The Daly Weekly (7/11)

The "Epstein List", "Democratic Socialism", the "Big Beautiful Bill," and more.

Hi everyone.

Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw my way.

Let’s get right to it…

---

John, with socialist antisemite (but I repeat myself) Zohran Mamdani in the picture we’re going to be constantly hearing that he’s not actually a “socialist” but rather a “democratic socialist.” But doesn’t democratic socialist simply mean we get to *vote* for the person who is going to control our lives and make everything much worse? Or am I being too simplistic? (It’s been known to happen.) On another note, any plans for another Sean Coleman thriller? Not meaning to sound like Annie Wilkes but... “I’m your number one fan!" — Bob B.

Hi Bob. Always good to hear from you.

My understanding of “democratic socialism” is essentially the same as yours: self-invited socialism. To be short and to the point, the policies are still socialistic, and thus they suck. Unfortunately, much of today’s politics (on both sides) are guided by grievance, personalities, and emotion. By and large, voters (especially party-base voters) aren’t as interested in governance and smart public policy, and thus are inclined to support candidates who give them “the feels” over those offering strong, serious leadership and wise, coherent policies. (It’s depressing.)

Thanks for asking about my Sean Coleman Thriller novels. I’m glad you enjoy them! In the past, I had put out a new book about every two years, but as some readers know, my life got much more complicated about three years ago with my since-deceased father’s (and sometimes mother’s) declining health. Between the regular doctor’s appointments (sometimes multiple a week), infusion treatments, E.R. trips, hospital stays, assisted living issues, etc., it was almost impossible to stay in the creative-writing zone for any amount of time. That type of writing is different than column-writing (where I can hash out an idea in just an hour or two, even with distractions). Novel-length storytelling requires lots of dedicated hours and serious focus. And unfortunately, I never knew when (beyond the regular parents-related stuff) an unexpected phone call was going upend my entire day or next several days. (As I’m sure many reading this can attest, getting old is not fun.)

The good news is that I am working on the next Sean Coleman Thriller. The writing’s probably three-quarters of the way done, and I’m looking forward to hammering out the rest as more family things settle down. I think you’re going to like it, Bob. It’s a tight, winter-mountain thriller.

John, Trump’s big Bill passed yesterday, but I never know where the truth and end begins with the content of these bills. Isn’t it true that no Bill is all good, or all bad, and that politicians and the media will cherry pick the points that benefit their party / narrative politically. And the political theatre and fear mongering only gaslights division. Murkowski publicly admitted her vote was “bought.” That’s another issue that builds distrust.

I greatly appreciate the integrity and objectivity that you and Bernie offer. I know you are speaking the truth. — Rob O.

Thanks Rob. Bernie and I appreciate that.

As for the “big, beautiful bill”: Like most enormous bills that go mostly unread by those who support them, it had some good stuff… and all kinds of bad stuff. The biggest problem for me is the cost: trillions more added to the national debt. But because Republicans are just as fiscally liberal as Democrats these days, its price-tag was never going to be an obstacle to getting it passed. Your point about “theater” is largely correct. One of the worst actors these days, I believe, is Congressman Chip Roy. He always throws fist-pounding temper tantrums on the House floor about how much each of these bills costs, then reliably votes “yes” on them (out of fear of displeasing Trump). It’s ridiculous.

Sir John: a pediatrician named Dr. Christina Propst said that she hoped that only MAGA people were killed in the Texas floods! She was eventually fired from her job. Okay fine. I thought that pediatricians loved healing all children! I thought that liberals prided themselves on being so tolerant! (Sarcasm ON!) Here’s my question: what exactly makes these liberals believe that such hateful comments would somehow be appropriate and acceptable? And what makes them think that they could get away with such comments, considering the fact that if Trump or any MAGA folks had made similar comments about ANYBODY being killed at a rap concert or pride event that this would obviously get huge amounts of criticism toward them!? Your thoughts? — “Flooding The Media With Hypocritical Hate” regards from The Emperor

Unfortunately, lots of people let their passion for politics corrupt their soul, Emperor. Smart people. Not-so-smart people. Left-wing. Right-wing. It runs the intellectual and ideological spectra. Sometimes there are consequences for it (like with this pediatrician), and sometimes there aren’t. Heck, sometimes there are even rewards for it.

On a related note, I find it exhausting that both sides love to point a finger at the worst offenders on the other team, while ignoring (or even defending) the worst offenders on their own side. Too many people are convinced that they’re justified in holding this double-standard, because of some broader fill-in-the-blank reason, but I think that’s mostly a cop-out.

I can’t emphasize enough how important I think it is that people hold and maintain principles — political, moral, and otherwise. Principles help steer individuals away from their worst instincts and keep them grounded. They’re also an effective repellent against hypocrisy.

I’m very confused about all of this “Epstein List” stuff. Hadn’t MAGA (including some people now in the Trump administration) been playing up the release of Jeffrey Epstein’s supposed client list for years, and claiming Biden’s FBI was covering it up? Now the Trump administration says there’s absolutely nothing to it? Pam Bondi said she had the list on her desk just a few months ago! White spiral notebooks on the matter were handed out, with lots of publicity, to MAGA influencers. Did I just imagine all of this? — Alex D.

It wasn’t your imagination, Alex. All of those things indeed happened. Trump himself used this as a wedge issue with his base for years. Dan Bongino and others (I believe including Kash Patel) were insistent that the list was real (and had big names on it), and that Biden was keeping it from going public. And as you said, Bondi outright said she had the list on her desk, and was reviewing it.

There are only two possible explanations for what happened: 1) they were full of crap then; 2) they are full of crap now. My bet would be explanation #1: that there never was a list. The sad reality is that these people play the base for fools all the time. They peddle wild conspiracy theories all the time. And no matter how many times they’re exposed as frauds, the marks keep coming back for more.

John: Like you, I am a fiscal conservative and find this discipline absent with all elected officials in Washington (see "Beautiful Bill, Big"). This deficit spending and lack of sanity when it comes to entitlement funding is a Thelma & Louise car headed towards the cliff. However a few days ago I read in the Wall Street Journal where some congressmen are quietly proposing funding reforms that shift towards broad-based market funds. Have you read about these? Do you think they will succeed? What would King John do if he were put in charge of slashing the deficit and reforming entitlements? — Steve R.

Unfortunately, I couldn’t agree more with your assessment, Steve. While Americans are busy bantering back-and-forth every day about culture-war stuff, we’re quietly burying ourselves under mountains and mountains of debt that’s crushing the life out of our nation’s fiscal future. The conservative movement of 10 years ago understood this, but the political-right has since adopted the political-left’s “YOLO” attitude on generational theft. But have no fear: the moment it all comes crashing down, both sides will immediately blame the other side for causing it.

I don’t know much about broad-based market funds; if they can serve as any kind of cushion, that would be great. But there’s no hope of getting our debt under control without serious entitlement reform. Our entitlement systems are broken, and they are (by far) the biggest contributors to our debt.

I recently interviewed James Capretta of the American Enterprise Institute, who studies entitlement programs and fiscal trends. I asked him what our debt situation would look like right now, had Congress passed the entitlement reforms of George W. Bush or Paul Ryan (perhaps the only two federal office-holders of the last 20 years who actually took some serious initiative on this issue). He said that there was “no question” that if either of those men’s reforms had passed, out debt situation would be in far better shape right now. Shortly thereafter, an analyst at AEI did a study on Bush’s proposals, and lined them up with the actual market numbers over the last two years, which confirmed exactly that.

If it were up to me on how to deal with this situation in the year 2025, I’d enact Jessica Riedl’s fully-scored plan, which I’ve hyped a few times now. It includes, in addition to entitlement reforms, selective tax hikes that (due to decades of negligence on this issue) are now, I believe, necessary to effectively address the problem.

Non-political question this week, John: Seen any good movies lately? — Ben G.

Yes. I saw “28 Years Later” in the theater a few weeks ago. It’s not perfect, but it’s pretty darned good. I also just saw an excellent Australian horror film called “Bring Her Back” (it was by the makers of “Talk to Me,” which is also great). “F1” is pretty good too.

---

Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.