Tidbits Political Quotations
To Accompany the April 27, 2016 edition of Tidbits
Bob Jensen at
Trinity University

It's hard to beat a person who never gives up.

Babe Ruth, Historic Home Run Hitter
And he wasn't even thinking about Jihads in those days but I am thinking Jihads these days

Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go.
T.S. Eliot

Be brave enough to start a conversation that matters.
Margaret Wheatley,

We must be willing to get rid of the life we've planned, so as to have the life that is waiting for us.
Joseph Campbell

If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.
George S. Patton

Happiness is like a butterfly: the more you chase it, the more it will elude you, but if you turn your attention to other things, it will come and sit softly on your shoulder.
Henry David Thoreau

If you don't know where you're going, you might not get there.
Yogi Berra

We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.
Randy Pausch --- http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/Assess.htm#Randy
Unless your wife is marking your cards ---
Pelosi’s Husband Invested in Solar Firm Weeks Before Lucrative Expansion

The smug style in American liberalism:  There is a smug style in American liberalism. It has been growing these past decades. It is a way of conducting politics, predicated on the belief that American life is not divided by moral difference or policy divergence — not really — but by the failure of half the country to know what's good for them.
Emmett Rensin --- http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberalism

IRS Admits It Encourages Illegals To Steal Social Security Numbers To Get Tax Refunds ---
Jensen Comment
And some naive people still believe the IRS did not illegally use its power to help Obama win the 2012 presidential election.

Climate Crowd Ignores a Scientific Fraud:  A defective radiation-risk standard holds back our most important low-carbon energy source ---

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet --- http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resource_center/interactives

The 1994 Crime Bill Was A Liberal Policy:  Lives should matter more than ideologically-driven revisionism
Ed Krayewski--- https://reason.com/blog/2016/04/08/the-1994-crime-bill-was-a-liberal-policy .
Bill Clinton's View --- https://reason.com/blog/2016/04/08/bill-clintons-mendacious-defense-of-the

Sorry—Economic Conservatives are Nothing Like Trump ---
David Harsanyi --- https://reason.com/archives/2016/04/08/sorry-economic-conservatives-are-nothing

Donald Trump, the Great Betrayer ---
David Brooks ---

The GOP candidate is about to get more fuel for his complaint about the Republican Party and its process for selecting the delegates who will determine his political fate at the national convention in July. Meeting behind closed doors, party leaders in Indiana on Wednesday selected 27 delegates, with most expected to be opposed the billionaire—even though the state's voters won't cast primary ballots there for nearly more three weeks.
Jensen Comment
In theory delegates to the GOP convention are bound only on the first ballot6 to vote for the candidate who won their states' GOP primary. After that they can vote who they themselves prefer. The GOP in Indiana is making sure that all delegates hate Donald Trump on the second ballot. Trump's correct. In their desperation to dump Trump GOP officials are playing very dirty politics divorced from voting outcomes.

Donald Trump is Right:  The Republican Nominating Process is a Scam (and becoming worse after Colorado takes the vote away from the electorate) ---
Jensen Comment
Sounds like it's time for a new democratic conservative party.

What was the political party if the KKK? Charlie Rangel thought they were Republicans ---

Even Paul Krugman Thinks Sanders is Over the Edge ---
Also see http://beta.townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2016/04/08/bernie-sanders-meeting-with-the-new-york-daily-news-editorial-board-was-something-of-a-disaster-n2144222

Why Yes My Proposals Require a $100 Billion Per-Year Tax Hike ---
Hillary Clinton ---
Jensen Comment
That's not counting the billions of dollars in tax increases required by the 50 states to fund her free college education and training for everybody.

A bloody drug war is terrorizing Amsterdam ---

5 facts about the national debt: What you should know ---
Jensen Comment
One additional fact you should know is that the booked national debt is a drop in the bucket compared to unbooked entitlement obligations such as Medicare, Medicaid, disability benefits, and pension that now exceed $100 trillion in promised payments for the future.

The world's going to need 50% more food by 2050 ---

18 awful vintage ads from the 20th century which show how far we have progressed ---

Anti-Semitism is Alive and Well at Harvard University
Last Thursday, Harvard Law School hosted a panel discussion with guest speakers Dennis Ross and former Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. During a question and answer session a president of a student organization mocked the Israeli leader, asking her, “How is it that you are so smelly?


Anyone inside Bernie Sanders’s neo-socialist orbit suggesting that less blob and more capital might work better runs the risk of being called a “conservative.” So figure out how to rebrand conservatism, liberalism, progressivism and even socialism as something more like them. Maybe they could call it artisanalism.
Daniel Henninger --- http://www.wsj.com/articles/bernie-sanderss-legacy-1461194181?mod=djemMER

The Most Corrupt USA Politicians in History ---

Moocher Hall of Fame --- https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/the-moocher-hall-of-fame/

Well, the rifleman’s stalking the sick and the lame
Preacherman seeks the same, who’ll get there first is uncertain
Nightsticks and water cannons, tear gas, padlocks
Molotov cocktails and rocks behind every curtain
False-hearted judges dying in the webs that they spin
Only a matter of time ’til night comes steppin’ in

Bob Dylan

Washington Post Fact Checker Bernie Sanders’s False Claim That He Has Released His Full Federal Tax Returns: ---

Election Gaming "Fraud" in Primary Elections in the USA:  Making Sure Your General Election Opponent is a Real Loser

Table of Contents

Funding Losers

 Communications Juggernauts in Crossover Voting Frauds

Funding Opponent Scandals

Top Republicans are working hard to help Bernie Sanders ---
This is possibly one of the reasons Sanders is beating Clinton in Red States like Wyoming.

Is Donald Trump a Democratic secret agent?
Anthony Zurcher --- http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35066940 

Historically, the ocean has been a bit too powerful to harness wave energy successfully. Oscilla Power has come up with a new approach designed to withstand the forces of the ocean and generate electricity cleanly, meaningfully, and endlessly ---

Trump part of conspiracy to ensure Clinton presidency ---
Jeb Bush --- http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/8/jeb-bush-suggests-donald-trump-part-of-conspiracy-/
Jensen Question
Is such a conspiracy necessary given the slate of losers running as GOP candidates for President in 2016?

The Black Panther: Newspaper of the Black Panther Party ---  https://libcom.org/history/black-panther-newspaper-black-panther-party

"How university students infantilise themselves," by an infantile Jonathan Zimmerman, AEON, April 15, 2016 ---

. . .

Asking administrators to solve every problem infantilises students, even as it contributes to the top-heavy bloat of our universities. Our students need to grow up, in the most political way, by wresting control of the educational process from an administrative bureaucracy that wields way too much authority already.

Jensen Comment
This is tantamount to letting the inmates run the asylum. Such a university controlled by students would soon become an anarchy that achieves little other than chaos. A good analogy is the Venezuelan prisons that are now run by prisoners who carry their own guns, share cells with prostitutes, get high on cheap drugs, and come and go from prison as they please. No wonder Venezuela is the most crime-ridden nation in the Western hemisphere.

The first rules of business on a student-controlled democratic campus are no more homework and no more grades. The second rule of business is nude cocktail lounges in all the dorms. Free booze becomes a budget priority.

More seriously power would shift to gangs like it has in Venezuelan prisons ---
Complete democracy is unworkable  Gangs gel into power structures. Power structures clash with other power structures. Eventually a powerful dictator like Castro emerges to restore order. Free beer might survive as a way of placating the masses. Castro provides for beer in ration cards available to all Cubans. This prevents rioting in the streets.

"History of a Climate Con:  Al Gore had a revelation: Energy taxes would be a loser for Obama," by Holman W. Jenkins, Jr., The Wall Street Journal, April 12, 2016 ---

How’s this for an irony? As state attorneys general gin up a fake securities-fraud case against oil companies over climate change, starting with Exxon Mobil Corp.

the Securities and Exchange Commission has launched a real securities-fraud investigation of the nation’s biggest solar power company. SunEdison allegedly exaggerating its amount of cash on hand to resist an impending bankruptcy.

A little history is in order to appreciate the cynical nadir of climate politics in the U.S. You wouldn’t know it from media coverage, but the closest the U.S. Congress came to passing a serious (if still ineffectual) cap-and-trade program was during the George W. Bush administration in early 2007. Then, within days of Barack Obama’s election in 2008, Al Gore announced a revelation: the “climate crisis” no longer required such unpleasant, de facto energy taxes. The problem could be solved with painless handouts to green entrepreneurs.

Hooray! Everybody loves a handout. The activist duo Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus noted that the shift in Mr. Gore’s thinking was “highly significant.” “He knows that cap-and-trade, and most any new regulation, would raise energy prices—a political nonstarter during a recession.”

A proposed oil tax swiftly disappeared from the Obama transition website. With control of all three branches of government in hand, the imminent climate threat to humanity suddenly appeared not so urgent after all—passing a “signature” health-care law did.

Democrats, it turned out, were in favor of climate root canal only when Republicans were in charge.

OK, this is old hat, but what should be striking is how thoroughly the climate lobby has played along. Its main function today has become stringing up apostates as a distraction from Democratic unwillingness to propose policies costly enough that they would actually influence the rate of increase of atmospheric greenhouse gases.

Take the Exxon prosecution, promoted by the attorneys general of New York and California and a host of their Democratic brethren. Though the case is never meant to be adjudicated in a courtroom, suppose it were and suppose a jury somehow found for the plaintiffs. How would Exxon pay a securities-fraud judgment? By selling oil and gas.

Attacking Exxon is not climate policy making; it’s a distraction. Its purpose is to foster an atmosphere conducive to the Gore-Obama green pork-barrel strategy.

Or take Sheldon Whitehouse, the U.S. senator who has gained notoriety lately by urging the Justice Department to launch a RICO investigation of climate skeptics. He doesn’t urge his Rhode Island constituents to adopt the life-style sacrifices that would actually reduce fossil-fuel consumption. Mr. Whitehouse’s devotion to understanding climate science at all is so microscopic that, in his latest letter of complaint to the Journal, the only science he cites is a Gallup poll.

Or take Paul Krugman’s columns in the New York Times insisting that if you don’t vote Democratic this fall, the planet is doomed. The colossal unmentionable is that climate activism today exists to promote the Democratic agenda, whatever it may be this week. One thing it isn’t, though, is advocacy of, or even mention of, policies that might actually alter the course of climate change.

The president’s power-plant rules, even if climate models are accurate, would affect global temperature a century hence by 0.03 degrees Celsius. His fuel mileage rules, though costly to Detroit and a life-support for Tesla, would have even less effect.

The renewable subsidies that SunEdison exploited so recklessly that it may soon be in chapter 11 are good for killing birds. The non-binding Paris agreement Mr. Obama signed in December explicitly stipulates that India and China, the two fast-growing emitters, will keep on emitting as if no agreement had been signed.

We could go on—not that, under any circumstances, a serious whack at global greenhouse emissions was ever in the cards.

Continued in article

"Climate Crowd Ignores a Scientific Fraud:  A defective radiation-risk standard holds back our most important low-carbon energy source," by Holman W. Jenkins, Jr., The Wall Street Journal, April 15, 2016 ---

Green activists, some masquerading as attorneys general of New York and California, want to prosecute Exxon XOM -0.54 % as a climate heretic. Its sin? Saying impeccably true things about climate science: The range of uncertainty is high. Climate models are not the climate, and show themselves to be unreliable guides to future warming. There is a cost-benefit test that policy must pass, and it doesn’t.

The AG case is a spinoff of “investigative” journalism by the Los Angeles Times and Inside Climate News, which we now learn was directly underwritten by climate activists at the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and Rockefeller Family Fund.

“It’s about helping the larger public understand the urgencies of finding climate solutions. It’s not really about Exxon,” explained a Rockefeller official about a January meeting to coordinate the legal and journalistic attack.

The journalists involved in this travesty, we’re sorry to say, are of the dumber sort—confused about what science is. But their clottedness comes at a poignant moment.

Honest greens have always said nuclear power is indispensable for achieving big carbon reduction. James Hansen, the former NASA scientist who has been chaining himself to fences since the first Bush administration, was in Illinois last week lobbying against closure of a nuclear plant. Ditto activist Michael Shellenberger. We might also include Bill McKibben, the Bernie Sanders of the climate movement and shouter of Exxon accusations, who told journalist William Tucker four years ago, “If I came out in favor of nuclear, it would split this movement in half.”

Nuclear (unlike solar) is one low-carbon energy technology that has zero chance without strong government support, yet is left out of renewables mandates. It’s the one non-carbon energy source that has actually been shrinking, losing ground to coal and natural gas.

What keeps nuclear costs high? Why do so many opponents misread the Fukushima meltdown, where 18,000 deaths were due to the earthquake and tsunami, none to radiation exposure, and none are expected from radiation exposure? Why has the U.S. experience of spiraling nuclear construction costs not been matched in South Korea, where normal learning has reduced the cost of construction?

The answer increasingly appears to be a real scientific fraud. In a series of peer-reviewed articles, toxicologist Edward Calabrese of the University of Massachusetts Amherst shows how a cabal of radiation geneticists in the 1940s doctored their results, and even a Nobel Prize acceptance speech, to exaggerate the health risk from low-level radiation exposure. At the time, Hermann Muller, their leader, was militating against above-ground atomic-bomb testing. “I think he got his beliefs and his science confused, and he couldn’t admit that the science was unresolved,” Mr. Calabrese told a UMass publication.

Data developed to show high-dose effect on fruit flies, Muller claimed, showed a proportional low-dose effect. Thus was born LNT—the “linear no-threshold” model of radiation risk that has become the world’s go-to standard for nuclear safety, source of repeated (and unfulfilled) forecasts of thousands of cancer deaths from Chernobyl or Fukushima. LNT is why nuclear plants shoulder huge costs not to protect against accidents, but to protect against trivial emissions. Coal-plants, which don’t have to meet U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission rules, actually put out thorium and uranium far in excess of what nuclear plants are allowed to emit.

We detailed some of the health evidence in a December piece about efforts to wake up the NRC. The New York Times wrote a similar piece last September looking at Japan’s foolish evacuation of thousands of Fukushima residents against a nonexistent radiation threat.

Dr. Carol Marcus, of the UCLA medical school, and two other nuclear-medicine specialists last year petitioned the NRC to re-evaluate its standards. Now the Environmental Protection Agency and several green groups have filed defenses of LNT, which since the 1950s has been adopted not only as Washington’s unscientific model of radiation risk, but as the EPA’s unscientific model of chemical risk. It shouldn’t be overlooked that, for these green groups and the EPA, nuclear is also anathema because it competes with solar and wind.

OK, science seldom fares well in high-stakes political controversies, but it’s bizarre to watch green campaigners attack anybody who questions their thinly based climate predictions, then attack anybody who questions the thinly based science that keeps down our best carbon-free energy choice.

An environmental reporter with an ounce of independence would actually be doing his or her green friends a favor. Pushing the greenies to confront their nuclear contradictions is probably the best possible way right now of making progress on the climate conundrum.

"GM Cancels Plan to Build Small Cadillac at Orion Plant in Michigan:  Auto maker scraps additional $245 million investment, as vehicle to be built in Kansas instead," by John D. Stholl, The Wall Street Journal, April 11, 2016 ---

Jensen Comment
I mention this because Kansas Governor Sam Brownback received a lot of criticism in the liberal press because his sizeable 2013 tax cuts did not appear to have the desired impact on economic growth in Kansas ---

What many biased analysts opposed to trickle down economics neglect to disclose is that tax cut impacts have lag time, sometimes very long lag time, in bringing home economic growth. The classic example is when the President Reagan tax cuts took so long that it was President Bill Clinton who managed to balance the Federal budget due in large measure to the Reagan tax cuts.

"JFK's Legacy: Proving the Laffer Curve," by Kevin Glass, Townhall, November 22, 2013 ---

While the mainstream media's hagiography of John F. Kennedy continues on the 50th anniversary of his tragic death, it's important to remember his full legacy - not just the parts that the mainstream media likes to promote.

President Kennedy proved the existence of the Laffer curve. When he came into office, Americans at the top end of the income ladder faced marginal tax rates in excess of 90%. Kennedy proposed tax cuts across the board - including marginal income tax rates, corporate rates, capital gains rates. And after JFK's tax cuts passed, tax revenue increased. As Diana Furchtgott-Roth, director of Economics21, writes:

Kennedy was one of the first presidents to articulate a supply-side theory. On Nov. 20, 1962, at a news conference, he said “It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”

Kennedy’s tax cuts were not passed by Congress until after his death on Feb. 26, 1964, in the Revenue Act of 1964. The bill reduced the top marginal rate from over 90% to 70%. Tax revenues increased from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, and the new rates led to a greater percentage of tax revenue coming from those making over $50,000 a year. Tax receipts from those making over $50,000 rose 57%, whereas receipts from those making under $50,000 rose 11%.

Continued in article

Jensen Comment
One instance of most anything does not prove much in economics. Even two instances hardly constitutes proof even though President Clinton managed to balance the budget largely due to lagged effects of the Reagan tax cuts. The problem with tax cuts, stimulus spending, Quantitative Easing, or most any other factor intended to increase the GDP and employment is that circumstances change greatly over time. Economies have too many complex and interacting variables to attribute much of anything to a single factor.

Certainly the Laffer Curve has not convinced all economists that it's a Swiss Army Knife for a faltering economy ---

However, nearly all nations (including the Scandinavian countries, Canada, all of Europe, and Iran) significantly decreased the top tax rates between 1979 and 2002 largely in belief of the Laffer Curve.

After at Ten Year Court Fight Google just scored a major victory against US authors ---

A ten-year long case against Google has finally seen its end.

Today, the US Supreme Court announced it had declined to hear Authors Guild v Google, a pivotal case that pitted book authors’ rights against the tech giant’s desire to build a massive digital library. In doing so the court quietly sided with Google, agreeing with previous rulings that its massive book scanning project is legal.

In 2005, the Authors Guild, an advocacy group for authors’ rights, sued Google for its book scanning initiative, then called the Google Books Library Project. The digital giant had scanned 20 million books and released them online without permission from their authors, with the goal of making books more findable and searchable. At the time, Google also ran ads on the scanned pages (they’ve since stopped); the guild argued that Google was infringing on writers’ copyright and depriving them of potential income.

Though Google removed its ads, the case continued, changing dramatically from a dispute about monetary compensation to one about how to treat creative work in a time of mass digitization. Ten years later, in 2015, a court of appeals ruled again against the authors, saying that the book scanning project was protected under “fair use”—by digitizing, Google Books had transformed the books, and therefore was not in violation of copyright:

Google’s making of a digital copy to provide a search function is a transformative use, which augments public knowledge by making available information about Plaintiffs’ books without providing the public with a substantial substitute for matter protected by the Plaintiffs’ copyright interests in the original works or derivatives of them.

Current US law protects works based on pre-existing works, if they add something or make something new out of the original. But an amicus brief filed in February by big-name writers like Margaret Atwood, J.M. Coetzee, and Malcolm Gladwell argued thatthe internet was not anticipated when fair use was defined in 1976. Today, derivative works, no matter how transformative, may spread to millions in an instant, all while trading heavily on someone’s creative ideas without compensation.

Continued in article

Bob Jensen's threads on the DMCA are at

From the CFO Journal's Morning Ledger on April 20, 2016

VW nears deal on diesel-car crisis
Volkswagen AG
is preparing to offer a buyback to U.S. owners of some diesel-powered vehicles and payments to others, ahead of a Thursday court deadline to address cars it has long known violate air pollution rules. But VW is no longer alone in this particular problem. Mitsubishi Motors Corp. said employees improperly manipulated fuel-economy data on at least 625,000 vehicles, the latest self-inflicted wound for a company with a history of scandal.

“Our ambition is to become something of a model for financial management rather than a cause for occasional scandal,” Cardinal Pell explained. He announced that the Vatican would hand over management of its billions of euros to external banking specialists and be subject to regular reports by an auditor general.
New York Times --- http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/15/opinion/the-pope-and-the-vatican-bank.html?_r=0

"Vatican suspends PwC audit of its accounts:  The Vatican has suspended PwC’s audit into its finances only a few months after appointing the firm," by Jessica Fino, Economia, April 22, 2016 ---

The Big Four firm was chosen in December to perform the Vatican’s first external audit in a bid to make its finances more transparent.

It followed a series of scandals, including the discovery of €1bn hidden off the Vatican’s books.

However, the secretariat of state of the Vatican sent letters to all departments last week announcing the suspension.

The National Catholic Register, which first reported the news, said, “There was a shock to the system in terms of how rigorous the audit would be; the international standards feel a bit intrusive.”

Cardinal George Pell, prefect of the Vatican secretariat for the economy, said in a statement on Thursday he was “a bit surprised” by the decision of the secretariat of state, but added he expects the audit to “resume shortly” after “discussions and clarification” of some issues.

The suspension of the audit suggests there is conflict between the Italian bureaucrats and the supporters of financial reform.

A person familiar with the issue told the Guardian those who opposed PwC’s audit were concerned that the Vatican could be exposing itself too much and whether they could trust the firm to keep the information confidential.

Cardinal Pell, who announced the discovery of hundreds of millions of euros "tucked away" in various accounts in December 2014, was appointed by Pope Francis to clean up the Vatican’s finances shortly after the Pontiff sacked the entire board of its financial watchdog.

A PwC spokesperson said the firm does not comment on client work.

The Vatican Bank Scandal Nobody is Talking About (especially not the accountants)  ---

The Best—and Worst—States to Avoid Income Taxes ---

Jensen Comment
This is one of the best short comparison articles to date. It has an informative graphic.

However, one cannot compare states regarding taxation without factoring all state taxation, especially sales and property taxes. However, those "other" taxes can get really complicated when making state comparisons. The best example is property taxation where states vary greatly in terms of exemptions and property appraisals. For example, California hits high income people heavily on income tax but people who have owned their homes for many years get a tremendous property tax break due to the highly controversial Proposition 13 ---

Suppose two homeowners (named C and T) own a $5 million dollar houses with one house being near San Francisco and the other being near Austin, Texas. Suppose that both homeowners purchased their houses in  1970 for $45,000. Homeowner C in California may get hit hard with state income tax but pays a negligible property tax on a $5 million dollar home. Taxpayer T in Texas pays zero state income tax but gets clobbered in property taxes each year on a $5 million dollar house.

States also vary in terms of value appraisals of property. Since moving to Sugar Hill in New Hampshire 10 years ago, there's been one township-wide property reappraisal. A few property values do get individually changed based upon very infrequent sales of neighboring property in this very tiny village having one downtown store. When I lived in Bexar County in Texas for 24 years it seemed that our property was value-adjusted each and every one of those 24 years. Sales in just our subdivision (Marymount) in Bexar County were more frequent each and every year than in 10 years of sales of property in Sugar Hill, New Hampshire. My point is that when property values are trending upward, which is often the case in growing cities and towns, homeowners may find that property taxes are more onerous than state income taxes. Furthermore constant increases in property taxes become barriers to sales where buyers refuse to buy land and homes unless the taxing district approves revaluing the property downward to purchase prices.

Our minister bought a former bed and breakfast (he needed a big house for 10 children) that was repossessed by the bank. The bank sold it for less than half of the tax appraisal value. He made a mistake, however, by assuming that the property tax would be adjusted to his much lower purchase price. The Village of Sugar Hill concluded that he got a bargain purchase. The policy of the Village is not to lower property taxes due to "bargain purchases." The minister actually took his case to Superior Court where he lost. Such cases always seem to lose in our Superior Court that seldom gives a homeowner a break.

In my own case I find that my two neighbors in Sugar Hill having the same mountain views and more valuable homes (in terms of current estimated sales values) pay less property tax than me. They owned their homes for over 20 years, and I owned my home for 10 years. They paid less for their homes over 20 years ago than I paid for my home 10 years ago at the height of the real estate bubble. Since I paid more I'm hit with higher property taxes every year than the two residents who paid less for their homes over 20 years ago. Such a thing that happens in Sugar Hill would probably never happen in Bexar County, Texas. Sugar Hill in New Hampshire has something like Proposition 13 without actually having a Proposition 13. A real estate appraiser whom I approached to re-value my home so I could make a more equitable case for paying less property tax than my neighbors said that paying for such an appraisal to lower my taxes was a waste of my money and his time.

My point is that comparing states on only income taxation is probably misleading. However, articles that attempt to factor in other taxes face an enormous problem in that those other taxes vary greatly in almost each and every taxpayer circumstance. For example, Proposition 13 does not give a whole lot of relief to home owners who have owned their California homes for less than 10 years. It gives enormous relief to home owners who lived in the same California house for over 50 years. Then how to you compare property taxation in California versus Texas versus New Hampshire? The answer is that you can't except on a case-by-case basis.

One thing is certain. I certainly enjoy not having to pay a sales tax in New Hampshire, especially on big-ticket items like cars and tractors. It's also nice not to have sales tax added to our almost daily orders from Amazon.

5 facts about the national debt: What you should know ---


Jensen Comment
 One additional fact you should know is that the booked national debt is a drop in the bucket compared to unbooked entitlement obligations such as Medicare, Medicaid, disability benefits, and pension that now exceed $100 trillion in promised payments for the

IRS Admits It Encourages Illegals To Steal Social Security Numbers To Get Tax Refunds ---
ensen Comment
 And some naive people still believe the IRS did not illegally use its power to help Obama win the 2012 presidential election.


"Free Speech 1, Kamala Harris 0," The Wall Street Journal, April 21, 2016 ---

A federal judge blocks an attempt to disclose conservative donors.

Kamala Harris has been a hero of the left’s campaign to use donor disclosure as a tool of political intimidation. Since 2013 the California Attorney General has been demanding that nonprofits provide unredacted donor names if they want to solicit donations in the state. On Thursday a federal court declared her disclosure requirement an unconstitutional burden on First Amendment rights.

Federal Judge Manuel Real granted a permanent injunction against Ms. Harris in a lawsuit brought by the Americans For Prosperity Foundation. The group, which is affiliated with free-market supporters Charles and David Koch, has argued that as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, it should not be forced to supply the Attorney General with the organization’s IRS Form 990 Schedule B, which contains its donor names.

In his 12-page decision, Judge Real notes that while Attorney General Harris argued that she needed donor disclosure to identify lawbreaking like “self-dealing” or “improper loans,” that was a stretch. “[O]ver the course of trial, the Attorney General was hard pressed to find a single witness who could corroborate the necessity of Schedule B forms in conjunction with their office’s investigations,” the judge wrote.

Ms. Harris claimed the donor disclosure was only for internal purposes and not for public use or to precipitate any targeting of the donors, but the judge didn’t buy that either. Americans for Prosperity discovered 1,400 publicly available Schedule Bs on the Attorney General’s website. “[T]he Attorney General has systematically failed to maintain the confidentiality of Schedule B forms,” the court wrote, a fact that should be considered “of serious concern.”

The First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech,” and Ms. Harris’s play for donor disclosure would have impermissibly burdened that freedom. During the trial, the judge heard evidence that donors and supporters of Americans for Prosperity have faced harassment and retaliation when their relationship to the group is made public.

The judge is an LBJ appointee who can recall when disclosure was used as a political weapon in the Jim Crow South. “[A]lthough the Attorney General correctly points out that such abuses are not as violent or pervasive as those encountered in NAACP v. Alabama or other cases from that era,” he wrote, “this Court is not prepared to wait until an AFP opponent carries out one of the numerous death threats made against its members.” Amen.








Finding and Using Health Statistics --- http://www.nlm.nih.gov/nichsr/usestats/index.htm

Bob Jensen's threads on economic statistics and databases ---

Medicare Fraud is Rampant ---




The doctor shortage in the US will soon hit crisis levels ---

States Where Doctors Earn the Most (and Least) ---
Or try ---

01 - Alaska
02 - South Dakota
03 - Iowa
04 - Nebraska
05 - Iowa

. . .

46 - Maine
47 - Maryland
48 - Michigan
49 - Delaware
50 - West Virginia

Jensen Comment
I think this ranking is probably more misleading than helpful. Physicians, especially the most successful physicians, typically are in private business where they have their own billings and staff. They may own their own office buildings or rent office space from others such as medical clinics. The point here is that they are on not on salary.

ER physicians are often in partnerships where hospitals contract with the partnerships to cover the ER services. Billings may vary with demand for those ER services. Partners in turn share the profits.

Like other salary rankings such as ranking of professor compensation by university, the rankings are meaningless unless other things are factored in such as the cost of housing. For example, we can hardly compare the salaries at Stanford University (read that Silicon Valley) with the salaries at Dartmouth or the University of New Hampshire where housing is expensive within the State of New Hampshire but hardly comparable with Silicon Valley housing costs. Also other things must be factored in such as housing subsidies and fringe benefits.

Having said this it did surprise me that states not having large cities (like the top five states ranked above) came out higher than states having large cities like California, New York, Texas, and Ohio.