Tuesday, May 26, 2015

The Clinton's: The open sore of Democrat Party ooze. They're all for education until it comes to their payday.


May 26, 2:11 PM (ET)
By STEPHEN BRAUN
WASHINGTON (AP) — The newly released financial files on Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton's growing fortune omit a company with no apparent employees or assets that the former president has legally used to provide consulting and other services, but which demonstrates the complexity of the family's finances.
Because the company, WJC, LLC, has no financial assets, Hillary Clinton's campaign was not obligated to report its existence in her recent financial disclosure report, officials with Bill Clinton's private office and the Clinton campaign said. They were responding to questions by The Associated Press, which reviewed corporate documents.
The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to provide private details of the former president's finances on the record, said the entity was a "pass-through" company designed to channel payments to the former president.
Under federal ethics disclosure rules, declared candidates do not have to report assets worth less than $1,000. But the company's existence demonstrates the complexity of tracking the Clintons' finances as Hillary Clinton ramps up her presidential bid.
While Bill Clinton's lucrative speeches have provided the bulk of the couple's income, earning as much as $50 million during his wife's four-year term as secretary of state in the Obama administration, the former president has also sought to branch out into other business activities in recent years. Little is known about the exact nature and financial worth of Bill Clinton's non-speech business interests.

The identities of several U.S and foreign-based companies and foundations that Bill Clinton worked for have been disclosed in Hillary Clinton's recent financial report as well as in earlier reports during her stint as secretary of state.
Under federal disclosure rules for spouses' earned income, Hillary Clinton was only obligated to identify the source of her spouse's income and confirm that he received more than $1,000. As a result, the precise amounts of Bill Clinton's earned income from consulting have not been disclosed, and it's not known how much was routed through WJC, LLC.
WJC, LLC was set up in Delaware in 2008 and again in 2013 and in New York in 2009, according to documents obtained by The AP. The company did not appear among holdings in the Clintons' financial disclosure released last week or in previous Hillary Clinton disclosure reports between 2008 and 2013, when she resigned as secretary of state. Bill Clinton signed a document as its "authorizing person" in a corporate filing in Delaware in 2013.
A limited liability company is a commonly used business structure that provides tax advantages and limited legal protection for the assets of company owners and partners.
The purpose of Bill Clinton's U.S.-based company was not disclosed in any of the corporate filings in Delaware and New York, but State Department files recently reviewed by the AP show that WJC, LLC surfaced in emails from Bill Clinton's aides to the department's ethics officials.
In February 2009, Clinton's counselor, Douglas Band, asked State Department ethics officials to clear Bill Clinton's consulting work for three companies owned by influential Democratic party donors. Memos sent by Band proposed that Bill Clinton would provide "consulting services regarding geopolitical, economic and social trends affecting the entity and philanthropic opportunities" through the WJC, LLC entity.
State Department officials approved Bill Clinton's consulting work for longtime friend Steve Bing's Shangri-La Industries and another with Wasserman Investments, GP, a firm run by entertainment executive and Democratic party donor Casey Wasserman. The ethics officials turned down Bill Clinton's proposed work with a firm run by entertainment magnate and Democratic donor Haim Saban because of Saban's active role in Mideast political affairs.
WJC, LLC was also cited by Band in a June 2011 memo sent to State Department ethics officials asking for clearance to allow Bill Clinton to advise Band's international consulting company, Teneo Strategy LLC. Band's request said Teneo would use "consulting services provided by President Clinton through WJC, LLC." State Department officials approved the three-year contract between the two companies.
None of the proposals detailed how much Bill Clinton would be paid.
While Hillary Clinton's 2011 federal disclosure report did not mention WJC, LLC, it reported that Bill Clinton received "non-employee compensation over $1,000 from Teneo," but did not disclose a more precise amount. Federal disclosure rules require the spouses of filers to disclose the identity of any income sources over $1,000, but they do not have to provide exact figures.
Pass-through, or shell, companies became an issue in the 2012 presidential campaign when Republican candidate Mitt Romney disclosed a private equity entity worth $1.9 million despite failing to report the company on his previous federal disclosure. Romney aides said the company previously held no assets but then received the $1.9 million "true up" payment — a catch-up payment to make up for private equity fees from defunct investment advisory businesses that had not been previously paid.
__
Associated Press writer Randall Chase contributed to this report from Dover, Delaware


Many people were shocked when they learned last year Hillary Clinton earned nearly $2 million in the span of 18 months giving speeches at colleges nationwide. Turns out there’s plenty more where that came from.
Arizona State University gave $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation for hosting a Clinton Global Initiative University event on the Tempe campus in 2014, The Arizona Republic reports.
Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton all headlined the three-day meeting, which encourages student attendees to pledge themselves to causes such as education, climate change, human rights, poverty, and public health, the initiative’s website states.
“Student attendees had the opportunity to attend … working sessions and other special events covering topics across CGI U’s five focus areas and allowing them to network with their peers, build skills, and identify potential partnerships,” the initiative’s website states. “Youth organizations, topic experts, and celebrities joined students at the CGI U meeting to help them gain the skills and knowledge needed to take action.”
ASU spokesman Mark Johnson told The Arizona Republic in an e-mailed statement that the money used to pay for the event did not come from publicly funded coffers, but rather other parts of the university’s budget, such as tuition, private donations and grants.
“[T]he university co-invested in this educational and promotional opportunity, which was co-produced for our students, and for students from around the world. No state funds were used for this purpose,” Johnson stated.
But Republican Sen. John McCain, who attended as a panelist, told The Arizona Republic that now that he knows how much the Clintons were paid, it wasn’t worth the price.
“Frankly, if I had known that that was the situation, that they were being paid $500,000, I would have spoken up at the time that I thought it was outrageous,” McCain told The Arizona Republic on Friday.
The Republic credited Vox for first bringing to light ASU’s $500,000 expense late last month. In that report, Vox highlighted 181 Clinton Foundation donors that lobbied the State Department when Hillary Clinton was in charge, calling it “not illegal, but … scandalous.”
“Ultimately, it is impossible to tell where one end of the two-headed Clinton political and philanthropic operation ends and where the other begins,” Vox reported.
This year’s Clinton Global Initiative University event was held in March at the University of Miami, where once again Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton headlined the festivities. It was the second time the campus played host to the event. It has yet to be reported what the university paid the foundation.
For the last 14 years that private university was run by Donna Shalala, who served at Secretary of Health and Human Services under President Clinton. Now Shalala is set to become chief executive officer of the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, the Wall Street Journalreports.
When news of the money Hillary Clinton made giving speeches at college campuses came to light last year – even though she donated the proceeds to her foundation – many college students wondered how she could reconcile her fees with statements bemoaning the high and rising cost of higher education.
And some questioned whether the fact that Hillary Clinton can collect so much for campus speeches is sort of a work-around of campaign finance laws, not from Clinton’s end – but from a donor perspective.
Now the Clinton Foundation’s financial practices threaten to create political problems for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, The Washington Post reports in an article that notes the foundation “did not properly report donations from foreign governments” since 2010.
According to the Clinton Global Initiative University website, the event was launched in 2008 at Tulane University. The University of Texas at Austin hosted it in 2009, followed by the University of Miami in 2010. In 2011, it was hosted at UC San Diego. The following year it took place at George Washington University. In 2013 the event was hosted at Washington University in St. Louis.

Marine court marshaled for having a Bible verse on her desk while the Fort Hood jihadi has not even been tried and may even still recieving pay.

Marine court-martialed for refusing to remove Bible verse

Published May 26, 2015
A United States Marine was convicted at a court-martial for refusing to remove a Bible verse on her computer – a verse of Scripture the military determined “could easily be seen as contrary to good order and discipline.”
The plight of Lance Corporal Monifa Sterling seems unbelievable – a member of the Armed Forces criminally prosecuted for displaying a slightly altered passage of Scripture from the Old Testament: “No weapon formed against me shall prosper.”
Sterling, who represented herself at trial, was convicted February 1, 2014 in a court-martial at Camp Lejune, North Carolina after she refused to obey orders from a staff sergeant to remove the Bible verses from her desk.
She was found guilty of failing to go to her appointed place of duty, disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer, and four specifications of disobeying the lawful order of a noncommissioned officer.
As it now stands – Sterling is unemployed and looking for work. It’s a process made harder because of the bad conduct discharge from the military. Hopefully Liberty Institute will be able to restore this Christian Marine’s good name and expunge the charge. 
The Christian Marine was given a bad conduct discharge and a reduction in rank from lance corporal to private. 
Both lower court and the appellate court ruled that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act did not apply to her case because displaying a Bible verse does not constitute religious exercise. 
However, a religious liberty law firm and a high-powered, former U.S. solicitor general have taken up her case and have filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.
“If the government can order a Marine not to display a Bible verse, they could try and order her not to get a religious tattoo, or go to church on Sunday,” said Liberty Institute attorney Michael Berry. “Restricting a Marine’s free exercise of religion is blatantly unconstitutional.”
Sterling wised up and finally got legal counsel. Now representing her are the Liberty Institute along with former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, also a law professor at Georgetown University.
Clement most recently won a Supreme Court victory on behalf of Hobby Lobby against the Affordable Care Act.
Liberty Institute and Clement plan to argue that the appellate court should have applied the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in Sterling’s case – protecting her right to post Bible verses as a form of religious exercise.
According to the appellate court’s decision, they were not convinced “that displaying religious text at a shared government workstation would be protected even in a civilian federal workplace.”
They also considered the fact that Sterling’s desk was shared by other Marines.
“The implication is clear – the junior Marine sharing the desk and the other Marines coming to the desk for assistance would be exposed to biblical quotations in the military workplace,” the court declared. “It is not hard to imagine the divisive impact to good order and discipline that may result when a service member is compelled to work at a government desk festooned with religious quotations.”
Festooned with religious quotations?
Attorney Berry points out that other Marines were allowed to decorate their desks. However, the lower courts refused to allow that evidence to be admitted. And at the time of the incident – Sterling was not sharing a desk.
“This was a conflict between her and her supervisor,” he told me. “Her supervisor clearly said she did not like the tone of the Bible verses.”
Berry said the supervisor cursed at Sterling and ordered her to immediately remove the verses. She refused the order. The following day, she discovered the verses had been removed and thrown in the trash.
“Adding insult to injury, the government charged her with the crime of failing to obey a direct order because she did not remove the Bible verse,” Berry said.
According to court documents, the military maintains the “verbiage” – “No weapon formed against me shall prosper” could “easily been seen as contrary to good order and discipline.”
“Maintaining discipline and morale in the military work center could very well require that the work center remain relatively free of divisive or contentious issues such as personal beliefs, religion, politics, etc.”
Liberty Institute attorney Hiram Sasser told me it was outrageous “that such a small strip of paper could so frighten a drill sergeant.”
“This is a very scary time when you are not allowed to have a very small printed Bible verse in your own personal workspace because it might offend other Marines,” Sasser told me. “Our Marines are trained to deal with some of the most hostile people on the planet. I don’t think they are afraid of tiny words on a tiny piece of paper.”
The Bible verse incident happened in May 2013. A few months later she was accused of failing to wear an appropriate uniform because of a medical condition.
Berry told me he believes the military was trumping up the charge sheet “to make it look that things were worse than they were.”
As it now stands – Sterling is unemployed and looking for work. It’s a process made harder because of the bad conduct discharge from the military.
Hopefully Liberty Institute will be able to restore this Christian Marine’s good name and expunge the charge.
Anything less could jeopardize the standing of every person of faith serving in the Armed Forces. Should that happen – God help us all.

Bob Woodward squashes the Bush lied about Iraq meme.

Bob Woodward: Bush Didn’t Lie About Iraq & Obama Blew It (VIDEO)


Posted by Jim Hoft on Sunday, May 24, 2015


iraq obama
Investigative reporter and author Bob Woodward delivered an honest assessment of the War in Iraq today on FOX News Sunday. Bush did not lie and Barack Obama blew it.
You can make a persuasive argument there was a mistake. But there is a kinda line going on that Bush and the other people lied about this. I spent 18 months looking at how Bush decided to invade Iraq. Lots of mistakes, but it was Bush telling George Tenet the CIA director, don’t let anyone stretch the case on WMD. He was the one who was skeptical. If you try to summarize why we went into Iraq, it was momentum. The war plan kept getting better and easier, and finally at the end, people were saying, ‘Hey, look, it will only take a week or two.’ Early on it looked like it was going to take a year or 18 months, so Bush pulled the trigger. A mistake certainly can be argued, and there is an abundance of evidence. But there was no lie in this that I could find…
… Look, Obama does not like war. But, if you look back on this the argument from military was keep ten-fifteen thousand troops there as an insurance policy. And we all know insurance policies make sense. We have thirty thousand troops or more in South Korea sixty-five years after the war. When you’re a super power you have to buy these insurance policies and he didn’t in this case. I don’t think you can say everything is because of that decision but clearly a factor.

The arrogance of the liberal left.

Hollywood Liberal Posts Damning Quote Attributed to Ted Cruz — Except It’s Fake. She Later Apologizes, Sort of.

A day after actress Rose McGowan posted to her Twitter account a damning, made-up quote attributed to Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz, the former “Charmed” star issued an apology — sort of.
Rose McGowen in September 2013 in New York City. (Image source: John Parra/WireImage)
Rose McGowen in September 2013 in New York City. (Image source: John Parra/WireImage)
The made-up quote McGowan posted is part of meme from the website “Stop the World, the Teabaggers Want to Get Off,” and includes a photo of Cruz standing next to Josh Duggar, who has apologized for “teenage mistakes” connected to decade-old child molestation charges.
Here’s what the meme has the Texas senator saying on May 22: “While there may have been an age difference, Josh Duggar’s transgressions are far less an affront to God than what gays do with each other.”
Image source: The Gateway Pundit via Twitter (quote redacted)
Image source: The Gateway Pundit via Twitter (profanity redacted)
McGowan’s post included commentary on the fake Cruz quote: “You are blight on the soul of humanity. Get off of my planet. #TedCruz #f***wits #rapists #criminals”
The next morning, after having been hit with responses letting her know she was spreading a falsehood about Cruz, a profane McGowan at first appeared defiant:
Image source: The Gateway Pundit via Twitter (quote redacted)
Image source: The Gateway Pundit via Twitter (profanity redacted)
But then she relented, issuing a sort-of apology with — you guessed it — more profanity and stereotyping:
Image source: The Gateway Pundit via Twitter (profanity redacted)
Image source: The Gateway Pundit via Twitter (profanity redacted)
“I’m sorry I said #TedCruz liked child molesters. OK?” McGowan finally tweeted. “No (sic) go back to hating gays …”
Follow Dave Urbanski (@DaveVUrbanski) on Twitter

Her early life:

McGowan, the second-eldest of six children (plus two half-siblings), was born in Certaldo, Italy, the daughter of Terri, a writer, and Daniel McGowan, an artist. Her parents were American, and she has Irish and French ancestry.[1] Daniel McGowan ran an Italian chapter of the Children of God, to which both he and his wife held membership until 1978.[2] McGowan spent her early childhood amid the group's communes, often traveling Europe with her parents.[citation needed] Interviewed by Howard Stern, she stated she had avoided the group's calls for members to become sexually active as children ("I waited till I was 14.") and described the practice of 'flirty fishing' as "creepy". Through her father's art contacts in Italy, McGowan became a child model and appeared in Vogue Bambini and various other Italian magazines. Her parents returned to the United States when she was ten years old, when they divorced. She subsequently relocated to Oregon.[citation needed]
McGowan's formative years were spent with her father in Seattle, Washington, attending Roosevelt High School and Nova Alternative High School. At the age of 15, she officially emancipated herself from her parents.[3] McGowan pursued a career in the film industry during her late teens while enrolled in a beauty school as a back-up.

Marriage in America

I have not posted much of anything about the topic of gay marriage, because I have believed all along that the argument is all wrong. It is not whether the government should allow or disallow gay marriages, but what business is it of theirs to begin with. The state should act as a guarantor of freely entered contracts, marriage is a contract. Other than protecting the contractual rights of the parties involved, I have no idea what other interest the state has in the matter. To that end, I think we are being led down the right path by, of all places: Alabama, not typically the well-spring of libertarian thought:

Alabama Senate Passes Bill to Effectively Nullify All Sides on Marriage

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (May 23, 2015) – This week, the Alabama state Senate passed a bill that would end the practice of licensing marriages in the state, effectively nullifying both major sides of the contentious national debate over government-sanctioned marriage.
Introduced by Sen. Greg Albritton (R-Bay Minette), Senate Bill 377 (SB377) would end state issued marriage licenses, while providing marriage contracts as an alternative. It passed through the Alabama state Senate by a 22-3 margin on May 19.
“When you invite the state into those matters of personal or religious import, it creates difficulties,” Sen. Albritton said about his bill in April. “Go back long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away. Early twentieth century, if you go back and look and try to find marriage licenses for your grandparents or great grandparents, you won’t find it. What you will find instead is where people have come in and recorded when a marriage has occurred.”
The bill would replace all references to marriages “licenses” in state law with “contracts.” The legislation would not invalidate any marriage licenses issued prior to the bill being passed.
The contract shall be filed in the office of the judge of probate in each county and shall constitute a legal record of the marriage. A copy of the contract shall be transmitted to the Office of Vital Statistics of the Department of Public Health and made a part of its record…
Effective July 1, 2015, any requirement to obtain a marriage license issued by the judge of probate is abolished and repealed.
PRACTICAL EFFECT
SB377 would accomplish two things.
First, it would render void the edicts of federal judges that have overturned state laws defining marriage. The founding generation never envisioned unelected judges issuing ex cathedra pronouncements regarding the definition of social institutions like marriage and the Constitution delegates the federal judiciary no authority to meddle in the issue. Marriage is a realm clearly left to the state and the people..
Second, the bill would get the state government out of defining marriage entirely as well, ending the squabble between factions that seek to harness the power of the state, thereby taking the burden off government officials who may be torn between what is legally required of them and their religious convictions.
The intent or motives behind this bill are a moot point. By removing the state from the equation, no one can force another to accept their marriage, nor can they force another to reject that person’s own beliefs regarding an institution older than government.
“Licenses are used as a way to stop people from doing things,” said Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center. “My personal relationship should not be subject to government permission.”
HISTORICAL BACKDROP
As a 2007 New York Times op/ed points out, for centuries marriage was a private affair.
“For most of Western history, they didn’t, because marriage was a private contract between two families. The parents’ agreement to the match, not the approval of church or state, was what confirmed its validity. For 16 centuries, Christianity also defined the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple’s wishes. If two people claimed they had exchanged marital vows — even out alone by the haystack — the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married.
In fact, the use of state marriage licenses for many years was a way of preventing people from entering into interracial marriages. Later, the NYT story recounts, the licenses became necessary in order to subsidize the welfare state.
“The Social Security Act provided survivors’ benefits with proof of marriage. Employers used marital status to determine whether they would provide health insurance or pension benefits to employees’ dependents. Courts and hospitals required a marriage license before granting couples the privilege of inheriting from each other or receiving medical information.”
Something that is rarely considered by those seeking to control the state’s definition of marriage is that a marriage license means a citizen requires the permission of their government before they can get married. A person cannot drive a vehicle, aside from limited circumstances, without a license. A person cannot practice law without a license, nor can they engage in medical care.
Put another way, marriage is not a right, or a religious institution, but a privilege the state grants us if we meet the conditions put upon us.
Consider this: In the same way a driver can lose their license if they break certain traffic laws, a man or woman, theoretically, could one day find their marriage license revoked for breaking certain “marriage” rules, whether it pertains to child rearing, or their religious and political convictions.
Christopher Wesley, an associated scholar at the Mises Institute, wrote that “marriage is most endangered when it rests in the coercive hands of the State.”
NEXT UP
SB377 would still allow for a formal marriage to be contracted in front of at least two adults, by an Alabama judge or retired judge, or an ordained minister, with limited exceptions. Alternatively, applicants could simply file an affidavit of common law marriage with the court clerk signed by both parties.
Though the bill does not define marriage specifically, the certificate only allows for two parties and forbids them from marrying if they are already married.
SB377 now moves to the state House, where it must pass through the House Judiciary Committee before it can receive a vote on the House floor.

How Baltimore became Pottersville: Column

How Baltimore became Pottersville: Column

Trusting federal housing subsidies to help save the city is the ultimate triumph of hope over experience.


Baltimore's recent riots are not surprising in a city that has long been plagued by both police brutality and one of the nation's highest murder rates . Though numerous government policies and the rampaging looters deserve blame for the carnage, federal housing subsidies have long destabilized Baltimore neighborhoods and helped create a culture of violence with impunity.
Yet just last week, Baltimore officials were in Washington asking for more. Given the history, it defies understanding.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development was created in 1965, and Baltimore received massive subsidies to build housing projects in the following years. Baltimore's projects, like those in many other cities, became cornucopias of crime. One 202-unit sprawling Baltimore subsidized housing project (recently slated for razing) is known as "Murder Mall." A 1979 HUD report noted that the robbery rate in one Baltimore public housing project was almost 20 times higher than the national average. The area in and around public housing often becomes "the territory of those who do not have to be afraid — the criminals," the report said. Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke in 1993 blamed maintenance problems at one public housing projects on drug dealers who refused to let city workers enter the buildings.
In the 1990s, the Baltimore Housing Authority began collecting lavish HUD subsidies to demolish publish housing projects. But critics complained that HUD was merely replacing "vertical ghettos with horizontal ones." Baltimore was among the first citiestargeted for using Section 8 vouchers to disperse public housing residents.
HUD and the city housing agency presumed that simply moving people out of the projects was all that was necessary to end the criminal behavior of the residents. Baltimore was one of five cities chosen for a HUD demonstration project — Moving to Opportunity (MTO) — to show how Section 8 could solve the problems of the underclass. But the relocations had "tripled the rate of arrests for property crimes" among boys who moved to new locales via Section 8. A study published last year in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that boys in Section 8 households who moved to new neighborhoods were three times more likely to suffer post-traumatic stress disorder and behavioral problems than boys in the control group. A 2009 research project on Section 8 published in Homicide Studies noted that in the one city studied, "Crime, specifically homicide, became displaced to where the low-income residents were relocated. Homicide was simply moved to a new location, not eliminated."
Ed Rutkowski, head of a community development corporation in one marginal Baltimore neighborhood, labeled Section 8 "a catalyst in neighborhood deterioration and ghetto expansion" in 2003.
Regardless of its collateral damage, Section 8 defines Valhalla for many Baltimoreans. Receiving a Section 8 voucher can enable some recipients to live rent-free in perpetuity. Because recipients must pay up to a third of their income for rent under the program, collecting Section 8 sharply decreases work effort, according to numerouseconomic studies. Last October, when the local housing agency briefly allowed people to register for the program, it was deluged with 73,509 applications. Most of the applications were from families — which means that a third of Baltimore's 241,455 households sought housing welfare. (Almost 10% of Baltimoreans are already on the housing dole.) Section 8 is not an entitlement, so the city will select fewer than 10,000"winners" from the list.
HUD's Federal Housing Administration also has a long history of destabilizing neighborhoods in Baltimore and other big cities. A HUD subsidized mortgage program for low-income borrowers launched in 1968 spurred so many defaults and devastation that Carl Levin, then Detroit City Council president and later a long-term U.S. senator, derided the program in 1976 as "Hurricane HUD." In the late 1990s, more than 20% of FHA mortgages in some Baltimore neighborhoods were in default — leading one activist to label Baltimore "the foreclosure capital of the world." HUD Inspector General Susan Gaffney warned in 2000: "Vacant, boarded-up HUD-owned homes have a negative effect on neighborhoods, and the negative effect magnifies the longer the properties remain in HUD's inventory."
The feds continued massive negligent mortgage lending in Baltimore after that crisis, creating fresh havoc in recent years. In late 2013, more than 40% of homes in the low-income Carrollton Ridge neighborhood were underwater. Reckless subsidized lending in Baltimore and other low-income areas helped saddle Maryland with the highest foreclosure rate in the nation by the end of last year. One in every 435 housing units in Baltimore was in foreclosure last October, according to RealtyTrac.
President Obama said the Baltimore riots showed the need for new "massive investments in urban communities." What Baltimore needs is an investment in new thinking. The highest property taxes in the state and oppressive local regulation often make investing in jobs and businesses in Baltimore unprofitable. Only fixing that will produce a stable community. Shoveling more federal money into the city is the triumph of hope over experience.
James Bovard is the author of Public Policy Hooligan.