Are Democratic Candidates Hypocritical on Voting Rights?

Now that the 2020 election season has officially begun, many candidates who seek the Democratic Party's nomination for president are talking about expanded voting rights.

Bernie Sanders-- "The right to vote is inherent in our Democracy..." 

Kamela Harris-- "I agree that the right to vote is one of the very important components of citizenship and it is something that people should not be stripped of needlessly..."  

Corey Booker--  It is time for a new Voting Rights Act to finally put an end to systematic attempts to limit the access to the ballot box and strip citizens of their constitutionally guaranteed rights.  

The Democratic Party candidates are big on standing up on who gets to vote and seem to want to fight hard to stop anyone from having their right to vote infringed.

There are two major problems.  The first is that they want to fight harder to make sure that likely Democrat voters are allowed to vote.  The second is that they have not made one statement about for whom people have a right to vote.  Democrats are all in favor of letting people who are likely to choose Democrat make a choice between Republican and Democrat.  Even the famous Independent Bernie Sanders becomes pure Democrat at presidential election time.  He talks about allowing felons to vote, but not about allowing independents or alternative party candidates to run. 

In this way the Democrats are very hypocritical.  They are all in favor of a person's right to vote, just not their right to have a range of choices for whom to vote.   

Supreme Court Deals Another Blow to Local Government Thieves

The Supreme Court already ruled this year in  Timbs v. Indiana that localities which confiscate large amounts of property to enforce petty crimes are violating the constitutional protection against cruel and unusual punishment.  On June 21st, the Supreme Court announced a ruling that may further limit local governments' ability to take property.  The ruling in the case, Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania , allows victims of eminent domain to bypass state courts and go directly to federal courts when they feel they have not been quickly and justly compensated. 

The opinion, written by Chief Justice Roberts, has a very interesting passage.  It goes, "...The Fifth Amendment right to full compensation arises at the time of the taking, regardless of post-taking remedies that may be available to the property owner..."  For those not familiar with such procedures, in many parts of the country property is taken without either no or inadequate compensation.  Then local government uses a long, expensive court process for the property owner to sue for compensation.  Many property owners give up because attorney's fees, filing fees, time and effort to receive compensation may exceed the property's value.

Justice Thomas wrote something even more interesting in a concurrent opinion, 

----This “sue me” approach to the Takings Clause is untenable. The Fifth Amendment does not merely provide a damages remedy to a property owner willing to “shoulder the burden of securing compensation” after the government takes property without paying for it... ----

Although not actually saying it, Justice Thomas hints at the absurdity of a person having to file suit to get paid in a court where the judge knows some of their compensation comes from the seized property.

The combination of the Timbs and the Knick cases seem to indicate that the Supreme Court is moving in the right direction with regards to the relationship of government vs. private property rights.  Although these recent decisions don't completely undo the damage from the Kelo ET AL. v. City of New London ET AL case, it gives hope that the Justices may be considering the overreach that local governments have exercised in the realm of unjust property confiscation.

Contra Costa County Takes $1.1 million From People Who Committed No Crime

Over the last four years, Contra Costa County (CA) has taken more than $1 million dollars worth of cash and property from people who were never charged with crimes according to the Mercury News .  This is just legalized theft.

To her credit, Diana Becton, the District Attorney for Contra Costa County is considering re-writing the rules.  She wants to make it more difficult for police to seize property unless charges are filed.  However, it sounds like her proposal is $1.1 million too late.

Civil asset forfeiture is supposed to be used as a tool by law enforcement to make sure that crime doesn't pay.  However, in too many places lack of crime is paying off for the police.  The US Supreme Court recently ruled that civil asset forfeiture for convicted people is subject to the "cruel and unusual punishment" test.  It remains to be seen how this ruling affects people who have never been charged with a crime. 

The procedure in California is similar to that in many states.  People who feel their property has been unjustly seized have the right to request a court hearing in order to get their property returned.  That is completely backwards.  The state should be required to prove in a hearing that they have the right to keep the property.  If a person has never been charged with a crime, the ruling should be automatic.  Give the seized property back.

Federal Reserve Caught In Its Own Trap

In reaction to the market crash that followed the banking crisis of the late 2000s, the Federal Reserve cut interest rates to historically low levels.  The idea was that injecting cheap money into the economy would raise stock prices.  It worked.  The problem is that it has now gone too long.  As Sven Henrich, the lead market strategist at Northman Trading and contributor to various financial publications states in Marketwatch, "We are witnessing a historic unraveling here."  What is happening is an ever increasing dependence on debt to increase stock market values.  Even the slightest hint of an interest rate increase causes a dip in the market.  What is unprecedented is that the Federal Reserve seems to react to these dips.  If an increase is announced and markets dip, a FED Spokesman runs out to a press conference and says, "Just Kidding."  The latest turn around prompted CNBC to run with a headline on Friday of "It's no longer a question of if the Fed will cut interest rates, but when."  A major problem is that other central banks must follow the Fed's lead.  This has created a world debt crisis that is unsustainable.

Nobody can predict when, but two outcomes are certain and one is probable.  The first certain outcome is that the current period of economic growth will come to an end.  Some, like Henrich, believe it has come already but that Fed promise of easy money is delaying the inevitable.  However, delaying the end of economic growth historically means rather than growth ending, we have create a crash.  Although demographic factors indicate this may not happen soon, a deep recession may be in our future.  The second certain outcome is inflation.  The way government calculates inflation was changed in 2015 so that inflation is not as evident in official figures.  Everyone who buys gas for the vehicles and groceries for their bellies notices the effects of inflation over the last ten years.  It can only get worse if easy money continues to be available.  The probable outcome that may not happen is that the Federal Reserve Board of Governors may be forced to "wake up" as it did in the late 1970s.  To stave off the debt and inflation crises, it may over tighten.  Millennials do not remember 18% interest rates on home mortgages, or even 8% interest rates.  It is difficult to predict how they will react. 

There is a way to avoid all of this.  Stop the system of currency manipulation and return to a system of sound money.  It is doubtful that the bankers will want to give up the power to make markets go up and down.