to prove that they’ll serve the working class.
Ross Marchand is the Vice President of Policy for the Taxpayers Protection Alliance.


theamericanconservative--2020-08-19--Fantasy Role Playing Elites Predict Post-Election Darkness Across the Land

Everyone is talking about how a group of Democrats and Republican Never-Trumpers came together for a ‘ bipartisan ’ election wargame that suspiciously seems to be promoting the same nightmare scenario talked up by Trump ’ s opponents over the last week—that the president will refuse to leave office if he does not win in November .
While Trump ’ s comments to FOX ’ s Chris Wallace last month about the possibility of postponing the election didn ’ t help , and there has been a wave of stories this week in the mainstream media about the president withholding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , supposedly to thwart mail-in voting for the Nov. 3 election .
This seems to dovetail nicely with the results of the “ secret ” wargaming ( which took place in June ) , after which the organizers , who included a who ’ s who of Washington elites , guaranteed the election would be contested by the losing side .
According to reports , John Podesta , a former top aide to President Barack Obama , played Joe Biden .
Never-Trumpers David Frum and Bill Kristol portrayed the president .
Other participants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and former RNC chair Michael Steele .
The emphasis of their findings was clearly on Trump , who they said would likely “ use the executive branch to aid his campaign strategy ” of denying the popular vote if he loses it .
He would , with a “ high degree of likelihood , ” use the Justice Department and the assistance of Republican governors and legislature to “ illegally ” overturn the vote so he could “ hold onto power.
” The Transition Integrity Project ( TIP ) describes itself as “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and former senior government and campaign leaders and other experts.
” They conducted this wargame to play out four likely scenarios .
The results were all bad .
“ All of our scenarios ended in both street-level violence and political impasse , ” Georgetown law professor and TIP co-founder Rosa Brooks toldThe Boston Globe .
“ The law is essentially… it ’ s almost helpless against a president who ’ s willing to ignore it.
” Titled Preventing a Disrupted Presidential Election , the tabletop exercises anticipate a “ chaotic legal and political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conclude that America is in for a dangerous transition period between the election and the inauguration in January 2021 , regardless of who wins the presidency .
In their words , “ The concept of ‘ election night , ’ is no longer accurate and indeed is dangerous.
” If done right , wargaming the upcoming election could be a valuable exercise , considering the stakes and the volatility in American society and politics right now .
But this one was clearly biased .
First , TIP minces no words , characterizing Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the president does himself no favors in using rhetoric more commonly heard from leaders of banana republics , especially in declaring the elections “ rigged ” before they have even been held .
His constant harping on fraudulent mail-in ballots , while not entirely unfounded , doesn ’ t exactly dissuade from the conspiracy theories now abounding , either .
But his remarks are also perfectly consistent with how Trump communicates in general—always upping the ante .
While he may use the rhetoric of a dictator , he never really acts like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is willing to further fund the Postal Service , which will be carrying all those fraudulent ballots , depending on how negotiations with Democrats turn out .
When he suggested the election be delayed , critics pointed out he does not have the authority to do so , and it was never mentioned again .
Yet the TIP wargame shows that many Democrats are not at all reassured and remain convinced that 2020 “ represents an existential crisis , the last chance to stop a rapid and potentially irreversible U.S. decline into authoritarianism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wargame resulted in only bad outcomes , with the Trump administration projected to engage in treachery , it makes one wonder—would the left accept the results of the election if Trump won ?
While the group observed that supporters of both candidates would likely mount protests in the face of a contested election , TIP appears to view Trump supporters as a unique threat to the country , saying , “ The Trump campaign has the real-life capacity to mobilize and , to a significant extent , steer and control the actions of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supporters as a danger to the public strikes as bizarre since nothing of the the sort ever seems to happen .
The December 2019 gun rights rally in Richmond , Virginia , for example , was predicted by the media to end in a bloodbath , but it resulted in only one arrest .
To honestly believe conservatives and Trump supporters are just itching to mount a serious uprising , one would need to ignore years of violence , including on inauguration day in January 2017 , by anti-Trump and left-wing protestors , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protesting and rioting over the death of George Floyd , which have been driven by , among others , Antifa , Black Lives Matter ( BLM ) , and hordes of young people , many of them college-educated , and even lawyers .
The TIP report seems to be just the latest episode in the “ othering ” of Trump supporters by portraying them as menaces to society , broadly associating them with extremists , or characterizing their views as far beyond permissible .
Like all politicians , Trump has his share of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lone actors and the facts on the ground simply do not support the narrative of right-wing terrorist sleeper cells ready to pounce on election night .
A serious attempt was made to link the 2017 “ Unite the Right ” rally with Trump ’ s supporters , too , but it was obvious the event was the refuge of extremists , and such groups have become diminished since that day .
In the TIP report , care was taken to stress that “ racial justice activists and others will likely act independently of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social movements are independent , not beholden to , or a tool of , the Democratic party.
” This seems like a preemptive attempt to disassociate Biden from the violent protests sure to occur in the wake of the election , regardless of who wins .
The strangest and most unsettling aspect of the wargames occurs in Scenario Three , in which Trump wins the electoral vote , but not the popular vote ( it is worth noting TIP never examines a scenario where Trump wins the popular vote ) .
The scenario @ @ @ @ @ @ @ college and , with Democrats , calls for its abolition , even resorting to threats of secession and refusing to recognize Trump as the democratically elected president .
The scenario ends in a cliffhanger , with neither candidate recognized as the legitimate president .
There is a lot to unpack in this scenario .
One , the Democrats , by their own admission , would have trouble accepting a repeat of 2016 .
Two , TIP assumes most Americans would not tolerate four more years of Trump , despite mounting evidence that Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ openly , given the prevalence of “ cancel culture ” and the successful attempt to brand both Trump and his supporters as a sort of societal disease .
Lastly , while the report never calls for military intervention to break an impasse , we must consider recent enthusiasm on the left for such measures .
Predicting some sort of slide into authoritarianism under Trump suggests the military may have no choice but to get involved , even if this isn ’ t said explicitly .
The wargames were not meant to be predictions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ underlying assumptions are tied together , the message seems to be that not only is an all-out constitutional crisis inevitable , only a definite Biden victory in November could prevent the fall of the republic .
Americans should be aware of the potential for a serious political crisis in 2020 .
But , when closely examined , these bipartisan wargames seem to have a very partisan stench .
Edward Chang is a defense , military , and foreign policy writer .
His writing has appeared in The National Interest , The American Conservative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ USA .
He can be followed on Twitter at @ Edward_Chang_8 .

Everyone is talking about how a group of Democrats and Republican Never-Trumpers came together for a ‘bipartisan’ election wargame that suspiciously seems to be promoting the same nightmare scenario talked up by Trump’s opponents over the last week—that the president will refuse to leave office if he does not win in November.
While Trump’s comments to FOX’s Chris Wallace last month about the possibility of postponing the election didn’t help, and there has been a wave of stories this week in the mainstream media about the president withholding support for the U.S. Postal Service, supposedly to thwart mail-in voting for the Nov. 3 election.
This seems to dovetail nicely with the results of the “secret” wargaming (which took place in June), after which the organizers, who included a who’s who of Washington elites, guaranteed the election would be contested by the losing side. According to reports, John Podesta, a former top aide to President Barack Obama, played Joe Biden. Never-Trumpers David Frum and Bill Kristol portrayed the president. Other participants included former DNC chair Donna Brazile, and former RNC chair Michael Steele.
The emphasis of their findings was clearly on Trump, who they said would likely “use the executive branch to aid his campaign strategy” of denying the popular vote if he loses it. He would, with a “high degree of likelihood,” use the Justice Department and the assistance of Republican governors and legislature to “illegally” overturn the vote so he could “hold onto power.”
The Transition Integrity Project (TIP) describes itself as “a bipartisan group of over 100 current and former senior government and campaign leaders and other experts.” They conducted this wargame to play out four likely scenarios. The results were all bad.
“All of our scenarios ended in both street-level violence and political impasse,” Georgetown law professor and TIP co-founder Rosa Brooks told The Boston Globe. “The law is essentially… it’s almost helpless against a president who’s willing to ignore it.”
Titled Preventing a Disrupted Presidential Election, the tabletop exercises anticipate a “chaotic legal and political landscape.” In general, their findings conclude that America is in for a dangerous transition period between the election and the inauguration in January 2021, regardless of who wins the presidency. In their words, “The concept of ‘election night,’ is no longer accurate and indeed is dangerous.”
If done right, wargaming the upcoming election could be a valuable exercise, considering the stakes and the volatility in American society and politics right now. But this one was clearly biased.
First, TIP minces no words, characterizing Trump as an “authoritarian leader.” Sure, the president does himself no favors in using rhetoric more commonly heard from leaders of banana republics, especially in declaring the elections “rigged” before they have even been held. His constant harping on fraudulent mail-in ballots, while not entirely unfounded, doesn’t exactly dissuade from the conspiracy theories now abounding, either.
But his remarks are also perfectly consistent with how Trump communicates in general—always upping the ante. While he may use the rhetoric of a dictator, he never really acts like one. Trump has already said he is willing to further fund the Postal Service, which will be carrying all those fraudulent ballots, depending on how negotiations with Democrats turn out. When he suggested the election be delayed, critics pointed out he does not have the authority to do so, and it was never mentioned again.
Yet the TIP wargame shows that many Democrats are not at all reassured and remain convinced that 2020 “represents an existential crisis, the last chance to stop a rapid and potentially irreversible U.S. decline into authoritarianism and unbridled nativism.” Given that the wargame resulted in only bad outcomes, with the Trump administration projected to engage in treachery, it makes one wonder—would the left accept the results of the election if Trump won?
While the group observed that supporters of both candidates would likely mount protests in the face of a contested election, TIP appears to view Trump supporters as a unique threat to the country, saying, “The Trump campaign has the real-life capacity to mobilize and, to a significant extent, steer and control the actions of Trump supporters.”
The fixation on Trump supporters as a danger to the public strikes as bizarre since nothing of the the sort ever seems to happen. The December 2019 gun rights rally in Richmond, Virginia, for example, was predicted by the media to end in a bloodbath, but it resulted in only one arrest. To honestly believe conservatives and Trump supporters are just itching to mount a serious uprising, one would need to ignore years of violence, including on inauguration day in January 2017, by anti-Trump and left-wing protestors, to say nothing of the months of protesting and rioting over the death of George Floyd, which have been driven by, among others, Antifa, Black Lives Matter (BLM), and hordes of young people, many of them college-educated, and even lawyers.
The TIP report seems to be just the latest episode in the “othering” of Trump supporters by portraying them as menaces to society, broadly associating them with extremists, or characterizing their views as far beyond permissible. Like all politicians, Trump has his share of problematic followers, but they are primarily lone actors and the facts on the ground simply do not support the narrative of right-wing terrorist sleeper cells ready to pounce on election night. A serious attempt was made to link the 2017 “Unite the Right” rally with Trump’s supporters, too, but it was obvious the event was the refuge of extremists, and such groups have become diminished since that day.
In the TIP report, care was taken to stress that “racial justice activists and others will likely act independently of the Biden campaign—players repeatedly cautioned that these social movements are independent, not beholden to, or a tool of, the Democratic party.” This seems like a preemptive attempt to disassociate Biden from the violent protests sure to occur in the wake of the election, regardless of who wins.
The strangest and most unsettling aspect of the wargames occurs in Scenario Three, in which Trump wins the electoral vote, but not the popular vote (it is worth noting TIP never examines a scenario where Trump wins the popular vote). The scenario assumes the public turns against the electoral college and, with Democrats, calls for its abolition, even resorting to threats of secession and refusing to recognize Trump as the democratically elected president. The scenario ends in a cliffhanger, with neither candidate recognized as the legitimate president, and the stone of possible military intervention unturned.
There is a lot to unpack in this scenario. One, the Democrats, by their own admission, would have trouble accepting a repeat of 2016. Two, TIP assumes most Americans would not tolerate four more years of Trump, despite mounting evidence that Trump supporters generally do not express their views openly, given the prevalence of “cancel culture” and the successful attempt to brand both Trump and his supporters as a sort of societal disease.
Lastly, while the report never calls for military intervention to break an impasse, we must consider recent enthusiasm on the left for such measures. Predicting some sort of slide into authoritarianism under Trump suggests the military may have no choice but to get involved, even if this isn’t said explicitly.
The wargames were not meant to be predictions nor prescriptions. But, when their underlying assumptions are tied together, the message seems to be that not only is an all-out constitutional crisis inevitable, only a definite Biden victory in November could prevent the fall of the republic. Americans should be aware of the potential for a serious political crisis in 2020. But, when closely examined, these bipartisan wargames seem to have a very partisan stench.
Edward Chang is a defense, military, and foreign policy writer. His writing has appeared in The National Interest, The American Conservative, Real Clear Defense, and Spectator USA. He can be followed on Twitter at @Edward_Chang_8.