When a Portland man stabbed the defenders of two women who appeared to be Muslim in May, he was quickly identified by his conservative and white supremacist politics. He had supported Donald Trump, ranted against Muslims, and appeared at rallies with neo-Nazi gear. That he also supported Sen. Bernie Sanders and the Standing Rock protests was less reported.
When another man shot at members of congress on June 14, leaving GOP House Whip Steve Scalise in critical condition, different media personalities quickly played a similar game with a new twist: suspect James Hodgkinson was a proud Sanders supporter who frequented anti-Trump social media pages. Minutes after the shooting, Donald Trump, Jr. repeated a sentiment most often expressed by progressives of late: that violent rhetoric sometimes has violent ends….
Continue reading at: The Washington Examinder
On May 15, the Georgia Supreme Court unanimously rejected an appeal from Atlanta taxi drivers seeking recovery funds from the state for “deregulatory takings.” The taxi cartel had argued that the deregulation of ride-sharing services such as Uber and Lyft had decreased the value of taxi medallions to such an extent that the taxi industry had become entitled to compensation by the state.
The court not only wholly rejected the argument, but also declared that taxi operators have no right to an “unalterable monopoly.” Simply put, purchasing the medallions from a government agency does not entitle the buyer to lost market value caused by new entrants. Taxi operators can compete and innovate, but they cannot fall back on the support of the state. In coming to this decision, the court relied on similar decisions in Chicago and Minneapolis, where other states dealt with similar arguments.
Read more in RealClearPolicy
As House Republicans revive a revamped Affordable Care Act replacement bill with more support from the libertarian wing of the Republican party, Republicans and Democrats have gone back-and-forth over the impact of the bill on people with pre-existing conditions. As The New York Times noted in a recent review of each party’s claims, both have played fast and loose with their evaluations of the policy. Republicans have overstated the degree to which the bill protects those with pre-existing conditions, and Democrats have overstated the negative effect it might have on the same group.
Health insurance policy is notoriously complicated, and both liberal and conservative policy experts disagree on how to unravel a 50-year-old mess created by bureaucracy and bad bills.
Continue reading in TownHall