Hi everyone.
Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw my way.
Before we get started this week, I’d like to invite you all to Reagan Caucus Action’s new Substack. I co-host their weekly podcast, on which we feature a different guest every week to discuss numerous issues from a Reaganite perspective.
It’s totally free, and you can sign up here (I hope you do):
Now, let’s get to your questions…
John, isn't the poverty rate being manipulated by the Feds, who adjust the monetary amounts that determine the poverty level? Our president states the poverty level is the lowest it's been in many many decades, but doesn't that depend on where the goalposts are being set? According to DSS, they tell me the Federal Government sets the standards and rates. We are being gaslit with faulty information again. — Sharon H.
I don’t know much about this issue, Sharon, and really don’t want to spend a lot of time researching it. Lol. The charts show that the U.S. poverty rate has been in slow, steady decline for over a decade (other than a brief uptick in 2019/2020), spanning multiple presidencies. Is there some fudging going on, somewhere in the federal calculation? I suppose it’s possible, but I don’t have any real insight I can offer on that.
Sen. Eric Schmitt’s “basketball” perjury accusation toward Jack Smith was one of the most embarrassing things I’ve ever seen during a congressional hearing. 1) Will Schmitt recover politically? 2) What do you make of a bunch of right-wing influencers/commentators having been told ahead of time about the supposed bombshell accusation, and posting about the “gotcha” moment on social media, only to have to later delete the posts in embarrassment. — Alex D.
Schmitt will indeed recover from it (probably by Monday of next week), because there is no shame left in today’s politics. Our political leaders can say or do the most embarrassing, discrediting things imaginable, and never pay any price for it (beyond some short-term jokes at their expense). Schmitt was reportedly under consideration by JD Vance as a potential running mate in 2028. Some commentators think the humiliating moment blew Schmitt’s chance of that, but I can’t imagine it did (if there was ever serious consideration over him in the first place). Vance, after all, fueled a made-up story about Haitian immigrants in his home-state stealing people’s cats and dogs and eating them… And now he’s our vice president.
There’s a lot of coordination going on behind the scenes between Republican/MAGA politicians (including Trump) and members of the right-wing media (I’m sure the same happens on the left). This particular moment (which included Sean Hannity, Benny Johnson, Mark Levin, and others) perfectly illustrated that. They were locked and loaded to amplify the “perjury” claim (which was already falling apart within minutes), and the details behind it, the second it left Schmitt’s mouth. But like with Schmitt, their embarrassing role in it will be forgotten by Monday (because there’s no shame in the political media either).
Sir John— apparently an Omani co-pilot onboard a FlyDubai Airliner (heading toward Tel Aviv with mostly Israeli passengers) attacked the Captain, stabbing him repeatedly with a pocketknife in an attempted hijacking. Thankfully the Captain was rescued and the attacker was subdued by passengers, and a couple of other pilots who happened to be onboard were able to get control of the plane and prevent a deadly terrorist attack. Well the New York Times described the incident on X as “an altercation” between the co-pilot & the Captain. Critics claimed that The NYT was intentionally downplaying the attempted terrorist attack. The NYT responded that the critics are “activists & partisans” and that it doesn’t report on speculations & uncertainties. Well maybe. I really don’t know since I don’t spend any time on X. What do you think? Was it too early for the NYT to give any pertinent details? Or was it unnecessarily downplayed initially? Your thoughts ? —“Passengers Fly The Unfriendly Skies & WIN” regards from The Emperor
I saw some talk about this online, Emperor, but wasn’t following the NYT headlines and social-media posts in real-time. There are certainly many examples of news organizations playing down stories that are — let’s say — ideologically inconvenient to those reporting them. I would include violence against Israelis as one such category of reporting, especially in contrast with how military defensive action by the Israeli government, against its hostile neighbors, is often portrayed in the news media.
That said, there’s also a fog of war element to live reporting of wild incidents that are either still developing or just happened. The New York Times later argued that they were only reporting the facts they could confirm, as they were coming in, and weren’t going to speculate on what they couldn’t yet confirm. It’s certainly a defensible position, broadly speaking, but without actually being in the NYT newsroom, as the facts were coming in, it’s hard for me to judge the appropriateness of how they chose to cover the story early on.
On a side-note, it’s nothing short of a miracle that the passengers on that plane survived the attack. There were lots of heroes on board, especially the injured pilot.
John: I want to ask you today about income inequality. Bernie Sanders thinks the difference in wealth between top and bottom is a self-evident issue, so much so that he and his cohorts want to massively change the structure of the U.S. economy. I have often thought this issue stems from the sin of envy and is an excuse for a hard left political and economic takeover. What do I care how much money Bill Gates or Elon Musk make, especially if the bottom 20% also continue to raise their standard of living? However, there is some merit to the argument that top income earners and wealth holders bid the price up for housing and other durable and luxury goods. What are your thoughts about the issue of income inequality and basic affordability for the average American? — Steve R.
Hi Steve. Bernie Sanders is pretty much clueless on economic matters (as well as a number of other things). His brand of economic populism (which JD Vance largely subscribes to as well, sadly) is a recipe for enormous failure. Free market capitalism is hardly a perfect system, but it’s provably the best economic system on the planet, and has lifted more people out of poverty, and created more economic prosperity, than any other.
There will always be envy in societies where income inequality (or any inequality) exists, and people like Sanders stoke that envy for political gain. But societies, as a whole, greatly benefit from free market capitalism, free trade, private enterprise, and wealth creators (including those dastardly “rich people”). Such societies enjoy a higher standard of living across the board.
It’s largely the government, not “greedy CEOs,” that put up barriers to economic growth and prosperity that lead to a higher cost, and lower standard, of living. What Trump’s tariffs have done to the cost of goods in this country is a glaring, real-time example of that. And economic populists like Sanders want to create even more barriers… in the name of “fairness.”
No thanks. I’ll take free market capitalism.
I saw that someone on X got REALLY upset that you dared to criticize Obama in your last column (in a single sentence). Why are people still so defensive of that guy? — Ben G.
I’m not sure if you saw my explanation for it on X, Ben, but I’ve talked about it here before too. There are lefties who started following me on X, because, at some point, they saw that I’m critical of Donald Trump. They’re fine with me criticizing him (for pretty much anything). But some of them can’t take criticism (and I mean ANY criticism) of Barack Obama, which I also put out there from time to time. They almost see it as some kind of betrayal, which makes no sense, because:
I’m a conservative, and have very different political views than Democrats.
I’ve argued quite consistently that I thought Obama was a bad president. I thought it at the time, and I still think it now.
But similar to how many people on the right can’t accept valid criticism of Donald Trump (in large part due to an emotional attachment), many on the left still can’t accept valid criticism of Barack Obama. Some even still insist that criticizing Obama is inherently racist (though this particular commenter didn’t accuse me of that).
Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.