Beta
Skip to main content

Author: Jose Nino

Does Sen. Kamala Harris Want To Legislate Internet Censorship?

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Elections and Politics, First Amendment, Issues. No Comments on Does Sen. Kamala Harris Want To Legislate Internet Censorship?

Sen. Kamala Harris announced that her presidential administration would hold social media platforms accountable for so-called “hate.” While giving a speech at the Fight for Freedom Fund Dinner for the Detroit NAACP, Harris declared, “We will hold social media platforms accountable for the hate infiltrating their platforms, because they have a responsibility to help fight against this threat to our democracy.” Since the synagogue shooting in Pittsburgh and the Christchurch, New Zealand massacre, “online extremism” has been a target for lawmakers on the Left. These lawmakers contend that the perpetrators of these crimes “used social media platforms to amplify their messages before attacking places of worship in recent months.” Harris claimed that “2018 was the deadliest year on record for domestic terrorism since the Oklahoma City bombing more than 20 years ago, and I’m telling you, we can’t feed it, I’m telling you I won’t ignore it, I won’t tolerate it.” She even doubled down by saying, “If you profit off of hate, if you act as a megaphone for misinformation or cyber warfare, if you don’t police your platforms, we are going to hold you accountable.” Based on this rhetoric and the political Left’s lurch towards more government control over people’s lives, Harris is implying that the government should be stepping in to regulate these platforms. Obviously the heinous actions like the one in Christchurch, New Zealand should be condemned. However, they are no justification for potential infringement on basic civil liberties such as free speech. Right now, social media is under fire for several controversial decisions that Big Tech companies like Facebook have made in suspending certain right-wing accounts. Indeed, private companies like Facebook have the right to associate with whom they please. However, the increasing politicization of American culture and business has started to blur the lines between the public and private sector. And with the state having its paws in everything, we can expect it to take this influence over to social media. Undoubtedly, this would be a terrible idea. This could lead to Orwellian thought policing that we see across the pond in the European Union which has seen Brussels take a more proactive role in monitoring hate speech on social media. This is a testament to how much the West has diverged from its founding principles of civil liberties. Political correctness culture in the United States has become very ingrained and is now set to become a political reality. Thanks to its gradual acceptance by the populace at large and the enthusiastic efforts of busybody politicians, it’s only a matter of time before political correctness becomes codified into law on America’s most popular social networks. Indeed, Trump’s election has put a roadblock on many plans for hate speech laws. However, author Ray Bradbury was correct in noting, “There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running around with lit matches.” Private social media platforms have tried to get ahead of this by banning controversial accounts, but this not enough for politicians like Kamala Harris. Their goal is to create far-reaching laws with actual teeth that companies and individuals must comply with. Any devout civil libertarian should shudder at the prospect of a government that is constantly monitoring “hate speech.” We could soon arrive at a point where speaking the truth is considered hate speech, thus subject to criminal penalties. A true nightmare scenario that belongs in a dystopian novel.

North Dakota Takes A Bite Out Of Civil Asset Forfeiture

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Business and Economy, Economic Liberty, Personal Liberty, Property Rights. 1 Comment on North Dakota Takes A Bite Out Of Civil Asset Forfeiture

On May 2, 2019, North Dakota took a major first step in civil asset forfeiture reform. Governor Doug Burgum signed House Bill 1286, which goes a long way in limiting law enforcement agencies’ ability to arrest people, seize their property, and keep what they’ve seized even in cases where no crime can be proven. Over the years, civil asset forfeiture has gained notoriety in criminal justice reform circles. Generally speaking, civil asset forfeiture has been a proven tactic in the so-called “War on Drugs” to target the assets of affluent drug lords. However, as witnessed with countless other government programs, civil asset forfeiture has devolved into a money grab for corrupt law enforcement bureaucracies. Scott Shackford of Reason points out that civil asset forfeiture “has instead grown into a massively corrupt mechanism where police agencies pull people over or raid their houses on whatever pretext the cops can muster.” According to the Reason writer, “North Dakota’s rules were particularly bad for the citizens.” In fact, North Dakota is one of the worst states when it comes to civil asset forfeiture. It received a dishonorable F grade in the Institute for Justice’s “Policing for Profit” report. The only other state that received such an abysmal score was Massachusetts. According to Shackford, “North Dakota’s rules were particularly bad for the citizens.” Before HB 1286 received the Governor’s signature, law enforcement just needed to have probable cause in order to make a property seizure attempt. Law enforcement agencies could even keep up to 100 percent of the properties they seized as long as it was worth less than $200,000. With HB 1286 in place, police must obtain a conviction before seizing people’s assets. However, there are exemptions if the person is dead, has been deported, has disappeared, or has abandoned their property. Although the bill sponsor, State Representative Rick Becker, was disappointed with the way the bill was watered down, he is considering putting a question on the ballot in 2020 that would strengthen the rules for asset forfeiture. Nonetheless, HB 1286 is a good first step. The Supreme Court recently issued a ruling that limits states’ power to levy excessive fines and use civil asset forfeiture to take property. There’s no question civil asset forfeiture is a promising fight for liberty activists. In times when it appears that government is growing non-stop, small victories like these give us a glimmer of hope. It’s also another reminder that state legislatures should never be ignored because these are the places where we can make the most change.

California’s Minimum Wage Is Hurting Its Restaurant Industry

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Business and Economy, Economic Liberty, Economics, Uncategorized. No Comments on California’s Minimum Wage Is Hurting Its Restaurant Industry

According to a recent study from the University of California Riverside, California’s minimum wage increases have stagnated job growth in the restaurant industry. Forbes pointed out that California was one of the first states to get the ball rolling on minimum wage hikes that moved “towards the “living wage” of $15 per hour by 2022—a 50% hike over 2012.” The UC Riverside detailed some of the negative effects:
“Data analysis suggests that while the restaurant industry in California has grown significantly as the minimum wage has increased, employment in the industry has grown more slowly than it would have without minimum wage hikes.”
The same study concluded that “there would be 30,000 fewer jobs in the industry from 2017 – 2022 as a result of the higher minimum wage.” Additionally, the study found that the minimum wage’s negative impact was “greater in lower income communities than higher income communities” based on how high-end restaurants “can pass on the additional costs to customers more easily.” The study finished off by highlighting that the most vulnerable and least skilled were negatively affected:
“Specifically, we see a decline in the employment share of low-skilled workers, disabled workers and part-time workers in the sector.”
A few months ago, Liberty Conservative News reported on how Whole Foods’ new minimum wage policies have generated layoffs and reduced work hours. Despite these developments, activists insist that more states adopt $15 minimum wage laws.

The Defense Budget Needs Sliced

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Foreign Policy, Middle East, Military. 1 Comment on The Defense Budget Needs Sliced

On March 11, 2019, the Trump administration asked for a $750 billion defense budget. If this budget receives Congress’s approval, it will be one of the largest budgets in U.S. history, exceeding the peak of budgets during the Korean and Vietnam wars. Despite all the talk about “draining the swamp,” the Trump administration has maintained the bloated budgets of previous administrations. On the foreign policy front, his administration been lackluster, to say the least. Although the administration detailed plans for an Afghanistan withdrawal, Trump recently vetoed a resolution that would end U.S. aid in the Yemen conflict. As a result, America will be stuck in a foreign policy quagmire that is typical of Middle Eastern politics. In the same token, the Trump administration has maintained hawkish stances with Iran and Venezuela. There has been some good news on the North Atlantic Treaty front. Trump has at least been able to get NATO members to pitch in more for their national defense. Reports indicate that NATO members plan on increasing defense spending by $100 billion by 2020. This is a good first step that should be followed up with more concrete measures to have America withdraw from this outdated alliance. The Trump administration has also made decent progress with denuclearization talks with North Korea, despite some hiccups during the negotiation process. Nevertheless, this is a fresh approach to the otherwise failed neoconservative status quo of interventionist saber-rattling. Although entitlement spending takes the lion share of fiscal largesse, defense budgets should be subject to cuts as well. There are no sacred cows when it comes to spending cuts. The military-industrial complex must be put on a diet. A good place to start is by closing down military bases abroad—rough estimates point to 800 military bases in over 70 countries. Most American allies are first world countries that are more than able to defend themselves. It’s time that countries start assuming their own defense functions because the U.S. can no longer afford to be the “World Police.”

Yemen Casualties Continue To Pile Up, America Must Cut Aid

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Foreign Policy, Military, National Defense. 1 Comment on Yemen Casualties Continue To Pile Up, America Must Cut Aid

A United Nations report highlighted the death toll in the current Yemeni Civil War will reach 233,000 if it continues until the end of 2019. Of these deaths, 102,000 are expected to be combat-related and the remaining 131,000 will die because of malnutrition, cholera, and other diseases. ZeroHedge reported that 140,000 children are expected to be killed since the initiation of this conflict in March 2015. Should the conflict continue into the next five years, the death toll is expected to reach half a million people by 2022. What’s happening in Yemen is the standard operating procedure for the Middle East, a region plagued by religious violence and tribalism for the last thousand years. What makes this conflict more gut-wrenching is how the U.S. is subsidizing and providing military support to the Saudi-backed Yemeni government. Thankfully, the conversation is starting to shift towards a more non-interventionist approach towards Yemen Members of Congress such as Mike Lee, Rand Paul, and Tulsi Gabbard have championed an exit strategy out of Yemen. Gabbard, who’s a 2020 presidential candidate had the most vociferous critic  of the Trump administration’s policies in Yemen:
“The Saudi-led genocide in Yemen is the largest humanitarian crisis in the world right now. Our alliance with SA must end. Passage of HJ Res 37, pulling US troops out of Yemen, is a victory for American values and national security. The Senate must pass and Trump must sign.”
Their efforts in denouncing the U.S. government’s support of the Yemeni government resulted in H.J. Res.37 passing out of both chambers of Congress, to later meet President Trump’s unfortunate veto. So much for an America First foreign policy. However, the fact that this bill passed both chambers is a good first step. The institutional inertia that the military-industrial complex has created is no joke, and it will take a considerable amount of pressure to reverse these kinds of foreign policy decisions. As more awareness of the shocking scenes of violence behind the Yemeni Civil War emerge, the more likely Americans will pressure their Congressmen to immediately pull out of Yemen. Let’s hope that the Trump administration comes to its senses and lives up to its America First campaign promises.

Julian Assange Refuses To Be Extradited To The United States

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in News, Personal Liberty. No Comments on Julian Assange Refuses To Be Extradited To The United States

On May 2, 2019, Assange threw down the gauntlet by telling a British judge that he plans on fighting extradition requests from the United States. He is due to appear in court again on May 30, in what is expected to be a drawn-out legal battle. Assange was originally charged for conspiring with Chelsea Manning to break into a government computer, which comes with a maximum prison of 5.5 years if he is convicted. When asked if he would turn himself in to U.S. authorities, Assange told Judge, “I do not wish to surrender myself for extradition for doing journalism that’s won many, many awards and affected many people.” The Wikileaks founder’s court appearance came one day after he received a 50-week sentence for skipping bail in 2012. Assange’s arrest has received praise from establishment politicians from the neoliberal to the neoconservative side of the spectrum. This just goes to show how protected and entitled politicians think they are when it comes to dealing with journalists such as Assange. Say what you want about Assange’s motives, but he has done a fantastic job in exposing legacy institutions and putting the political class on its feet over the past decade. In days when journalism has been reduced to blindly repeating establishment talking points and advancing narratives that perpetuate that status quo “politics as usual,” daring journalists like Assange are a must. Punishing people like Assange with jail time sets a dangerous precedent. Real journalism involves telling the truth. Some times that truth gravely inconveniences political elites and their agenda. For that reason, they will try to muzzle it as much as possible. Putting the clamps on journalists because their findings put “national security,” and “national interests,” at risk is the height of statism. What these government apologists are really telling journalists is to not cover anything meaningful and stick to reporting on mundane news. On the other hand, establishment-approved journalists are given free rein to cover whatever pleases them thanks to the privileges bestowed upon them by legacy institutions. True accountability involves doing hard-hitting journalism that ruffles feathers of the even the most sacred sectors of the political class. If this is banned, press freedom is bound to deteriorate.

More Sanctions Will Not Make Things Better For Venezuela

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Economics, Foreign Policy, Military, National Defense. No Comments on More Sanctions Will Not Make Things Better For Venezuela

The Trump administration is preparing a new barrage of sanctions on Cuba and Russia according to statements that Elliot Abrams, the U.S. Special Representative for Venezuela, made to the Washington Free Beacon. According to Abrams, the U.S. is still not discarding military options should strongman Nicolas Maduro refuse to step down. Venezuela reached a new point of escalation on April 30, 2019, when Interim President Juan Guaido launched Operacion Libertad (Operation Freedom), a failed uprising against Maduro’s government. Guaido is recognized by the U.S. government and various members of the international community as the legitimate leader of Venezuela. On the other hand, Maduro’s government is supported by countries such as China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and Russia. The neoconservative diplomat told the Free Beacon that more sanctions are likely coming. This is based on the growing influence China, Cuba, Iran, and Russia have had on Venezuela in the last decade. Cuban and Russia are targeted in particular due to their military and logistical support in propping up Maduro’s regime. Abrams said that “We will have more sanctions” with regards to Venezuela and its Cuban and Russian backers. Right after the uprising, Trump even threatened Cuba with an embargo and “the highest level” sanctions. Although what’s happening in Venezuela is terrible, the U.S. should stay out of the way. The U.S. government can recognize Guaido if it wants, but it should stop there. When we look at the bigger picture, China, Iran, and Russia’s presence in Venezuela is a direct response to our presence in the latter two countries’ backyards in the Middle East. For too long, the U.S. has served the interests of the defense industry, rather than its citizens. This latest saber-rattling in Venezuela is troubling. Indeed, sanctions may be preferable to outright war, but they have proven to have very little effect in changing the behavior of certain regimes like Cuba and Iran. Instead, the U.S. should focus on a non-interventionist path that puts national defense, not offense, as the main objective for security. In other words, this entails shoring up our cyber-security defenses while maintaining the homeland free of actual threats. Countries like Venezuela will have to solve their own problems. However, it does appear that the Maduro regime is losing legitimacy abroad so it could be a matter of time before Maduro is compelled to leave office. Nevertheless, the U.S. should do everything it can to keep boots off the ground. Certain rogue countries should be kept at arm’s length diplomatically, but we should stop trying to interfere in the affairs of foreign nations, get involved in unnecessary wars, and impose sanctions that only embolden radical regimes. As John Quincy Adams said it best “America… goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.” For a President that was elected on an allegedly “America First” platform, Donald Trump should remind Elliott Abrams, John Bolton, and Mike Pompeo that the buck stops with him on all matters of foreign policy.

Education Needs More Market Signals, Not Credential Signals

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Business and Economy, Economic Liberty, Economics, Education, Personal Liberty. No Comments on Education Needs More Market Signals, Not Credential Signals

Dirty Jobs’ Mike Rowe does not pull punches when it comes to tearing down conventional wisdom in professional advancement. Rowe has had choice words for the university system and how it has kept Americans ill-prepared for the real world. One of the greatest insights that Rowe has shared with many Americans disillusioned with their professional prospects is to look the other way in the blue-collar sector for lucrative opportunities. On Tucker Carlson’s nightly show, Mike Rowe continued his attacks on higher education in America. Rowe claimed that Americans and legacy institutions are “obsessed with credentialing, not education.” Rowe continued, “I think because stuck in this binary box, this or that. Right, blue-collar or white color, good job or a bad job. Higher education or higher alternative education.” The TV show host then said:
“The cost of college today has almost nothing to do with the cost of an education, and everything to do with the cost of buying a credential. That’s all a diploma is. Some are more expensive than others, but none of them reflect the character of the recipient, none are necessary to live a happy and prosperous life, and none of them come with any guarantees.”
Rowe gets the surface details correct, however, there is more to the story than meets the eye. Ever since the federal government got involved in education, not only has the quality become suspect, but the cost of education has skyrocketed. A study from the National Bureau of Education Research (NBER) found that the average net tuition increased by 106 percent from 1987 to 2010. We can thank government subsidized loans for that. These guaranteed subsidies artificially drive up demand, and in turn, universities take advantage of this by raising tuition rates. On top of that, rigorous accreditation standards shield established universities from competition. Gary North explains how the American university has evolved during the past century: “Accreditation was initially private. Private regional accrediting associations were set up. Today, there are state laws governing the use of the word “university.” A university must be accredited.” In effect, these legal barriers to entry restrict the supply of academic institutions providing educational services, thus keeping prices high. With how democratized information has become due to technology like the Internet, it no longer matters what educational institution you go to. Now, people from all over the world can learn information that was only available to rich elites. In theory, the playing field should already be leveled. Unfortunately, the government has not caught up with this trend and impedes the market from doing its thing. The U.S. political economy, from its tax code to an out of control bureaucracy, has in many ways created a quasi-rigged environment against new entrants. Further, the education system helps perpetuate this vicious cycle of control. From the primary level up until the university level, students are treated as if they are cogs in a machine. Go to class, get lectured, memorize material. Rinse, lather, and repeat. Once students enter the real world, they are up to their necks in debt and ill-prepared to be a part of the workforce. It’s even sadder when young individuals, disillusioned with their dreary corporate jobs, end up gravitating toward government solutions to these problems. The same government that constricts our job prospects, has also constricted our mindsets when it comes to working. Indeed, we can aspire for more. It’s time to recognize that not everyone needs a traditional degree to have a successful career. Some people’s calling belongs in trades, not an office cubicle. Our society’s blind acceptance of the university to the corporate pipeline has stunted the professional imagination of countless individuals. Rowe’s insights on higher education are a breath of fresh air. The next step is for Rowe and others to embrace free markets as the solution to the higher education conundrum. Rowe might not have the correct specifics but he’s at least starting a conversation that must take place if we want to overhaul our education system. We can start by treating education like a good or service, not some positive right that has to be provided or stimulated by the most primitive institution to rule them all—the State.

Ben & Jerry’s Has Become Cheerleaders for the Green New Deal

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Business and Economy, Economic Liberty, Economics, Elections and Politics. 1 Comment on Ben & Jerry’s Has Become Cheerleaders for the Green New Deal

On April 18, 2019, Ice Cream company Ben & Jerry’s endorsed the Green New Deal. The renowned food company made a statement declaring that the world is “facing an unprecedented crisis.” Inspiring a sense of urgency, the company said society has “to act now” to rescue capitalism by supporting the Green New Deal. Rolled out by the popular freshman Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the Green New Deal effectively calls for the decarbonization of the America economy. To achieve this goal, carbon taxes, infrastructure investments, and subsidies that encourage the use of alternative energy sources are all a part of the program. All of this is done to not only protect the environment but also ensure the creation of “millions of good, high-wage jobs.” There is nothing wrong with the end goal per se.  However, the key question we must ask is how do we achieve this? In the Green New Deal’s case, this involves government. For those of us who want continuous prosperity, this is frankly a non-starter. The government cannot magically conjure up higher wages through laws and regulations. Wealth creation is facilitated through the accumulation of capital. When people are free to save, invest, and build businesses in a peaceful manner, economic productivity and the standard of living rises. However, taxes, subsidies, and regulation distort and shackle the economy, thus keeping it from reaching the goal of increased prosperity. Additionally, environmental protection and economic development are not mutually exclusive. The most economically prosperous societies are often the cleanest societies. In fact, forest areas in the United Kingdom have tripled since 1919. Economic growth allows for more people to finance conservation projects and keep the environment pristine for future generations to come. But why do companies like Ben & Jerry’s insist on embracing big government? Often times, it’s not the most rabid socialist intellectuals nor the journalists that are the biggest threats to capitalism, but rather the rich capitalists themselves. Established companies like Ben & Jerry’s have the luxury of advocating for economically detrimental policies like the Green New Deal. The story of crony capitalism is one of the big corporations using cumbersome regulations to hamstring their competition. Even if companies like Ben & Jerry’s lose out on some profits, they are still able to keep their piece of the pie thanks well-established market position. But for the countless small and medium-sized companies out there, embracing policies like the Green New Deal is suicidal. They simply cannot shoulder the costs of regulatory compliance. Wishful political thinking can never outrun the everyday realities of running a business. For many humble business owners, more regulation will assure their business’s demise. Capitalism does not need to be rescued, rather it needs to be restored. In the eternal words of President Calvin Coolidge, people need to think less about what the government should be doing, and instead, “give their time and attention more undividedly about the conduct of the private business of the country.” When push comes to shove, the Green New Deal only guarantees economic stagnation and further cements government control over our lives just like its 20th-century predecessor.

Right For Once: Most 2020 Democratic Candidates are On Top of the Marijuana Issue

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Drugs, Economic Liberty, Elections and Politics. No Comments on Right For Once: Most 2020 Democratic Candidates are On Top of the Marijuana Issue

The Democratic Party might have something positive to offer after all of these years. Marijuana legalization has now become a reality in American politics. Thanks to states like Colorado and Washington, who legalized marijuana via referendum in 2012, 10 states and Washington D.C. have followed suit in legalizing the plant. Mainstream Democrats at the federal level have caught up to this trend. Reason highlighted this when breaking down the growing acceptance of marijuana legalization among the 2020 hopefuls in the Democratic Party. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders made an unprecedented step in endorsing marijuana legalization in 2015, which has spurred other Democrats in Congress to consider the issue. Democratic Senators Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, and Kirsten Gillibrand are some of the notable incumbents who support marijuana legalization. Congressional contrarian Tulsi Gabbard and former Congressman Beto O’Rourke also support legalization. Of the mainline Democrats, Cory Booker has been leading the charge for marijuana legalization in the Senate. Booker has constantly teamed up with Kentucky Senator Rand Paul on the topic of criminal justice reform. Booker is also the champion of the Marijuana Justice Act, which “prohibits and reduces certain federal funds for a state without a statute legalizing marijuana if the Bureau of Justice Assistance determines that such a state has a disproportionate arrest rate or disproportionate incarceration rate for marijuana offenses.” On the other hand, Joe Biden, who’s seen as a 2020 frontrunner, has not caught up with the times. Joe Biden is a seasoned drug warrior who has championed some of the worst mass incarceration schemes like the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. Biden channeled his inner Boomer by opposing marijuana legalization because he sees it as a  “gateway drug.” Indeed, there are still some lagging factions with the Democratic Party that have not embraced the issue. For all its faults on matters of economic freedom, the Democratic Party appears to be on the right side of the drug policy issue. Since it was initiated in the 1970s, the Drug War has been a disaster. Mass incarceration, civil liberties violations, and a hefty bill of $1 trillion have been the end results of this government program. Now, we have a rare opportunity to phase out this abominable program. A step in the right direction, drug legalization opens new avenues for expanding freedom. There is still much work to be done, as many states have used legalization as a means to fill up government coffers and protect first entrants in the marijuana sector. Nevertheless, this is where libertarians and other free-market fellow travelers can position themselves accordingly by proposing full-scale market liberalization in this sector. In the day of outrage-filled politics, marijuana legalization is welcome news.

Public Sector Unionization Will Put Colorado on the Path to Stagnation

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Business and Economy, Economic Liberty, Economics. No Comments on Public Sector Unionization Will Put Colorado on the Path to Stagnation

Despite being a leader in the area of marijuana legalization, Colorado might be on the verge of taking a step backward in labor freedom. The introduction of House Bill 19-1273 in the 2019 session of the Colorado General Assembly would allow state employees to have a union represent a single department or all state workers. Additionally, HB 19-1273 delineates a process for those entities to negotiate contracts over benefits, wages, and work conditions. If passed, Colorado Public Radio reports that approximately 26,500 workers would gain collective-bargaining rights. This represents an overwhelming majority of the Colorado state government’s “certified workforces”, which are mostly made up of employees in executive branch officers and departments. Employees of the Colorado state government have sought collective bargaining rights for years. With favorable political winds blowing in 2019—A Democratic trifecta in all chambers of the state legislature—this could finally become a reality this year. Advocates contend that collective bargaining would be a step in the right direction for state workers who have complained about low pay and understaffing at state agencies. Opponents worry, and rightfully so, that public sector unionization would limit the power that legislators and taxpayers have in terms of spending. With state spending taken out of the hands of legislators, who theoretically can be held accountable by voters, and instead put it in the hands of bureaucrats and arbitrators, this can lead to financially reckless outcomes. A Heritage Foundation study highlighted how public sector monopoly bargaining costs the average family of four up to $3,000 in taxes per year in states that have fully unionized its sector. States like California have witnessed public sector unions take taxpayers hostage in order to obtain as much government privilege as possible at current and future taxpayers’ expense. Public sector union benefits are at the heart of California’s flimsy pension system. The same Heritage study contends that California could have saved anywhere between $11.6 billion to $24.2 billion in taxpayer dollars had it prohibited collective bargaining in the public sector. Over the years, Colorado has built a reputation as a state that respects economic freedom. According to the latest Freedom in the 50 States index, Colorado is ranked in 4th place for overall freedom. However, a public sector union bill like HB 19-1273 would go a long way in undermining Colorado’s otherwise pristine economic state. Like burdensome taxation, public sector unions are fixtures of many blue states that are witnessing the capital flight. The passage of HB 19-1273 could be a Rubicon moment for Colorado as its enactment could lay the groundwork for a litany of anti-growth policies in the years to come.

Trump Surrenders to Neocons, Saudi Arabia by Vetoing Resolution

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Foreign Policy, Middle East. No Comments on Trump Surrenders to Neocons, Saudi Arabia by Vetoing Resolution

On April 16, 2016, President Donald Trump apparently yielded to neoconservative pressure when he vetoed a resolution that would stop U.S. military intervention in the Yemeni Civil War. This is yet another sign of the Trump Administration’s wavering foreign policy. A few weeks ago, the Trump administration declared the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist group, and now the Trump administration is doing Saudi Arabia’s bidding. The Yemeni Civil War, a conflict between the Saudi-backed government of Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi and the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels, is just another foreign policy quagmire in the making. Some reports say that this conflict could potentially leave 13 million Yemeni civilians in famine-like conditions. Starting in 2015, the Yemeni is just the latest in the line of never-ending conflicts that are typical of the Middle East. The bill in question, H,J, Res, 37, was able to make it out of the House and Senate, but then met Trump’s eventual veto earlier this week. It would have called upon the War Powers Resolution to put an end to all aid handed out to the Saudi coalition that is fighting off the Houthi rebels in Yemen. Trump defended the veto on the grounds that “This resolution is an unnecessary, dangerous attempt to weaken my constitutional authorities, endangering the lives of American citizens and brave service members, both today and in the future.” 2020 Presidential hopeful Tulsi Gabbard has been one of the most vocal critics of the U.S.’s involvement in this conflict. She said that “The Saudi-led genocide in Yemen is the largest humanitarian crisis in the world right now. Our alliance with SA must end.” She was one of the most notable elected officials to vote in favor of this resolution. Opposition to U.S. involvement in Yemen has cut across party lines. Senators Mike Lee and Rand Paul have been vocal proponents of pulling the U.S. out of Yemen. Both of them voted for the resolution alongside Gabbard in attempt to end this conflict. Any non-interventionist who saw the Trump administration as a potential avenue for a restrained foreign policy should be disappointed with Trump’s latest decision. Trump was originally elected on a platform that emphasized less nation-building and more military restraint in foreign affairs. However, the military-industrial complex and their representatives in the State Department have other things in mind. With its more hawkish approach to countries like Iran and Venezuela, the foreign policy establishment seeks to maintain the interventionist status quo of the past few decades. To add insult to injury, the promising North Korean negotiations have been largely derailed by national security adviser John Bolton according to several reports. The only silver lining is that no new wars have been carried out under Trump. However, as Commander-in-Chief, Trump can still set the record straight. Constitutionally, he has the final say in the deployment of military resources abroad. If he wants to live up to his America First rhetoric, he must give the neocons in his administration the cold shoulder.