Category: Update

At Ballotpedia, referenced here yesterday, we learn that a number of minimum wage measures were on the ballots this last election. The results were interesting. “In California and Massachusetts, voters rejected ballot measure to increase the minimum wage — the first time since 1996 that minimum wage increase measures were defeated.” 

As Paul Jacob has often explained, in these pages, minimum wage hikes do not do what their advocates think, or at least say, they do. And the usual results present a problem for the policy’s advocates. A Reason article by Justin Zuckerman, “The New York Times Claimed D.C.’s Minimum Wage Hike Created Jobs. We Exposed Their Error,” from Friday, shows a grand example of a persuasive article in the Gray Lady being used to convince voters that a Washington, D.C., minimum wage hike did no harm while also being based on a gross misunderstanding of statistics. Its author “misunderstood the data she was looking at. The chart she linked to in the article presented numbers ‘in the thousands,’ meaning that the actual data were not 14,168 but 14,168,000, which also makes sense because Krishna [the Times contributor] didn’t realize she was reading national BLS data — not local figures.” A huge error. Which Reason told The Times about, “and the paper issued a correction.”

But the advocates for minimum wage hikes continued to cite the article, despite the error, despite the admission that was the official correction.

Some errors go on repeat because they re-​inforce ideological prejudice. The minimum wage is one of those policies usually advanced in ignorance of all the work done on the issue. Often in defiance of common sense.

Last Monday, Paul Jacob covered the brewing story of Federal Emergency Management Agency supervisor Marn’i Washington, who told FEMA workers on the ground in Lake Placid, Florida, not to help households with Trump signs in the yard. Since then we’ve learned more. The problem wasn’t just a rogue supervisor.

The next day, the New York Post offered a juicy headline: “FEMA worker accused of telling staff to skip hurricane-​ravaged Trump homes claims it was common practice: ‘This is not isolated.’”

The Post article relied heavily on an episode of the Roland S. Martin podcast on YouTube:

Her explanation may not be what you have seen reported, however. The idea at FEMA, Ms. Washington says, is a policy of “avoidance and de-​escalation.” The trouble with Trump supporters, FEMA lore has it, is that they tend to be rude or otherwise resistant to FEMA help. So the agency, to avoid conflict, avoids some natural disaster victims as a policy. Washington says she did nothing wrong, or out of the ordinary.

FEMA is a controversial agency within the federal government, with a bad reputation amongst many Americans, not just Trump supporters. That hardly needs verification. Ms. Washington insists that the logs of FEMA workers will justify her claims.

“Donald Trump will be America’s 47th president,” explained CNN on Saturday, “after mounting the most momentous comeback in political history.…”

But is it?

Consider the three federal elections that 19th century Democratic politician Stephen Grover Cleveland participated in (winning two non-​consecutive presidencies):

Note the course of Grover Cleveland’s three Electoral College returns: 219; 168; 277. Compare with Trump’s: 304; 232; 312*. Cleveland’s popular vote went up each time. Trump’s did too: 62,984,828; 74,223,975; 74,535,879*. You do the math, but it a quick look suggests that Trump’s comeback is no more momentous than Cleveland’s.

The real anomaly in the recent series of three elections was the whopping turnout for the 2020 outing, where Joe Biden, who did not engage in anything like a normal campaign, garnered a whopping 81,283,501 votes. Compare that to Hillary Clinton’s 65,853,514 votes in 2016 and the less-​than 71 million votes for Kamala Harris in 2024.

The real question is what happened, in 2024, to 2020’s over ten million “eager” voters. The question may be easy to answer, but it is nevertheless a huge one, and has elicited a popular graph online, widely shared:

Note that it has at least one obvious inaccuracy: the Republican presidential vote did not go down from 2020 to 2024.

Also note that CNN, quoted above, characterized the election as one that “will hand [Trump] massive, disruptive power at home and will send shockwaves around the world.” Accurate, or just CNN being CNN?

---

The asterisk, above, for 2024 returns is there to remind us that the election counts are not final.

In 2016, when Donald John Trump won the presidency in a squeaker election, major news media and the Deep State worked together to censor online and free speech in a big way, culminating in the election of Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., in 2020. Now, in November 2024, with many millions fewer voting than for Biden, Trump wins handily, taking the swing states and achieving what looks like a popular vote majority.

So what are major news media mavens doing?

Complaining about a lack of censorship!

Well, some are. Specifically, as said on The View, “It would help if we could regulate social media, because one of the biggest offenders is D.C. and Congress have not been able to do one thing in regard to the rogue corporations of social media,” meaning, mainly but not exclusively, ex-​Twitter/​X.

There are many such laments out there. Just remember the Constitution of the United States, though:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

First Amendment, approved by Congress along with other amendments and submitted to the states for their ratification on September 25, 1789; ratified December 15, 1791.

Paul Jacob has covered online censorship extensively. Here are just a very few examples:

“Say No to Reich-​Harris Reich,” September 6, 2024
“Censors Cancelled,” July 6, 2023
“Invitation to a Beheading,” March 13, 2023
“Buzz-​Sawing the Conservatives Treehouse,” November 17, 2020

“The Puerto Rico trash problem has been growing for decades,” explained John Tarrantino on Wednesday, at The Environmental Blog. “With a population of around 3.2 million, the island generates about 3.7 million tons of waste yearly. Despite being small, the island’s landfills are full and there’s no proper recycling infrastructure. This trash crisis affects everything from health to the economy so solutions are crucial for Puerto Rico’s future.”

This, some have suggested, accounts for Tony Hinchcliffe’s infamous joke written about by Paul yesterday.

Does it make the “floating island of garbage” comment funny?

Puerto Ricans don’t seem to be laughing. But if Mr. Hinchcliffe gets invited to the island territory of the United States for a gig, we’ll reconsider.

NOTE: Puerto Rican resident and infamous investment advisor Peter Schiff has advice for voting next week: