Even if it isn't illegal, what Hillary did is unacceptable

What Hillary Clinton has done--accepting donations from state sponsors of terror and using a personal email address for government business--is unacceptable, regardless of the legality.

It is pretty obvious that accepting donations from state sponsors of terror is a terrible thing to do. It has been argued the money was used for a good cause. Great. It still isn't acceptable. Do the means justify the ends? Further, there is no proof that *all* of the money was used for something good. Some of it may have been pocketed or used for malicious activities. And no, I am not accusing Hillary of supporting nor committing terrorist acts. But the fact is, accepting donations from *known* terrorist supporters is just insane. What's worse is that many of these donations occurred while she was Secretary of State! Just like campaign donations theoretically can cause corruption, this, too, can cause a conflict of interest--not something a Presidential hopeful should go after. 

The use of a private email address is probably even more disturbing. If a reporter attempted to get the information of her email account and cited the FOIA, the government would have nothing to give as she was using a private account on a private server. Any investigations will be hampered by her doing this. Does she have anything to hide? The use of a private email is simply unacceptable. Plus, it is probably illegal. According to the Wallstreet Journal, ambassadors have been fired because they did the same thing. 

Not to mention Benghazi... It is sad that the Democrats want her to be president... 

Income inequality is not a problem

I will be posting the summary of the Manhattan Institute's paper here. And the paper can be accessed here. I recommend reading it. 

Across the developed world, countries with more inequality tend to have, if anything, higher living standards. The exception is that countries with higher income concentration tend to have poorer low-income populations.

However, when changes in income concentration and living standards are considered across countries—a more rigorous approach to assessing causality—larger increases in inequality correspond with sharper rises in living standards for the middle class and the poor alike.

In developed nations, greater inequality tends to accompany stronger economic growth. This stronger growth may explain how it is that when the top gets a bigger share of the economic pie, the amount of pie received by the middle class and the poor is nevertheless greater than it otherwise would have been. Greater inequality can increase the size of the pie.

Below the top 1 percent of households—and prior to government redistribution—developed nations display levels of inequality squarely in the middle ranks of nations globally. American income inequality below the top 1 percent is of the same magnitude as that of our rich-country peers in continental Europe and the Anglosphere.

In the English-speaking world, income concentration at the top is higher than in most of continental Europe; in the U.S., income concentration is higher than in the rest of the Anglosphere.

Yet—with the exception of small countries that are oil-rich, international financial centers, or vacation destinations for the affluent—America’s middle class enjoys living standards as high as, or higher than, any other nation.

America’s poor have higher living standards than their counterparts across much of Europe and the Anglosphere, while faring worse than poor residents of Scandinavia, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, the Low Countries, and Canada.

Why the Stimulus Failed (well... one of the reasons!)

It is pretty much a fact that the most recent stimulus measures have failed. After a bust, there is a boom. The most recent recession was not followed by a boom. The government did attempt to create economic growth using fiscal stimulus—both Bush and Obama used stimulus measures in order to alleviate economic woes—but growth remains anemic even today. Although I am skeptical of stimulus spending in general, an interesting paper has been published by the Mercatus Center at GMU. The paper is titled “Why the Fiscal Multiplier is Likely Zero”.

The paper discusses why the modern stimulus package has failed to stimulate economic growth. He blames it on central banking. Specifically, a policy known as monetary offset.

I will use the same scenario the author uses. Say the Fed targets inflation at a modest 2%. Fiscal stimulus kicks in and causes prices to rise. If the inflation rate is already at 2%, the stimulus (forcing an increase in inflation) means inflation goes over the 2% limit. So the Fed has to contract the money supply in order to meet the 2% threshold. This prevents the stimulus from really creating anything—so the current stimulus was doomed to fail because of the Federal Reserve policies!

Now, I am a big proponent of the Federal Reserve. Well, maybe not—the jury is out. But I prefer it to a gold standard. The Fed should change their policies—as the author argues—in order to assume a moderate increase in spending. This would reduce the volatility created by the current system due to monetary offset and also lead to economic growth. Just in case a gold bug reads this blog, I should mention even the gold standard was 23 times *more* volatile than the current system.

So, now you know one of the reasons the stimulus package failed to create a recovery. It was the banks, not the stimulus itself (though… John Lott provides some interesting statistics saying the stimulus harms the economy anyway!)

Jeb Bush "severely conservative"

I will share this MSNBC article here. Although it seems to view the issue from a liberal standpoint, it really dispels the myth that Jeb is a moderate. 

I like Jeb Bush...

I may be crazy, but I like Jeb. 

You wouldn't know it if you didn't read this (or some non-biased source), but Jeb actually had a conservative record as governor. But more importantly, he was a governor of a key state: Florida. The Republicans *must* win Florida if they are to win the election. Jeb is probably our best bet to guarantee a win in Florida--except maybe Marco Rubio. 

Bush's wife is a Mexican-American and he spent a lot of his time with the Hispanic community. Even though he goes against many conservatives in regards to amnesty... I agree with him. We do not have a plan to deport 11 million immigrants. So why not give them citizenship and close the borders? What is also interesting is that conservatives dislike unions--I do too--but I must point out the first anti-immigrant positions came from... The labor unions! 

Jeb Bush is a conservative. He is not a tea party member, sure, but to say he is a moderate really isn't true. He lowered taxes as governor, is pro-life, is against same-sex marriage, and ended affirmative action. He was a strong advocate for gun rights, and passed stand your ground laws. Another conservative who I like, Ben Carson, actually supports many gun controls I disagree with and the tea party would oppose until they die. 

Basically, Jeb Bush IS a fiscal conservative and is in line with most tea party members. He IS a social conservative, even though he goes astray (as do I) on immigration issues. He also supports common core--something I oppose, too. But keep in mind other conservatives like Carson oppose gun rights. Merely because Jeb runs astray on a few issues does not make him liberal--it makes him a realist. He stands by his beliefs, as he states, he is is own man. I actually find that admirable and it is not a negative. Bush is a conservative, and although he is not my first choice, he would make a great president. 

A Conservative Case for Nuclear Power

I had to write an essay recently in order to go to a JSA Macroeconomics program over the summer. I am going to post it here to share with you. I must note that I posted this AFTER I submitted the essay. 
_______

Nuclear power is not something that should happen—it is something that must happen. Other issues do not garner such necessity. One may oppose abortion in order to prevent the death of a child, support gun rights on the basis of deterrence, or oppose the death penalty due to the risk of executing innocents. But nuclear power is on a different level of urgency. I think we should have the death penalty and that we should not permit abortion but we must have nuclear power.

I suppose this argument is question begging: why the necessity? Why the absolutist position? The answer is simple: climate change.

I may be a conservative, but I do not deny the science. The science is overwhelming. Climate change is real, will harm us, and we are the main cause of it. Ninety seven percent of the published works support this statement. A conservative generally wants to reduce the size and scope of the government. If global warming continues, the economy will shrink, weather extremes will become more frequent, and sea levels will rise. This all leads to people becoming poorer. Poorer people require public assistance in order to survive. Although these programs should be reduced, I don’t want to see people die either. If we continue on the same path of environmental destruction, we would have to expand these programs.

So how do we prevent this? Simple: change the way we live our lives. In order to stop climate change, we must reduce carbon emissions. Currently, a major source of these emissions come from power usage. Other than returning to the dark ages—an irrational response—we must find an energy source which reduces these emissions.

We cannot rely upon current energy technologies. Although coal is abundant, it is highly polluting. Carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, mercury, and nitrogen oxides are all released from coal power plants. Coal currently produces 40% of worldwide energy. This is unacceptable. Gas is superior to coal and should be implemented to reduce pollution. But it suffers from similar problems—namely, carbon emissions. These conventional power sources have helped us in the past, but need to be slowly replaced if we are to be serious about stopping climate change.

Nuclear power is extremely clean. Nuclear power emits 29 tons of greenhouse gas emissions per every gigawatt hour. Coal emits 888 tons of greenhouse gas emissions per gigawatt hour, and gas comes in with 499 tons. This makes nuclear power one of the cleanest energy sources in existence. 

The most common argument against nuclear power is in regards to safety: atomic energy is unsafe and using it would be irresponsible. This is another misconception. Nuclear power plants are not nuclear bombs. They do not explode. What can occur however, are full or partial meltdowns. This causes large amounts of radiation to be emitted. Safety is the industry’s leading concern. The NRC requires that safety meets the standard of 1 partial meltdown per 10,000 years, but all modern reactors exceed this requirement, making it virtually impossible for a nuclear accident to occur in our lifetimes. Most partial meltdowns, like the Fermi 1 reactor in Detroit, led to zero radiation being released. In Chernobyl, the world’s worst nuclear disaster, it occurred due to mismanagement and the use of outdated technology. The reactor design used in Chernobyl, which led to the radiation leaks, does not exist in modern reactors and cannot be used as an example against modern nuclear power. The United States’ worst accident, Three Mile Island, there were zero deaths. According to Forbes magazine, more people are killed by wind power than nuclear power every year.

Climate change is real and is happening today. Humans are the principle cause of global warming, and the only way to stop the warming of the globe is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Other power sources are incapable of doing this alone; nuclear power is a necessity in order to reduce future temperatures. A large nuclear accident will not happen. If it does, it is better to have a few thousand people harmed than a few million due to climate changes. Conservatives must support nuclear power in order to prevent the government from growing in response to the damages of climate change. Nuclear power is the most important issue in our lifetimes, and should be supported by any well-meaning citizen.