Professor Murray Sabrin, Ph.D Guest Speaker on Point/CounterPoint 1250 AM!

/

Professor Murray Sabrin, Ph.D is today’s guest speaker on the Jessie Frees show squaring off with former prosecutor Jeff Advocate. An hour of civil discussion of some of the major issues facing the nation. To listen, click here WMTRAM.COM.

Dr. Murray Sabrin on the Lee Elci Radio Show - Voice of Freedom

/

What happened at the Capitol? Was this a coup? Was this a set up? What’s going on with our Bill of Rights and free speech. Dr. Murray Sabrin will discuss this timely topics and much more on the Lee Elci Radio Program. A great radio interview filled with sound insight as to what is currently happening to America, our republic.

To learn more about Dr. Murray Sabrin, his upcoming book about universal healthcare and other economic topics go to www.murraysabrin.com

Dr Murray Sabrin Ph D.jpg

Dr. Murray Sabrin’s reading list (June 26, 2019)

/

Sabrin pummels young Dem on taxes. Grossman weighs in on Kate Smith

/

When a young Democrat suggested that a frustrated property taxpayer was wrong for pulling up stakes and leaving the Garden State, libertarian stalwart Murray Sabrin, a finance professor at Ramapo College beat him about the head (rhetorically) with a large dose of economic reality.  Here’s what Sabrin had to say:

In a nj.com guest column millennial entrepreneur and Kinnelon Board of Education member Jason DeAlessi criticizes a previous guest columnist who explained why he is leaving New Jersey for Pennsylvania where taxes are lower.

DeAlessi’s criticism reflects the prevailing collectivist ideology that has been embraced by individuals from all generations who believe: “From each according to his ability to each according to his needs.” If this sounds familiar it should, because it is the foundation of Karl Marx’s vision for the world.

DeAlessi makes the egregious assertion that successful people should be the “cash cows” for social welfare spending. This is the heart of the rationale for all taxes in contemporary America. Taxes have become the prime vehicle for politicians to “buy” the votes of the public who believe the redistribution of income will make them better off and not have any negative consequences for the economy.

The millennial critic of anyone who does not want to pay exorbitant taxes states: “But year after year, the value of your stock portfolio, IRA, and 401K goes up – on the backs of your fellow hard-working New Jerseyans.” This is not only false but defamatory. People earn their money by providing goods and services in the marketplace. In other words, they improve living standards for those who buy their produces and use their services. Entrepreneurs like DeAlessi are dependent on customers who value their services and pay their employees a wage or salary reflecting their value to the firm. This how a free market economy works.

Finally, an analogy should lay to rest the notion that people should stay in New Jersey despite the high taxes. If a slave owner prior to the Civil War decried the escape of slaves from his plantation with the assertion that their labor is needed to keep the plantation functioning, anyone who values individual liberty would consider that an outrageous assertion. Slavery being the most egregious involuntary relationship is no different than taxation, which is the modern equivalent of “slavery.” Why? Both slavery and taxation abuse and individual’s right to liberty.

In short, escaping a slave plantation and leaving a high tax state are not “selfish.” They are noble actions to be free and have more freedom over one’s income and wealth.

You can read more by Professor Sabrin at his blog…

https://www.murraysabrin.com/

Meanwhile, former Atlantic County Freeholder Seth Grossman is kicking some socialist ass of his own.  In an email blast earlier today, Grossman wrote: 

Last year, Stockton University lied about its namesake Richard Stockton and removed his statue.   Last week, the same "progressive" mob lied about Kate Smith, and bullied the Philadelphia Flyers into covering her statue, and taking away her song.   Today, they took away her statue.
 
Details at https://libertyandprosperity.com/kate-smith-latest-victim-of-fake-education-real-hatred-taught-by-colleges-public-schools-today/
 
This did not happen overnight.   This is the latest result of 50 years of people who hate our country, our freedom, and our independence using our public schools and colleges to lie to our children.

Richard Stockton and his family dedicated their lives to ending slavery in America.   Yet Stockton University professors falsely taught its students that he and his family were racists because they temporarily owned some slaves while in the process of giving them educations and preparing them to live on their own.  The real reason Stockton professors hate Richard Stockton is that they hate the Declaration of Independence he signed, and the America based on limited government and individual rights that he helped create.

Kate Smith introduced America to Irving Berlin’s “God Bless America” at a time when it was needed most.   But our schools and colleges are now teach the lie that she was a racist because the perfectly acceptable language she used 86 years ago is now considered offensive by some.

Get the facts on what is going on, and what we can do about it.

Few people in America have more knowledge on this subject than Dr. Duke Pesta.   One of our members, Steve Jones will host a workshop and discussion featuring Dr. Pesta’s latest video presentation this Wednesday, April 24, at the Shore Diner in Egg Harbor Township.

Topic:  Campus Carnage:  Moral Chaos and Indoctrination in the University.
Video Presentation by Dr. Duke Pesta
This Wednesday, 7pm at Shore Diner
6710 Tilton Road (corner of Fire Road near Parkway Exit 36)
Egg Harbor Township, NJ  08234

No charge, but please order and pay for dinner off the menu and tip your server.
Please RSVP with Steve Jones at  sjones-LP@See-More-Facts.com.  Or leave a message at (609) 927-7333. Feel free to contact him for details.    Thanks.
 
Seth Grossman, Executive Director
LibertyAndProsperity.com
453 Shore Road
Somers Point, NJ  08244
info@libertyandprosperity.com
(609) 927-7333

RON PAUL ENDORSES MURRAY SABRIN FOR SENATE

/
Screen Shot 2018-07-16 at 2.57.14 PM.png

Former Texas U.S. Congressman and three-time presidential candidate issued the following statement regarding Murray Sabrin’s U.S. Senate candidacy:    

“I am pleased to endorse my good friend of 35 years Murray Sabrin for United States Senate. Murray's dedication to, and knowledge of, the principles of liberty will make him an effective advocate for freeing the people of New Jersey---and the Nation--from excessive taxes, debt, and inflation, as well as ending the ongoing violations of our right to free speech, property, and privacy.  Murray will also be an outspoken Senator for peaceful relations with other nations, and work to ensure that our immigration policies adhere to common sense solutions like his proposal to have immigrants obtain sponsors so they can assimilate and become financially independent.”

Murray was Ron Paul’s 2008 New Jersey spokesman during the 2008 Republican presidential primary campaign, said, “I am honored to receive Dr. Paul’s endorsement.  For more than four decades Dr. Paul was America’s leading advocate of limited government at home and a noninterventionist foreign policy. He also was a critic of the Federal Reserve’s destabilizing policies, which have been responsible for the economy’s booms and busts.”   In addition, Dr. Sabrin pointed out, if he is elected to the U.S. Senate this year, he will continue to be a voice like Dr. Paul who always spoke Truth to Power in the House of Representatives and in his presidential campaigns.

Sabrin for Senate to start ad campaign next week

/

We've noticed a lot of movement in  the camp of Libertarian U.S. Senate candidate Dr. Murray Sabrin.  The candidate, a professor of finance in the Anisfield School of Business at Ramapo College, indicated yesterday that the campaign's first radio ads should be airing next week. 

The Sabrin campaign is running on a platform that features the following: "100% tax credit for donations to houses of worship and nonprofits; end trickle down welfarism; abolish corporate welfare; end undeclared wars; stop the Fed's manipulation of interest rates; stop domestic spying."

Professor Sabrin recently wrote:  "I have been meeting voters throughout the state collecting signature with volunteers.  The issue that is resonating with voters across the political spectrum, 100% tax credit for donations to nonprofits and houses of worship." 

Dr. Sabrin offered this brief history lesson on the subject, by Dr. Walter E. Williams, the John M. Olin distinguished professor of economics at George Mason University, and a nationally syndicated columnist:

"Before the massive growth of our welfare state, private charity was the sole option for an individual or family facing insurmountable financial difficulties or other challenges. How do we know that?  There is no history of Americans dying on the streets because they could not find food or basic medical assistance. Respecting the biblical commandment to honor thy father and mother, children took care of their elderly or infirm parents. Family members and the local church also helped those who had fallen on hard times."

Continue reading:

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/05/walter-e-williams/before-and-after-welfare-handouts/

The Sabrin campaign recently released this video...

https://www.facebook.com/Sabrin4Senate/videos/vb.244280012410056/1009846632520053/?type=2&theater

Murray Sabrin, Ph.D.

Libertarian Party US Senate nominee

www.SabrinforSenate.com 

Silverglate: How Robert Mueller Tried To Entrap Me

/

Here is a "must-read" recommendation from Professor Murray Sabrin of Ramapo College (Reprinted courtesy of WGBH/News’ “Freedom Watch”).

October 17, 2017

HARVEY SILVERGLATE

Is special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, appointed in mid-May to lead the investigation into suspected ties between Donald Trump’s campaign and various shady (aren’t they all?) Russian officials, the choirboy that he’s being touted to be, or is he more akin to a modern-day Tomas de Torquemada, the Castilian Dominican friar who was the first Grand Inquisitor in the 15th Century Spanish Inquisition?

Given the rampant media partisanship since the election, one would think that Mueller’s appointment would lend credibility to the hunt for violations of law by candidate, now President Trump and his minions.

But I have known Mueller during key moments of his career as a federal prosecutor. My experience has taught me to approach whatever he does in the Trump investigation with a requisite degree of skepticism or, at the very least, extreme caution.

When Mueller was the acting United States Attorney in Boston, I was defense counsel in a federal criminal case in which a rather odd fellow contacted me to tell me that he had information that could assist my client. He asked to see me, and I agreed to meet. He walked into my office wearing a striking, flowing white gauze-like shirt and sat down across from me at the conference table. He was prepared, he said, to give me an affidavit to the effect that certain real estate owned by my client was purchased with lawful currency rather than, as Mueller’s office was claiming, the proceeds of illegal drug activities.

My secretary typed up the affidavit that the witness was going to sign. Just as he picked up the pen, he looked at me and said something like: “You know, all of this is actually false, but your client is an old friend of mine and I want to help him.” As I threw the putative witness out of my office, I noticed, under the flowing white shirt, a lump on his back – he was obviously wired and recording every word between us.

Years later I ran into Mueller, and I told him of my disappointment in being the target of a sting where there was no reason to think that I would knowingly present perjured evidence to a court. Mueller, half-apologetically, told me that he never really thought that I would suborn perjury, but that he had a duty to pursue the lead given to him. (That “lead,” of course, was provided by a fellow that we lawyers, among ourselves, would indelicately refer to as a “scumbag.”)

This experience made me realize that Mueller was capable of believing, at least preliminarily, any tale of criminal wrongdoing and acting upon it, despite the palpable bad character and obviously questionable motivations of his informants and witnesses. (The lesson was particularly vivid because Mueller and I overlapped at Princeton, he in the Class of 1966 and me graduating in 1964.)

Years later, my wariness toward Mueller was bolstered in an even more revelatory way. When he led the criminal division of the U.S. Department of Justice, I arranged in December 1990 to meet with him in Washington. I was then lead defense counsel for Dr. Jeffrey R. MacDonald, who had been convicted in federal court in North Carolina in 1979 of murdering his wife and two young children while stationed at Fort Bragg. Years after the trial, MacDonald (also at Princeton when Mueller and I were there) hired me and my colleagues to represent him and obtain a new trial based on shocking newly discovered evidence that demonstrated MacDonald had been framed in part by the connivance of military investigators and FBI agents. Over the years, MacDonald and his various lawyers and investigators had collected a large trove of such evidence.

The day of the meeting, I walked into the DOJ conference room, where around the table sat a phalanx of FBI agents. My three colleagues joined me. Mueller walked into the room, went to the head of the table, and opened the meeting with this admonition, reconstructed from my vivid and chilling memory:

“Gentlemen: Criticism of the Bureau is a non-starter.” (Another lawyer attendee of the meeting remembered Mueller’s words slightly differently: “Prosecutorial misconduct is a non-starter.” Either version makes clear Mueller’s intent – he did not want to hear evidence that either the prosecutors or the FBI agents on the case misbehaved and framed an innocent man.)

Special counsel Mueller’s background indicates zealousness that we might expect in the Grand Inquisitor, not the choirboy.

Why Special Prosecutors Are A Bad Idea

The history of special counsels (called at different times either “independent counsel” or “special prosecutor”) is checkered and troubled, resulting in considerable Supreme Court litigation around the concept of a prosecutor acting outside of the normal DOJ chain of command.

The Supreme Court in 1988 approved, with a single dissent (Justice Antonin Scalia), the concept of an independent prosecutor. Still, all subsequent efforts to appoint such a prosecutor have led to enormous disagreements over whether justice was done. Consider Kenneth Starr’s obsessive four-year, $40-million pursuit of President Bill Clinton for having sex with a White House intern and then lying about it. Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald’s 2006 pursuit of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby is not as infamous, but it should be. Fitzgerald indicted and a jury later convicted Libby, a top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, for lying about leaking to the New York Times the covert identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson. Subsequent revelations that there were multiple leaks and that Wilson’s CIA identity was not a secret served to discredit Libby’s indictment. Libby’s sentence was commuted. Libby’s relatively speedy reinstatement into the bar is seen by many as evidence of his unfair conviction. Considered in tandem, the campaigns against Democrat Clinton and Republican Libby raise disturbing questions about the use of special or independent prosecutors. 

Yet despite the constitutional issues, the most serious problem with a special counsel is that when a prosecutor is appointed to examine closely the lives and affairs of a pre-selected group of targets, that prosecutor is almost certain to stumble across multiple actions that might be deemed criminal under the sprawling and incredibly vague federal criminal code.

In Mueller’s case, one can have a very high degree of confidence that he will uncover alleged felonies within the ranks of the inner circle of the President’s men (there are very few women to investigate in this administration). This could well include Trump himself.

I described this phenomenon long before Trump began his improbable rise, in my 2009 book “Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent” (Encounter Books, updated edition, 2011).  I explained how federal “fraud” statutes were so vague that just about any action in the daily life of a typically busy professional might be squeezed into the elastic definition of some kind of federal felony.

Harvard Law Professor (and, I should note, my former professor and subsequent longtime friend and colleague) Alan Dershowitz has beaten me to the punch, making the case in a raft of articles and on TV and radio that none of the evidence thus far leaked to or adduced by investigative reporters constitute federal crimes.

But Mueller’s demonstrated zeal and ample resources virtually assure that indictments will come, even in the absence of actual crimes rather than behavior that is simply “politics as usual”. If Mueller claims that Trump or members of his entourage committed crimes, it doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily so. We should take Mueller and his prosecutorial team with a grain of salt. But a grain of salt seems an outmoded concept in an age when both sides – Trump and his critics – seem impervious to inconvenient facts. The most appropriate slogan for all the combatants on both sides of the Trump wars (including, alas, the reporters and their editors) might well be: “Don’t confuse me with the facts; my mind is made up.” 

Harvey Silverglate, a criminal defense and First Amendment lawyer and writer, is WGBH/News’ “Freedom Watch” columnist. He practices law in an “of counsel” capacity in the Boston law firm Zalkind Duncan & Bernstein LLP. He is the author, most recently, of Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent (New York: Encounter Books, updated edition 2011). The author thanks his research assistant, Nathan McGuire, for his invaluable work on this series.   

http://news.wgbh.org/2017/10/17/silverglate-how-robert-mueller-tried-entrap-me

Sabrin & Grossman host important conservative events

/

Two important upcoming events to place on your agenda.

The Sabrin Center for Free Enterprise presents a talk by William D. Cohan:  "Wall Street: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly."

jc_cohan.jpg

William D. Cohan

November 1, 2017 at 7:30 p.m. in the Trustees Pavilion
Refreshments and Registration 7 p.m.

Please RSVP to msabrin@ramapo.edu or call 201.684.7373.

William D. Cohan, a former senior Wall Street M&A investment

William D. Cohan, a former senior Wall Street M&A investment banker for 17 years at Lazard Frères & Co., Merrill Lynch and JPMorganChase, is the New York Times bestselling author of three non-fiction narratives about Wall Street: Money and Power: How Goldman Sachs Came to Rule the World; House of Cards: A Tale of Hubris and Wretched Excess on Wall Street; and, The Last Tycoons: The Secret History of Lazard Frères & Co., the winner of the 2007 FT/Goldman Sachs Business Book of the Year Award. His book, The Price of Silence, about the Duke lacrosse scandal was published in April 2014 and was also a New York Times bestseller. His new book, Why Wall Street Matters, was published by Random House in February 2017. He is a special correspondent at Vanity Fair and a columnist for the DealBook section of the New York Times. He also writes for The Financial Times, The New York Times, Bloomberg BusinessWeek, The Atlantic, The Nation, Fortune, and Politico. He previously wrote a bi-weekly opinion column for The New York Times and an opinion column for BloombergView. He also appears regularly on CNN, on Bloomberg TV, where he is a contributing editor, on MSNBC and the BBC-TV. He has also appeared three times as a guest on the Daily Show, with Jon Stewart, The NewsHour, The Charlie Rose Show, The Tavis Smiley Show, and CBS This Morning as well as on numerous NPR, BBC and Bloomberg radio programs. He is a graduate of Phillips Academy, Duke University, Columbia University School of Journalism and the Columbia University Graduate School of Business. He grew up in Worcester, Massachusetts and now lives in New York City with his wife and two sons.

This event has been made possible by The Sabrin Center for Free Enterprise.

Liberty & Prosperity is hosting a discussion on "Fake News" tomorrow evening, October 25th, at the Shore Diner:

Special video "Behind the Big News"  with discussion hosted by Steve Jones tomorrow, Wednesday, October 25 at 7PM to 8:30 pm.  Location:  Shore Diner, 6710 Tilton Road, Egg Harbor Twp, NJ (By Parkway Exit #36 Northfield)
No Admission, but please order dinner off menu as Shore Diner is not charging for the room.  This video examines "fake news" and collusion between leading media executives and personalities, and government officials, donors, and lobbyists tied to Bush Republicans and Clinton Democrats.   For more information, please contact Steve Jones at 609-616-5321 or jbs-sp-sjones1@see-more-facts.com.

Seth Grossman, former Atlantic County Freeholder and founder of Liberty & Prosperity, provides his insights on the upcoming election and especially the ballot questions at LibertyAndProsperity.org.

Trump’s social welfare agenda

/

Ivanka Trump: "Under the Trump plan, the federal government will guarantee six weeks of paid maternity leave."

Childcare and the Führer Principle

By Robert Wenzel (courtesy of MurraySabrin.com)

It is remarkable how pedestrian, unsophisticated and lacking in insight are the views of Donald Trump, and apparently those of his daughter, Ivanka, when it comes to economics and society. They simply look everywhere to government technocrat solutions for everything.

It is clear they have zero understanding of how free markets work. The insights expressed by F.A. Hayek in his book The Roads to Serfdom, about the dangers and defects of central planning, have never reached their brains in any significant way.

For the Trumps, if there is a societal problem, they hold the simple minded perspective that there is a government solution for it, if the right leader is around to propose and manage the government solution.There is no awarness by them that this perspective is in direct contradiction to what great economists such as Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard and Hayek have taught us about the nature of man, individual decision making and the impossibility of one great central planner replacing the decision making that is done at the individual level.

This type of thinking, the belief in one man decision making, Mises identified as a belief in the Führer Principle.

Ivanka Trump, demonstrating her adherence to the Führer Principle in one important sector, has penned an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal where she discusses her father's childcare plan, which her father has claimed was influenced by her. (Donald Trump delivered his childcare plan speech which mirrored Ivanka's outline, Tuesday evening)

In the op-ed, Ivanka writes:

We all agree that women should have equal pay for equal work, but that’s not enough. The lack of quality, affordable child care is one of the biggest challenges facing American parents.

My father, in his campaign for president, has proposed a plan to bring federal policies in line with the needs of today’s working parents.

The plan’s second part is the establishment of Dependent Care Savings Accounts, created to aid families in setting aside extra money to foster their children’s development and offset elder care for adult dependents.

To help lower-income parents, the government will match half of the first $1,000 deposited each year.

 [M]y father’s plan will add incentives for employers to provide child care at the workplace.
Finally, under the Trump plan, the federal government will guarantee, for the first time, six weeks of paid maternity leave.

There are some tax breaks in the plan, and it is difficult to argue against tax breaks, but mostly this plan is about deep government intrusions into the childcare sector.

It is a stunning rebuke of free markets. Do the Trumps really believe they know better to what degree employers should provide childcare than what has developed in the markets?

Do the Trumps really think they know better how compensation should be structured for mothers relative to how much maternity leave they should receive?

Do the Trumps really believe we need the government subsidizing childcare, where in every other sector where the government has gotten involved, via subsidies, prices have skyrocketed?

The Trump thinking on childcare and the government interventions they are advocating is monstrous.

Do they have any idea the distortions that occur in markets when governments attempt to over-rule them?

Any Trump supporter who expects smaller government and a better understanding of free markets under a Trump presidency is going to be very disappointed by this childcare proposal from them. As I wrote more than 12 months ago, Trump displays many more characteristics reminiscent of the economic leadership style of Mussolini than any sound economic thinker I know,

Not good.
 

Robert Wenzel is Editor & Publisher of  EconomicPolicyJournal.com and Target Liberty. He also writes EPJ Daily Alert and is author of The Fed Flunks: My Speech at the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Follow him on twitter:@wenzeleconomics and on LinkedIn.

To hike the gas tax on not to hike the gas tax, that is the question

/

By Dr. Murray Sabrin

The Transportation Trust Fund (TTF) will essentially be out of money for new projects after June 30 if the "gas tax" is not raised. The reason gas tax is in quotes is quite simple, the gas tax is a user fee. Motorists pay a fixed fee per gallon to use the roads and bridges.  The gas tax is an efficient way for the government to collect the funds necessary to maintain a crucial component of a civilized society and growing economy-- roads and bridges are indispensable to provide the means by which goods go from factories to distribution centers to retailers. And now with e-commerce taking a greater share of retail sales the roads become even more important as the Postal Service, Fedex, UPS have seen their business increase because of changing consumer buying patterns.

In addition, maintaining this crucial component of our infrastructure makes New Jersey a more livable place for not only residents but also tourists.   The miserable conditions of our roads, highways, and bridges has an impact on both commuters and tourism.

There is no need to rehash the failure of both Republicans and Democrats in Trenton to keep the transportation trust fund solvent. Suffice it to say that if legislators and governors from both sides of the aisle since 1988-- when the gas tax was last raised – had increased the gasoline tax by only a penny per year, we would not be in this predicament today. So much for the "farsightedness" of legislators who have been sent to Trenton to serve the people.

Instead, the political jockeying continues as both Gov. Christie and the Democratic controlled legislature have refused to do what is necessary to not only keep the Transportation Trust Fund solvent with cash to maintain the state’s roads, highways, bridges and other assets but institute needed reforms that would make New Jersey's economy more robust and vibrant in the years ahead.

Several proposals have been put forward to provide the cash needed for road, bridge, and rail projects throughout the state.  Democrat Senator Paul Sarlo, chairman of the budget committee, has backed Republican Steve Oroho on a proposal that increases the gas tax while reducing several other taxes such as the estate tax, the tax on retirement and pension income, and adding a charitable contribution deduction for individuals.  These are proposals that every Republican should embrace because it means New Jerseyans would have a substantial tax cut that would be offset by a minuscule increase in the so-called gas tax.

According to one analysis the average New Jersey family would save at least $1200 per year if these tax cuts were enacted.

What would a gas tax increase of say $.10 per gallon cost the average motorist? Well, if you drive 15,000 miles per year and your car gets 30 miles per gallon; you would purchase 500 gallons of gasoline per year, costing you $50 a year extra in gasoline purchases, or about a dollar per week.  Look at the trade-off, a $50 increase in gas costs as opposed to a $1200 a year tax cut. Who would not want to take that deal? The gas tax could then be increased a few pennies each year for five years to keep the TTF humming to make New Jersey’s roads, bridges and other vital transportation assets in tip top shape.

But more is needed to get a bigger bang for our gas tax bucks.  According to one report, which has been disputed by a Rutgers University study,  the cost of repairing and constructing highways in New Jersey is much greater than the national average.  Whether it's the case or not, it wouldn't hurt for the Department of Transportation to open up the bidding process to allow out-of-state contractors who work on roads, highways, and bridges throughout the country to come into the state and help reduce construction costs for the people of New Jersey.   This is only common sense. 

Life is about trade-offs and in this case the trade-off is compelling, a slightly higher gas tax for substantial tax relief.  Gov. Christie and the legislative leadership should show some guts and get New Jersey on the right track—smooth roads, safe bridges and much needed tax relief for the beleaguered taxpayers of New Jersey. 

Murray Sabrin is professor of finance at Ramapo College and former Libertarian gubernatorial nominee and Republican U.S. Senate candidate.  

Sabrin: Trump vs. GOP insiders

/

By Murray Sabrin, Ph.D.

Simple Definition of scumbag : a dishonest, unkind, or unpleasant person

To ask the question whether GOP insiders are scumbags is to answer it. Donald Trump’s front runner status for the GOP presidential nomination is ripping off the facade that the insiders believe in "democracy,” namely, that primary voters should choose the party's presidential candidate. With Trump well on his way to winning the GOP nomination, the long knives are coming out from elected officials in Congress to current and former governors and former other elected officials who have gone on the record stating they will refuse to support the New York billionaire if he wins the nomination. In fact, many of them are already discussing a third-party "conservative" option or have expressed support for Hillary Clinton.

Once again, GOP insiders revealing their hypocrisy that the GOP is a "big tent." In fact, the GOP has become a single-issue party, unequivocal support for military intervention anywhere in the world.  If GOP candidates do not toe the line, so-called party loyalty is thrown out the window and the candidate is demonized in the most ugly ways possible. (Review the GOP's treatment of Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012 when he basically said the same thing about US intervention around the world that Trump is now saying.)

Donald Trump is speaking truth to power just as Ron Paul did in the last two presidential campaigns. The reason Donald Trump is getting so much traction is that the grassroots finally wised up to the mendacity of the political insiders and the GOP establishment in Washington DC, who lied us into war, spent like drunken sailors for several decades when they held the strings of power in the White House and Congress, and cut deals with Democrats to maintain the welfare – warfare state. In short, blowback is a bitch.  And the insiders can't stand it one iota.

Despite all his flaws on economic policies, a Trump presidency would be a success if he pursues a noninterventionist foreign policy.  Military spending is a huge drag on the economy and intervening around the world where our military is “pissing” on other people (killing innocents and destroying their property) at the behest of the warmongers and telling them it is raining is not the way to build friends across the globe. 

So Donald, embrace free enterprise and limited government and a noninterventionist foreign policy, and you will make America great again!

Murray Sabrin is a Professor of Finance at Ramapo College and the co-founder and president of Conger LH, www.congerlh.com

GOP for 2017: Abolish the State Income Tax

/

Why not?  The tax is a scam based on a lie.

It was passed on the promise of property tax relief... and then the Courts, that failsafe of the political and corporate establishment, got in on the action to redirect (steal) most of the money paid by suburban and rural taxpayers to urban political machines so that they can give generous tax breaks to their corporate co-conspirators.  Of course, they gave the poor as their reason for doing so and forty years later... New Jersey is facing a poverty explosion with the highest poverty levels in 50 years. 

So it wasn't done for the poor because the poor are still poor and there are more of them than ever before, but there are lots and lots of politicians who got very fat and very rich off the income tax scam and lots and lots of corporations that got millions in tax breaks because of it.  Why should suburban and rural taxpayers subsidize rich corporations and make corrupt political machines more powerful?

After 40 years, maybe suburban and rural taxpayers are tired of the scam, built on a lie?

After 40 years, maybe the urban poor are tired of having their hunger-wracked bodies used as a means to make the rich richer and the corrupt more powerful?

Maybe it is time for some truly revolutionary action like abolishing the state income tax?

Professor Murray Sabrin thinks so.  Here is his opinion column from today's Bergen Record/ NorthJersey.com:

 

Opinion: Why New Jersey should abolish the state income tax

JANUARY 27, 2016    LAST UPDATED: WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 27, 2016, 1:21 AM

BY MURRAY SABRIN

THE RECORD

NEW JERSEY'S motto, "Liberty and Prosperity," was adopted in 1777, a year after the colonists declared their independence. Although the state motto implies that New Jersey would be a free and independent state, the truth of the matter is that New Jersey's state government has adopted an anti-liberty agenda for decades.

In a free society, which is based upon a market economy, all participants make voluntary choices in order to improve their lives. I call this a Mutual Consent Society, where no one is coerced to buy or sell any good or service against their will. Isn't this the "American" way? The freedom to choose?

In other words, involuntary exchanges — theft, robbery, murder, etc. — which Frederick Bastiat identified as "illegal plunder" in his 1850 monograph, "The Law," are prohibited in a civilized society, because these acts violate the natural (property) rights of every individual in society.

Conversely, Bastiat then concluded that governments must not engage in "legal plunder," for the same reason individuals cannot engage in illegal plunder. They are acts of aggression and coercion. Bastiat identified legal plunder — progressive taxation and public schools, among other government polices — as detrimental to a harmonious society.

For Bastiat, the law (force) should not be used to force people how to live their lives and spend their money. Using the law to coerce people, argues Bastiat, negates the principle of justice and violates the rights of individuals.

Although most people across the political spectrum consider "public education" an indispensable institution in a democracy, the truth of the matter is that education has become a political football. Instead of providing students with the skills necessary to become independent thinkers, our public schools have become indoctrination centers.

In place of having a curriculum that focuses on basic skills, yes, the three Rs, K-12 public education has morphed into a cheering gallery for anti-free-enterprise propaganda, extolling the virtues of activist government policies to solve social problems.

Legal plunder

An income tax, whether it is progressive (tax rate increasing as incomes increase) or flat (one rate on all incomes, usually with a substantial standard deduction, making a flat tax somewhat progressive in reality), is a classic example of legal plunder, because it is a gross violation of private property.

In the 20th century, a stinging critique of progressive taxation by Frank Chodorov, "The Income Tax: Root of All Evil," was published. He argues that the so-called ability-to-pay doctrine is a pernicious assault on private property and undermines the productivity of the economy. Chodorov shows that the income tax, ironically, hurts poor people more than wealthy income earners, because taxation in general and the income tax specifically reduces the amount of capital in society and therefore job creation.

As far as New Jersey's 40-year income tax is concerned, it began in 1976 with only two rates, 2 percent and 2.5 percent, and was enacted to provide property tax relief and increase school aid. As the U.S. economy was on an upswing from the depths of the 1973 — 1975 recession, tax revenue flowed to Trenton, making Gov. Brendan Byrne's promise a reality.

Over the years, New Jersey's income tax has become more progressive. Currently, incomes less than $20,000 are taxed at 1.4 percent and incomes greater than $500,000 are taxed at 8.97 percent, a far cry from the relatively flat tax that was imposed in 1976.

The income tax was supposed to provide tax relief for all taxpayers but instead has turned into a massive redistribution of income from suburban taxpayers to urban school districts, courtesy of a series of state Supreme Court decisions calling for more state aid to provide a constitutionally mandated "thorough and efficient education" to all public school children.

Eliminate school funding

The reforms needed to create a Mutual Consent Society in New Jersey is clear: Abolish the state income tax and eliminate taxpayer funding for K–12 education and pre-K, so education decisions can be made by parents and provided by competent teachers instead of career bureaucrats in Washington and Trenton.

In addition, abolishing the income tax would provide the fuel for a more robust economy, the best anti-poverty program there is.

The wisdom of both Bastiat and Chodorov is more relevant today given the widespread legal plunder that exists in New Jersey and throughout the country. If the people of New Jersey want to live up to the state's motto, "liberty and prosperity," we must abolish the state income tax and return education decisions to parents and teachers.

Murray Sabrin is a professor of finance at Ramapo College.