People who pay $8 for a slice of pizza will find it 11% tastier than those who pay $4 a slice, even if it's the same pizza. (https://t.co/Mnpm39jr8C) pic.twitter.com/tCWe8bYzk2
— Quite Interesting (@qikipedia) December 6, 2019
A carbon tax as a concept is far from new--it's been doing the rounds in Washington since at least the early 1990s, when a similar policy was proposed during the Clinton Administration. Some major companies, including ExxonMobil, have incorporated the possibility of such a tax into their long-term planning since at least 2013. What's different now is that the idea of a carbon tax continues to gain widespread momentum in the U.S. business community--even as the country's policy on climate change has broadly been rolled back under the Trump administration.Padilla says IBM backs the escalating carbon dividends plan proposed by the Climate Leadership Council, a conservative-leaning industry group, which starts at $40 per ton of CO2 emissions and increases every year at 5% above inflation. The revenue from that tax will be returned as a dividend to all Americans and will exceed what the public would pay in higher energy costs, the Council says.The system advocated by the Council has also been backed by four former chairs of the Federal Reserve--Janet Yellen, Ben Bernanke, Alan Greenspan and Paul Volcker--alongside a wide slate of economists, who argue that it would be more efficient in reducing emissions than regulations.
The announcement from Republican Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose -- coming after years of GOP warnings of massive voter fraud -- means that of the 4,496,834 ballots cast in Ohio on November 6, 2018, just .002% of them were illegal. [...]LaRose acknowledged "both voter fraud and voter suppression are exceedingly rare and certainly not as systemic as some claim."
Even the prosecutor personally selected by Attorney General Bill Barr to review the Russia probe couldn't find evidence to back up right-wing conspiracy theories about the origins of the investigation.The Washington Post reported Wednesday that Connecticut US Attorney John Durham, whom Barr tapped in May to examine the origins of the Russia inquiry, said he doesn't have evidence to back up the allegation that the FBI planted an informant to "spy" on the Trump campaign.He reportedly told that to Inspector General Michael Horowitz, Justice Department's independent watchdog, who is carrying out a separate investigation from Durham. Horowitz's long-awaited report on the Russia probe is expected on Monday.Reports have suggested the inspector general's report will criticize the FBI's handling of some matters relating to the Russia probe, including the alleged falsification of a document by an FBI attorney in the wiretapping of a former Trump aide.But Horowitz is also expected to broadly say the FBI met the bar to launch the investigation, and that federal law enforcement did not pursue the probe because of political bias against Trump.The report is also supposed to discredit this idea that the FBI placed informants or spies within the Trump campaign. Trump and his GOP allies have claimed that law enforcement illegally "spied" on the campaign so it could launch an investigation to damage Trump. They argue that this makes the entire Russia investigation illegitimate, or in the president's parlance, "a hoax."
Josh Owens, an ex-video editor for Infowars, has written a piece in The New York Times Magazine describing bizarre behind-the-scenes details about working for the fringe conspiracy theorist, such as that Jones allegedly once dumped a bag containing an employee's pet fish in the trash, "wildly" stabbed a moldy water cooler, ripped blinds off the wall, yelled at employees to hit him, regularly removed his shirt, and "threatened to send out a memo banning laughter in the office," with his reasoning apparently being that "we're at war."
Pelosi strongly rejected the question, which she saw as an insult to her faith and her upbringing."I don't hate anybody," responded Pelosi. "I was raised in a Catholic house. We don't hate anybody, not anybody in the world. Don't accuse me of hate."Being accused of hatred was, in Pelosi's mind, the same as accusing her of being a bad Catholic."As a Catholic, I resent your using the word 'hate' in a sentence that addresses me," she said. "I don't hate anyone."Hatred was not part of her upbringing, she said. "I was raised in a way that is a heart full of love."On the contrary, she said, she always prays for the president. "I still pray for the president. I pray for the president all the time."
In the Nov. 29 edition of Makor Rishon, the leading newspaper of the religious Zionist movement, editor Haggai Segal published a column under the headline, "Time to resign." In it, he wrote, "The right cannot wait. Time is against us in a terrifying way ... [Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's] enemies have already succeeded in defeating him, so if he doesn't want them to defeat the entire right, he has no choice but to surrender, instead of dragging us into a new election."
The Intelligence Committee Democrats' Trump-Ukraine impeachment inquiry report, released publicly Tuesday, included records of some phone calls by presidential lawyers Rudy Giuliani and Jay Sekulow, Nunes, journalist John Solomon, Fox News host Sean Hannity, indicted Giuliani associate Lev Parnas, National Security Council aide and former Nunes staffer Kash Patel, lawyer Victoria Toensing, and unidentified people at the White House and Office of Management and Budget.The published records consisted only of the two parties on each call, plus the date and duration of the call. No content from any call was released.Schiff subpoenaed AT&T and Verizon for the information. Sources involved in the matter have only minimal information of exactly what Schiff did, but they believe the chairman subpoenaed a total of five phone numbers -- it is not clear who each number was associated with -- from which the published information was taken.
California's economic growth will slow next year, but it is likely to outshine that of the nation overall, as Golden State employers boost payrolls, according to a new UCLA Anderson School forecast. [...]California's major population regions experienced job growth above 2% this year, except for Sacramento and Los Angeles. The U.S. outside of California experienced just 1.35% growth, the same as Los Angeles.Nonetheless, the forecast noted, the high cost of housing and the Trump administration's immigration restrictions threaten to hamper growth in the Golden State. Many California businesses ranging from Silicon Valley tech firms to the Central Valley farms to Los Angeles' restaurants and hotels rely heavily on immigrant labor.Growth rates vary in different parts of the job market, the forecast notes. High-value-added sectors, such as information, professional and business services, and construction, grew more slowly in recent months. Hiring in government, temporary and administrative services, private education and durable goods manufacturing grew more quickly.Two bright spots: California's logistics industry, propelled by its giant Southern California ports, and its booming tech sector are likely to continue to grow faster than those industries in the rest of the nation.In 2020 and 2021, the forecast predicts average unemployment rates of 4.3% and 4.6% respectively. In October, California joblessness stood at 3.9%, the lowest rate since 1976, when the state changed its statistical methodology, adding new data to its calculations.The UCLA economists expect state payrolls to grow in 2020 and 2021 by 1.9% and 0.9% respectively.At the same time, real personal income is forecast to grow by 2.1% and 1.9% in 2020 and 2021, reflecting a changing mix of employment in California and a tight labor market in high-wage occupations.
This seems like a pretty good ad in that: a) Biden has been hammering away at this theme; and b) It will drive Trump crazy. https://t.co/5mqt0Mz9hy
— Daniel W. Drezner (@dandrezner) December 5, 2019
1) In making the case that the factual record is incomplete, Turley suggested that the Democrats should issue more subpoenas. That would be a more helpful suggestion if the White House weren't currently blocking key figures in the Ukraine scandal--including former National Security Advisor John Bolton, former Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, and others--from complying with congressional subpoenas. Turley also never made clear what kind or amount of additional information would bridge the gap between what he considers unsubstantiated assertions and what he conceded would be an impeachable offense.2) Regarding the offenses President Trump is accused of: Back when President Clinton was facing impeachment, Turley argued that an act didn't have to meet the definition of a crime to be impeachable, as Paul Rosenzweig pointed out to The Bulwark today. Rosenzweig, a former lawyer on Ken Starr's Whitewater investigation staff, noted by email: "Twenty years ago, Professor Turley wrote that a crime did not have to be committed for an action of the President to be an impeachable offense." Today, though, Turley insists that for an action to count as bribery under the impeachment clause, it must satisfy the legal definition of the criminal offense of bribery--"an opinion," Rosenzweig says, "that is manifestly wrong, if only because the impeachment clause was written before we created federal criminal law." So, Rosenzweig asks of Turley, "What changed? One suspects that the only relevant change was the party affiliation of the President. Situational ethics are . . . situational."3) Even if Turley were correct in his contention that the impeachment hearings have so far not allowed the president's supporters to make their case, the president's lawyers could have defended him in the hearings today, if only President Trump hadn't declined the opportunity to let them do so.The Democrats on the Judiciary Committee were able to point out each of the flaws in Turley's testimony. The other three panelists, too, were happy to explain why Turley's interpretation was wrong.
Instead, their cost -- initially paid by the company producing the good -- is passed on to you and me: the consumer. Companies who sell goods subject to tariffs raise their prices in accordance -- which in turn means that the cost is being passed on to us, the consumer, via what is a shadow tax. (That is basic capitalism.)And it is not just French wine that will be seeing its price increase: Everything from luxury items to durable goods -- such as food and clothing -- imported from a multitude of countries throughout the world will be subject to these new taxes ultimately paid by Americans.So not only will there be political ramifications for the president and those who support the trade war, but, and more important, there will be economic consequences that will affect all Americans.
Horowitz reportedly contacted Durham to ask if he had uncovered any evidence that Joseph Mifsud, a shadowy Maltese professor who told Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos that Russia had dirt on Hillary Clinton, was secretly a Western intelligence asset. "Durham said he had no such evidence," the Post reports. "U.S. officials suspect that Mifsud has ties to Russian intelligence," but Papadopoulos has claimed "he believes Mifsud is some type of Western intelligence asset and that he was set up." U.S. intelligence agencies also reportedly told Horowitz he was not one of their assets.Trump's allies have latched on to that theory as proof the Trump-Russia investigation was launched on false pretenses. According to reports from people who have read drafts of Horowitz's report, he concluded that the FBI had adequate cause to launch its investigation into the Trump campaign's ties to Russia, though he also uncovered some irregularities in the FBI's applications for surveillance warrants. CBS News reports that the issue he focused on was whether the FBI withheld exculpatory information when renewing those warrants.
Months later, with Harris out of the 2020 race and Cory Booker lagging in the polls, the only black candidates in the field are set to miss the next Democratic debate -- but Biden, the candidate getting by far the most backing from African American voters, will be center-stage thanks to their support in polls.
That collective choice by black voters so far in this campaign has been one of the most misunderstood dynamics of the Democratic primary. Harris' campaign and others initially expected South Carolina, with its majority-black Democratic electorate, to be a source of strength for her. But Biden has prevented any other candidate from breaking through there this year, even as his poll numbers have flagged in other, whiter early primary and caucus states.A review of public polling and interviews with black strategists, activists and Democratic officials explains why African American voters have largely gotten behind non-black candidates: a medley of concerns about Harris' and Booker's electability, their authenticity and their campaign styles, all of which prevented them from effectively challenging Biden's enduring -- and, to some, surprising -- strength among African Americans."The affinity voters in these groups feel for Joe Biden is deep and strong, rooted in his relationship with Barack Obama, who is the ultimate validator," Buttigieg pollster Katie Connelly wrote in a July report, obtained this fall by McClatchy, that garnered attention for probing how Buttigieg's sexual orientation was affecting his chase for African American voters. "The power of the Obama association with these voters" was paramount, Connelly added.