RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2019-11-25-no-amount-of-disastrous-failure-can-kill-the-fantasy-of-a-government-directed-great-society

It was 1964 — I was in the 8th grade — when Lyndon Johnson, newly elevated to the presidency by the assassination of John F. Kennedy, announced the launch of the “War on Poverty” and the imminent coming of the “Great Society.” The U.S. economy was in the midst of achieving new levels of prosperity unprecedented in human history. For the first time, the resources appeared to be at hand to eradicate poverty and to reach for universal fairness and justice. All that was needed was to put the powers of government to work to apply the available societal resources to the problems at hand; and presto! the problems would be solved. This was obvious to all thinking people. Experts within the government agencies would quickly set to work to devise the programs that would use the gusher of federal tax revenue to end poverty and bring about universal fairness and justice in short order.

Running on a platform emphasizing the War on Poverty and the Great Society, Johnson swept to a landslide victory in the 1964 election. The landslide brought with it super legislative majorities in both houses of Congress. Programs designed by the experts to eradicate poverty proliferated rapidly, both before and after the 1964 election — Medicaid, the Community Action Program, the Job Corps, the Food Stamp program, Project Head Start, the Office of Economic Opportunity, the Housing and Urban Development Act, and on and on.

Fifty-five years on, is it possible to name any public policy disaster in the United States greater than the disaster of the War on Poverty and Great Society? Over the half-century-plus, spending on so-called “anti-poverty” programs has soared from initial levels of a handful of billions of dollars per year, to current amounts well in excess of a trillion dollars per year (including federal, state and local spending). Meanwhile, the so-called “poverty rate” has barely budged (it’s been between about 11% and 15% for the whole five plus decades), and the number of people deemed to be “in poverty” by the official measure has about doubled as the population has grown.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15218/marijuana-impact

Mark A. R. Kleiman, a professor of public policy at New York University, is quoted in the media observing that marijuana drug addiction is quietly becoming a stealth public health crisis.

During the new year, Gatestone will be empaneling experts to examine this potential threat to the motoring public, those in the workplace, and young people.

As the nation moves towards the widespread legalization of marijuana, Gatestone Institute has announced plans for a series of symposiums during 2020 that will closely examine the potential impact of those actions on the nation’s children, occupational safety, and transportation.

Gatestone’s founder and president, Nina Rosenwald, observed:

“We have seen the tragic, unintended consequences of other formerly regulated substances on our young people and the nation’s population as a whole. From the most recent disturbing deaths among our youth from vaping to what is now a death toll of 9,000 children and adolescents from opioid poisonings over nearly two decades, there is little doubt that our children are the most vulnerable to what we don’t know about these types of chemicals. And that is only part of the equation as we seek to more fully understand the potential impact of legalized marijuana on our society.”

Unintended consequences from a little understood threat

Of equal concern to Gatestone Institute is the evolution of marijuana with far more potent mixtures now being produced with the potential for grave consequences in the workplace and on the streets of our towns and cities.

Mark A. R. Kleiman, a professor of public policy at New York University, is quoted in the media observing that marijuana drug addiction is quietly becoming a stealth public health crisis.

“It wasn’t obvious to me 25 years ago, when nine percent of self-reported cannabis users over the (prior) month reported daily or near-daily use. I always was prepared to say, ‘No, it’s not a very abusable drug. Nine percent of anybody will do something stupid.’ But that number is now [something like] 40 percent.”

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/11/theres-less-to-the-mcgahn-ruling-than-meets-the-eye/

Contrary to popular belief, the former White House counsel has been ordered to show up, not to testify — and even that is being appealed.

You might assume that the girth of the nearly 120-page opinion Judge Ketjani Brown Jackson issued Monday means that an issue of great consequence to the House impeachment inquiry has been decided. But you’d be wrong. And you’d be further misled if you put much stock in the headlines breathlessly announcing that the federal district court in Washington, D.C., has ordered that former White House counsel Don McGahn “must testify to Congress.”

What Judge Jackson actually ordered is that McGahn must show up in compliance with the House Judiciary Committee’s subpoena. She did not direct him to provide any actual testimony. That is, the ruling sidesteps the question that actually matters: To what extent may McGahn invoke executive privilege (in addition to other potential privileges) to avoid answering lawmakers’ questions?

The ruling is nevertheless being appealed.

The case involves the Mueller Report’s obstruction volume. Yes, I know it seems like two or three impeachment gambits ago, but House Democrats still want to impeach President Trump over several incidents that the special counsel described as possible obstruction but did not recommend indictment for (and that Attorney General Bill Barr and then-deputy AG Rod Rosenstein concluded did not establish obstruction). McGahn was a central witness on this part of the investigation. He was interviewed extensively by Mueller’s team and provided memoranda of his interactions with Trump. The White House has always taken the position that making McGahn available to a prosecutor (i.e., an intra-executive-branch exchange) did not waive any privilege claims the president may have if Congress seeks information from McGahn (i.e., an inter-branch demand).