It began in 2013, but more than 500 pieces of property have yet to be acquired, and “contractors cannot build on land that the state does not yet own.” As with Hedley Lamarr’s railroad in Blazing Saddles, the “rightful owners” stand in the way, and land is hardly the only problem facing the rail project.

Politicians initially promised 800 miles connecting San Francisco and Los Angeles, at a cost of $35 billion. The route has since been scaled back, with costs soaring to “more than $98 billion.” After a 2012 redesign costs were down to $68 billion, nearly double the original estimate, for a smaller project. The latest plan under Gov. Gavin Newsom charts 171 miles between Merced and Bakersfield, at an expected of $21-23 billion.

Not a single passenger has taken a ride but the rail project boasts a Sacramento headquarters and three regional offices. So the bullet train works well as a sinecure for ruling-class retreads such as board member Lynn Schenk, a former congresswoman and chief of staff for Governor Gray Davis. As taxpayers might note, few commuters were panting for a 19th-century form of transportation slower and more expensive than air travel, and which doesn’t really get you where you want to go.

As Adam Summers explains, California’s high-speed rail project is the very definition of a boondoggle. For Pete Buttigieg, on the other hand, the infrastructure deal is all about “lifting our game as a country.” Embattled taxpayers should not be surprised if congressional spendthrifts are soon all aboard.

The post Buttigieg Boosts Prospects of California’s Bullet Train Boondoggle appeared first on The Beacon.

The debate on the effectiveness of gun control measures to reduce firearm violence distracts attention from the real motive behind gun control. Nobody wants more gun violence, so focusing on gun violence shifts the debate in favor of gun control. What the proponents of gun control really want is control, and the gun violence argument is merely a means to the end that they actually seek–a disarmed population. Arguments that look at the facts to see whether gun control achieves those ends are ineffective persuaders, because gun control advocates want regulation, regardless of its effectiveness.

It should be obvious that proposals such as those to tax ammunition sales will be ineffective controls on firearm violence. Can anyone really think that someone intent on illegally using a firearm would be deterred because ammunition is so expensive? For people who know little about firearms, limiting the number of rounds a magazine is capable of holding may sound promising, but magazines can be swapped out in seconds.

Focusing the debate on gun violence rather than on individual rights gives a debating advantage to gun control advocates, because nobody wants more gun violence. The argument shifts to whether regulations are effective rather than on preserving the rights of citizens. Arguing that proposed gun control measures would be ineffective cannot persuade gun control advocates, because that’s not their big concern. Their ultimate objective of gun control advocates is not safety. They want control.

The post The Name Says It All: Gun Control Isn’t About Reducing Firearm Violence; It’s About Control appeared first on The Beacon.

They must be “San Francisco residents under certain income thresholds who faced economic loss during the pandemic.” The recipients can be from “every artistic tradition,” but the artist’s work must be “rooted in a historically marginalized community.” So the money has nothing to do with the quality of the artist’s work, only the nature of their “community.” 

As Pinho explains, the San Francisco program follows “another guaranteed income initiative” in Oakland, now handing out $500 a month to 600 families. According to Mayor Libby Schaaf, this is all about “closing the racial wealth gap,” because “poverty is not a personal failure, it is a policy failure.” In this vision, a person’s training, work ethic, and ideas have nothing to do with their economic success, so income must be guaranteed by the government. As Victor Davis Hanson notes, there’s more to it. 

The $500 grants go only to BIPOC, “black, indigenous and people of color” families and exclude those who look like Joe Biden. This violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, but Hanson sees a trend. The latest federal stimulus/farm bill, for example, “is targeted for all those in need – as long as they are not white.” This stereotypes, demonizes and excludes an entire group, the classic definition of racism but now branded as “critical race theory.” 

As we noted, “critical” is a meaningless modifier meant to impart legitimacy to a system of racist indoctrination. Critical race theory divides humankind into an oppressor class and a victim class. People from one racial group, those who look like Ansel Adams, John F. Kennedy and Hillary Clinton, are default members of the oppressor “white” group, regardless of anything they might have done or said. 

Government attempts to guarantee income have hardly proved successful, and dividing people on the basis of race only magnifies resentment and conflict. Those realities have apparently not registered with Francisco mayor London Breed, who said in a statement: “The arts are truly critical to our local economy and are an essential part of our long-term recovery. If we help the arts recover, the arts will help San Francisco recover.” 

The post The Art of the New Racism appeared first on The Beacon.

Such distortions of language generally send critics scurrying to George Orwell, author of 1984, Animal Farm, and the essay “Politics and the English Language,” in which the author finds that “the decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic causes.” Those works hold enduring value but Orwell is not the only one to weigh in. According to Eric Voegelin, “ideologies destroy language inasmuch as the ideological thinker has lost contact with reality and develops symbols for expressing not reality but his state of alienation from it.” The new congressional rules showcase that disconnect with reality.

As Orwell and Voegelin both noted, distortion of language is a favorite practice of totalitarian dictators such as Stalin and Hitler. With remarkable foresight, 1984 showed what totalitarianism would be like under INGSOC, English Socialism. In The New Science of Politics, Eric Voegelin revealed an underlying principle. Those seeking to create heaven on earth, within history, set out to “immanentize the eschaton.” All previous attempts have resulted in tyranny, poverty and death on a massive scale. 

There is no reason to believe AMSOC, American Socialism, would be any different. Distortion of language by Congress is a disturbing development. 

The post Congress Institutionalizes Dangerous Distortions of Language appeared first on The Beacon.

The US population is about 330 million, so if $1.9 trillion was just divided up evenly and given to every American, each person could receive $5,758. A family of four would get $23,030. Given a choice, would most Americans prefer that everyone receive that much cash, or have the bill as it passed, where some get $1,400?

The bill doesn’t give that $1,400 to everyone. What if the $1.9 trillion were just divided up and given to the bottom 50% by income? A family of four would then get $46,060. What would do the most good, the current relief bill, or giving half of American families $46,060? And if the money were just divided among the bottom 25%, the most needy, each family of four would get $92,121. That could be truly life-changing for those people.

The national debt now stands at about $28 trillion, so this one piece of legislation alone adds about 6.8% to the already bloated national debt, and interest has to be paid on that debt. Twenty year government bonds currently pay a bit more than 2% interest, so the annual interest on that increment of government debt will be more than $38 billion. But interest rates are low today, and it is easy to picture, by historical standards, interest rates two or three times higher than that, which could push the annual interest cost of the bill beyond $100 billion.

So far, that interest cost hasn’t hit the federal government hard, because the Federal Reserve has been buying up those bonds and converting them into money. The monetary base, which is composed mostly of federal debt, has increased by $1.8 trillion over the past year, an increase of 52%.

Eventually, that monetary increase will turn into inflation, and one thing that comes with inflation is rising interest rates, which will impose those higher interest costs on the Treasury. Currently, interest payments are about 5.3% of federal spending. If interest rates triple, which they easily could, we’d be looking at interest taking up more than 16% of the federal budget.

That 5.3% figure doesn’t include payments on the recent COVID relief bill, so it’s not unreasonable to think that five years down the road interest payments might make up 20% or more of the federal budget. That’s money that could be spent on other things (including tax cuts).

The fiscal irresponsibility of our Congress and president has us rushing toward the fiscal cliff, bringing with it inflation, rising interest rates, increased government debt, and an increasing share of the federal budget going to interest payments rather than government programs. But, some will say, people are suffering because so many governments shut down their economies in response to the pandemic.

One answer to that defense of fiscal irresponsibility is that if the government really wanted to help those who need it the most, that amount of money is enough to give every family of four in the bottom 25% of the income distribution more than $92,000. Which do you think would help those in need more?

The post Rushing Toward the Fiscal Cliff appeared first on The Beacon.

Google, Facebook, and the others are private companies and people voluntarily choose to use their services. Freedom-loving people should not advocate interfering with those voluntary relationships. If people dislike using those platforms because of their biases, they have the right to start their own. People of a certain age will remember when Myspace was the dominant social media platform, only to be displaced by Facebook.

In the short run, alternatives are limited. Google, Facebook, and others gained their market dominance because of their reputations for lack of bias. Looking for something? Google it and you’ll find it. But if people begin perceiving that their searches are biased, they can use other search engines. Want to interact on line with your friends? Use Facebook. But if people begin perceiving Facebook as biased, that opens the opportunity for competing social media platforms.

That’s the freedom-oriented way to deal with companies when people perceive problems with their product offerings. To advocate government intervention is to advocate replacing freedom of choice in the market with government control of the flow of information. Does anybody really think that government control of information would lessen bias compared with free market competition?

Yes, it takes time for alternatives to establish themselves after people perceive problems with the status quo, but the “creative destruction” that Joseph Schumpeter saw in capitalism will provide alternatives when consumers want them. Let the market work rather than clamoring for government intervention.

While some social media platforms seem to be leaning decidedly left, there is still a lot of information available from the right, starting with talk radio and Fox News. Don’t like what you’re getting on Facebook? See what Tucker Carlson has to say.

That said, social media platforms are trying to have it both ways in taking responsibility for the content on their platforms. On the one hand, they say that they are merely the platforms for people who are posting content, and as platform providers are not responsible for what appears on their platforms. On the other hand, they are actively determining what appears on their platforms, in the same way that newspapers decide what stories to run or television networks decide their programming.

They are taking responsibility, and then saying they are not responsible.

The arguments those platforms make for escaping legal liability for their content hinges on their being open platforms. People can say what they want, and they are responsible for their speech. But if the platforms are actively deciding who can speak, and if some of what they say can be censored, then the platforms are actively taking responsibility for their content, and should be held liable for that responsibility that they have voluntarily assumed.

Either, they are open platforms and people can say what they want, making contributors responsible for what they say, or they are managing what can appear on their platforms, making the platforms themselves responsible for what appears on them.

Can social media platforms really say they are not responsible for what appears on their platforms, when in fact they are taking the responsibility of determining what constitutes suitable content?

Keep government out of regulating social media platforms, but make them assume responsibility for their actions. If they determine what content can appear on their platforms, they should be responsible and legally liable for that content, just like a newspaper or television station.

The post Social Media Platform Bias: It’s Their Right, But... appeared first on The Beacon.

The linked article notes that about 25 percent of Black workers and 19.1 percent of Hispanic workers earn less than $15 an hour, compared to 13.1 percent of white workers, so the law would disproportionately throw minority workers out of work. The article says this would “help” minority workers, but it is difficult to see how making their employment illegal would help them. Could anyone believe that if the minimum wage were raised to $15 an hour, no low-wage workers would lose their jobs?

It’s actually worse than that for low-productivity workers, because one way people can increase their productivity and earn a higher income is by learning on the job. If people are priced out of the labor market and can’t get their first job, they won’t be able to increase their productivity through on-the-job training. In a society that increasingly is cognizant of enacting public policies to help minorities, it is shocking that some are proposing a policy that would make it illegal for many minorities to hold jobs.

Some people think that corporations make lots of money and so can afford to pay their workers more, but corporations are not charities, and this thought misunderstands what motivates employers to hire people. Regardless of how profitable a company is, it will not hire people who cost the company more than they bring back in income.

Do we really want to make it illegal for low-productivity people to work? Do we really want to enact a policy that disproportionately disadvantages minorities? Many states have already done so, and there appears to be increasing support at the federal level to limit the right to work for some of our most-disadvantaged citizens.

The post Should It Be Illegal for Low Productivity People to Work? appeared first on The Beacon.

IN THE MATTER OF THE IMPEACHMENT

OF DONALD JOHN TRUMP

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

This matter comes before the United States Senate on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Because Defendant is no longer president, vice president, or a civil officer of the United States, the Article of Impeachment should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

I. Background

Defendant is accused by the House of Representatives of “Incitement of Insurrection.” This charge results from a riot that occurred on January 6, 2021, during a joint session of Congress. Defendant and others gathered in Washington, D.C., were concerned about various irregularities in the presidential election and the efforts of state courts and state election officials to alter state election law despite the Constitution’s clear command that such matters rest with the state legislatures.

Defendant did address a large crowd of people on that day and stated that “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” Upon hearing of the events at the Capitol turned from peaceful to violent, the Defendant took actions to curb the behavior. For example, Defendant posted the following on Twitter: “But you have to go home now. We have to have peace. We have to have law and order. We have to respect our great people in law and order. We don’t want anybody hurt.” Moreover, in the days after January 6, Defendant continued to call for peace and healing: “Now is the time for our nation to heal. And it’s time for peace and for calm. Respect for law enforcement is the foundation of the MAGA agenda.”

On Wednesday, January 20, 2021, Defendant’s term of office ended and he returned to private life. Six days later, members of the House of Representatives delivered the Article of Impeachment to the Senate. At the time of delivery, Joe Biden held the office of President of the United States. Defendant was in private life in Palm Beach, Florida.

II. Legal Argument

Because Defendant is not an elected or appointed officer of the United States, he is not subject to impeachment. The Constitution in Article II, Section 4, provides: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” In the Philadelphia Convention, the issue of executive removal was discussed only in the context of a sitting president. For example, James Madison cited instances where after election the president could lose his mental faculties or pervert his administration into a scheme of oppression. Hence, some constitutional method for removal was necessary. A main concern of the delegates was making the sitting president too dependent on another branch of government. Hence, the mention of high crimes and misdemeanors and the supermajority requirement in the Senate.

In Federalist No. 65, Alexander Hamilton described impeachment as an inquiry into the actions of “public men” as opposed to private citizens who are not in office. Importantly, in Federalist 69 Hamilton states: “The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.” The logical interpretation of this statement is that while in office the president can be impeached. After he leaves office, legal remedies must be sought in state or federal court systems.

Moreover, in discoursing on Article II, Section 4, Mr. Justice Story in his Exposition on the Constitution describes the constitutional provision as enumerating “who shall be liable to be removed from office by impeachment.” Obviously, a person must be in office to be removed. This is the general context and understanding of impeachment.

Opponents of Defendant’s Motion will no doubt point to Article I, Section 3, which provides: “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.” Hence, they argue that one does not have to be in office to be disqualified from holding another office. Such a reading is a stretch of the text. The natural language is that one must first be in office, be removed by a two-thirds vote in the Senate, and thus be disqualified from ever holding another office of honor.

Although not strictly a legal argument, Defendant expects opponents of his motion to raise the specter that absent the Senate accepting jurisdiction over this matter, then a future official would be emboldened to take nefarious actions on the eve of departure because he could not be tried in the Senate. Defendant submits that if an individual with malicious intent sought to engage in egregious misconduct, say, stealing from the public purse, conviction in the Senate is no deterrent. The Senate, sitting as a court, has no power to imprison, fine, or forfeit assets. The real deterrent to presidential misconduct is the tarnishing of a historical legacy, rather than avoidance of Senate trial and conviction, which is, with due respect, more theatre than legal proceeding.

In summary, the plain language of the text and historical commentary indicate that impeachment is a sword to be unsheathed only against malefactors holding office. The main point of impeachment is to remove the malefactor from office and thus end his reign of folly or crime. Defendant is no longer in office. He cannot be removed from office and is not subject to impeachment.

III. Conclusion

Impeachment is inherently political. Defendant, having already been through a show trial in the Senate that resulted in his acquittal, knows this to be true. However, unlike the prior trial, Defendant is not an officer of the United States. Because Defendant no longer holds public office, he cannot be put on trial in the Senate for allegedly inciting an insurrection. Accordingly, the Senate should dismiss the Article of Impeachment for lack of jurisdiction.

The post The Senate Should Dismiss the Article of Impeachment appeared first on The Beacon.