John Lott, our favorite economist at least in the arena of criminology and Second Amendment scholarship…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Stat of the Day: Everywhere Guns Are Banned, Murder Rates Increase

John Lott, our favorite economist at least in the arena of criminology and Second Amendment scholarship, cogently summarizes the actual, real-world, data-based sociological effect of "gun control" laws:

. While gun bans (either a ban on all guns or on all handguns) have been imposed in many places, every time guns have been banned, murder rates have gone up.

One would think that one time, just out of simple randomness, murder rates would have gone down or at least stayed the same.  Yet in every single case for which we have crime data both before and after the ban, murder rates have gone up, often by huge amounts."

. It's almost as if more guns mean less crime.…[more]

October 20, 2017 • 11:58 am

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
“Fiscal Cliff?” Don’t Liberals Constantly Claim Fealty to Clinton-Era Rates? Print
By Timothy H. Lee
Thursday, November 29 2012
So are liberals now admitting that the Bush tax cuts weren’t so bad after all? Or are they admitting that things weren’t so perfect under Clinton after all?

An urgent alert atop the official White House website announces the following: 

“If Congress fails to act before the end of the year, every American family’s taxes will automatically go up. A typical middle-class family of four would see its taxes rise by $2,200 starting in 2013.” 

So what’s the problem?  Aren’t liberals always demanding a return to Clinton-era rates? 

Moreover, why would only Congress be culpable for a failure to act?  Barack Obama’s party controls the Senate half of Congress, and his administration would by logic be equally guilty of failing to agree.  Recall that Obama has flatly threatened to veto any bill that doesn’t satisfy his demands. 

Additionally, Obama extended current tax rates once in 2010, and nothing prevents him from doing so again – even if temporarily – while the parties negotiate a longer-term agreement.  On that occasion in 2010, Obama claimed that economic conditions were simply too precarious to endure tax increases.  Today’s economic growth, however, is even more sluggish.  Yet he considers the time ripe to change course and demand tax hikes?  That’s the pinnacle of illogic.   

But set all of that aside for a moment.  There’s an even deeper cognitive dissonance of which Obama and liberals are guilty. 

Namely, the approaching “fiscal cliff” is essentially what they advocated during this year’s presidential campaign. 

Recall the orgy of nostalgia for the Clinton presidency, the way in which Clinton himself dominated the Democratic convention and the campaign commercials he cut in order to save Obama from his own failures.  In one commercial, Clinton specifically tells viewers, “This is a clear choice,” and proceeds to claim that, “President Obama has a plan to rebuild America from the ground up … that’s what happened when I was President.” 

But if a return to Clinton policy is the panacea, then what explains Obama’s sudden “fiscal cliff” aversion?  Allowing current tax rates to expire would return them to where they stood at the end of his Administration. 

Although liberals mischaracterize the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts as benefitting only “the rich,” the simple fact is that they cut every tax bracket.  The five tax brackets of 15%, 28%, 31%, 36% and 39.6% were replaced by six brackets of 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33% and 35%, respectively.  By 2007, incoming federal revenues had reached an all-time high, and the federal deficit was merely $161 billion. 

So are liberals now admitting that the Bush tax cuts weren’t so bad after all?  Or are they admitting that things weren’t so perfect under Clinton after all?  It won’t suffice to respond that only the top bracket for “the rich” is awry, because the lower bracket cuts constitute the overwhelming majority of dollars saved.  According to the Economic Policy Institute, upper-income tax cuts would account for only $52 billion of the $202 billion total tax impact for fiscal 2013. 

Or will liberals instead rationalize that it’s not the return of the higher Clinton tax rates that will plunge us into recession, but the allegedly draconian spending cuts? 

Well, that doesn’t withstand scrutiny either. 

If no agreement is reached by January 1, $200 billion in spending cuts will take effect.  Catastrophic?  Hardly. 

Consider that last year’s federal spending reached $3.54 trillion, with a deficit of $1.1 trillion.  Compare that to 2000, the last complete fiscal year over which Clinton presided, when total federal spending reached $1.77 trillion.  Few people were complaining back then that the federal government was too small, and that lower level of spending certainly didn’t trigger a “fiscal cliff” or recession. 

So perhaps liberals would alternatively rationalize that the problem is the immediacy of the change, rather than its magnitude.  But does anyone doubt that if Mitt Romney had won this month’s election and announced $700 billion in immediate tax cuts, the market response would be effusive? 

All of this serves to expose the more likely rationale for false concern over the “fiscal cliff” from Obama and liberals.  To wit, dark economic clouds forming on the horizon suggest a coming storm regardless of what happens before January 1.  Given Obama’s congenital unwillingness to take adult responsibility for the consequences of his own actions, he will need yet another all-purpose alibi as his capacity to blame his predecessor expires. 

Accordingly, by stirring synthetic alarm over a “fiscal cliff” of his own making, Obama can scapegoat House Republicans for continuing economic malaise under his watch. 

The question is how much longer voters and the mainstream media will tolerate it. 

Question of the Week   
Which one of the following battles effectively ended the American Revolutionary War?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"History will record that the Islamic State caliphate -- a bizarre pseudo-state founded on illusory goals, created by a global horde of jihadis, and enforced with perverted viciousness -- survived for three years, three months and some eighteen days. The fall of Raqqa, the nominal ISIS capital, was proclaimed on Tuesday by the U.S.-backed militia that spearheaded the offensive, a coalition of Kurdish…[more]
 
 
—Robin Wright, Newyorker.com Contributing Writer
— Robin Wright, Newyorker.com Contributing Writer
 
Liberty Poll   

What is your family’s reaction to this week’s statement that the NFL would like for players to stand for the national anthem, but will not force them to do so?