President Trump

[ppulatie]

I did not mean it from the deficit aspect. I meant it from getting the nomination as the Republican candidate.

I believe that now, the GOPe will do everything to stop Trump, pulling out all the stops.

[DougMacG]

... Rubio ... has allowed his tax plan to sink without a trace.  If Trump can defend his proposal, will Rubio be able to defend his when Trump attacks?

I think Rubio doesn't push it because it is version 1.0 and he sees the problems pointed out.  Trump's plan has better rates.  Rubio's will stand up better to the static economic fact checkers and be more electable.  Rubio's plan eliminates capital gains taxes, which I hope instead leaves him room to negotiate personal rates down.

Run Pat's 48k family of 4 through Rubio's plan.  He skipped mention of the 4000 Tax credit for the couple and 2500 tax credit per child, making a $9000 tax credit for family of 4.  The 7200 tax bill (15% of 48k) becomes an $1800 'tax' refund.  The family of 4 under Rubio's plan doesn't pay anything in until they pass 60k.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2015/03/04/the-rubio-lee-tax-plan/

Maybe they all are trying to buy votes.  

I would like to see them take the best features from the best proposals and form one, solid, consensus plan or at least agreed parameters for a plan. So far the Trump, Rubio and JEB plans are all good.  The candidates should be arguing against the left and the status quo instead of against each other.
____________________________________________

"Doesn't matter whether it is revenue neutral or positive. The media and the GOPe are pulling out all stops to prevent Trump from winning, and instead installing a RINO as candidate."

   - They accused Bush's plan of 'costing' 3.4 trillion.  Trump will either argue successfully against the static economic chorus or he will fall on this sword.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"GOPe will do everything to stop Trump, pulling out all the stops."

   - There isn't an organized GOPe anymore, IMHO, but the gist of that is true.  He is not the first frontrunner to run into enhanced scrutiny. 

[Crafty_Dog]

Thanks for the comparative breakdown Doug.

[ppulatie]

Doug,

About the tax credit, etc., that is correct.

But it must be remembered that the tax credits only comes back to them at the end of the year when taxes are filed. Day to day, the w-4 deductions are taken out, and that forms the basis for the cash flow over the entire year. Then, that money typically is spent going towards needed purchases that have been delayed.

Also, lets say the family makes only $3k instead of $4k per years. It is even worse.

Organized GOP no more? I would certainly disagree. We can see it through the machinations of the primary rules in each state, run by the vassels of the party.

And to show how it works, Reince is now saying that the next election cycle, 2020, New Hampshire, Iowa and the other two early states will not be the first primaries. Of course, such an action would tend work in favor of the desired nominee and not the potential upstart.

[Crafty_Dog]

How so?

Anyway, please figure out a more relevant thread for this interesting conversation.

[DougMacG]

Trump’s tax plan would raise deficit $12 trillion: analysis
By Yaron Steinbuch
September 30, 2015 | 1:23am

Trump’s tax plan would raise deficit $12 trillion: analysis
Donald Trump
Photo: Reuters
Donald Trump’s tax plan would cost a staggering $12 trillion over 10 years — despite his pledge not to increase the deficit, according to an analysis released Tuesday.
The Tax Foundation found that Trump’s changes to the individual tax code would reduce net revenues by about $10.14 trillion, after accounting for higher incomes due to an 11 percent jump in the gross domestic product.
The billionaire businessman’s corporate tax cuts also would bleed $1.54 trillion over the next decade, and his plan to dispense with the estate tax would cost $238 billion, the group said.     -  NY Post today

My comments on this are in a previous post.

[G M]

Yes, but it will be the Yuuuuugest, classiest, most luxurious deficit ever!

Trump’s tax plan would raise deficit $12 trillion: analysis
By Yaron Steinbuch
September 30, 2015 | 1:23am

Trump’s tax plan would raise deficit $12 trillion: analysis
Donald Trump
Photo: Reuters
Donald Trump’s tax plan would cost a staggering $12 trillion over 10 years — despite his pledge not to increase the deficit, according to an analysis released Tuesday.
The Tax Foundation found that Trump’s changes to the individual tax code would reduce net revenues by about $10.14 trillion, after accounting for higher incomes due to an 11 percent jump in the gross domestic product.
The billionaire businessman’s corporate tax cuts also would bleed $1.54 trillion over the next decade, and his plan to dispense with the estate tax would cost $238 billion, the group said.     -  NY Post today

My comments on this are in a previous post.

[ppulatie]

It certainly looks bad. Also,

Mr. Trump’s tax plan would substantially lower individual income taxes and the corporate income tax and eliminate a number of complex features in the current tax code.

Mr. Trump’s plan would cut taxes by $11.98 trillion over the next decade on a static basis. However, the plan would end up reducing tax revenues by $10.14 trillion over the next decade when accounting for economic growth from increases in the supply of labor and capital.

The plan would also result in increased outlays due to higher interest on the debt, creating a ten-year deficit somewhat larger than the estimates above.

According to the Tax Foundation’s Taxes and Growth Model, the plan would significantly reduce marginal tax rates and the cost of capital, which would lead to an 11 percent higher GDP over the long term provided that the tax cut could be appropriately financed.

The plan would also lead to a 29 percent larger capital stock, 6.5 percent higher wages, and 5.3 million more full-time equivalent jobs.

The plan would cut taxes and lead to higher after-tax incomes for taxpayers at all levels of income.

Here is the analysis on the Jeb Plan.  Has not reviewed the Rubio Plan.

Key Findings:

Governor Jeb Bush’s tax plan would reform both the individual income tax and the corporate income tax and eliminate a number of complex features in the current tax code.

According to the Tax Foundation’s Taxes and Growth Model, the plan would significantly reduce marginal tax rates and the cost of capital, which would lead to a 10 percent higher GDP over the long-term.

The plan would also lead to a 28.8 percent larger capital stock, 7.4 percent higher wages, and 2.7 million more full-time equivalent jobs.

The Governor’s plan would cut taxes by $3.6 trillion over the next decade on a static basis. However, the plan would end up reducing revenue by $1.6 trillion over the next decade when accounting for the additional economic growth created by the plan.

The plan would cut taxes and lead to higher after-tax incomes for taxpayers at all levels of income.

Comments:

Obviously, this looks far worse for the Trump Plan. But here is something I have found in building such models.

- None of the above means much without looking at "The Vetting Book". This book details in full the methodology used, the assumptions used, how the assumptions were derived, and all the other factors that could influence the outcome. One hopes that the assumptions are fair, but there are inherent biases built into determination of each assumption.

- The Tax Foundation does try to provide some info in the Notes Section, but they do show the limitations of their assumptions in some categories.

In all, this is all moot. Bush is cooked and over, and even if he wasn't, the fact that he is calling for a 10% bottom tax (no matter the deductions) means that he would get blasted on this in the general election and would lose to the Dems.

I have conceded that Trump will not be nominated. The GOP through the state RNC's are manipulating the primary rules weekly to give the preferred candidate the best shot at gaining the nomination. This will probably be Rubio.  Yet Rubio's Plan calls for a bottom tax rate of 15% and then 35%, so he will not win the Presidency either.

Cruz wants a Flat Tax, but has not identified what the Rate would be. Nor whether it would be on Gross Income, Net Income after Deductions, nor what deductions would be allowed. Again, the 45% of non-payers would not vote for Cruz because they would be paying federal taxes again.

I now concede that Biden will be the next President.

[G M]

Deck chairs. Titanic.

Doesn't matter anyway.

[DougMacG]

PP:  "I now concede that Biden will be the next President."

When I said I couldn't ever tell when pat was joking, he didn't know I was joking.   )
We're going to get through this and Biden ISN'T going to be the next President.

We both called this static analysis, but they tried to head that off by saying:
 " after accounting for higher incomes due to an 11 percent jump in the gross domestic product."

I wrote previously:
 "Trump will either argue successfully against the static economic chorus or he will fall on this sword."

Other than the small point I nitpicked, the Trump plan is a great plan.  His job now is to show how this plan does not blow up the deficit for the reasons that follow.  Undermining the seriousness of the arguments he now needs to make are all the silly 'bragadacious' things he has already said.

1) Trump Plan will double the GDP, not grow it by 11%.  He needs experts, real analysis, serious projections to show real consequences of a changed system, and especially needs to speak the language of supply side economics in a persuasive way that brings people over to the viewpoint of optimism and trust in the human spirit.

2) It doesn't blow the deficit because the growth in opportunities and income will dramatically lessen the need for federal government social spending and poverty programs.

3) Federal programs (that shouldn't be federal) can be turned back to the states with the revenue surge they will see with this kind of a growth surge.

4) Ditto for Obamacare, the current driver of future deficits.

5) Federal interest expense as a percent of GDP falls quickly as economic growth surges.

6) Defense spending as percent of GDP actually costs less when we engage wisely and consistently than when we project weakness and then pay the price for it.

Will Trump make these arguments?  We will see.  He is starting to make sounds about leaving the race and going back to run the business.  For his own ego, he would like to get out while he is still in first place.

The question never asked of Trump: If he is so good, how can his business run without him for 4-8 years plus this year.  I assume they need him back at the office.  )

[ppulatie]

Doug,

I am serious now. It will be either Hillary (if she survives the email scandal) or Biden.

You make good points on  the Trump Plan. But the problem is that Trump will not be "allowed"  to defend his plan in a rational manner. The liberal media will claim that it is unworkable, and they will drive the narrative. Meanwhile, the GOP will push the narrative that everyone must pay something, so that will drive off those who don't pay anything now.

It is becoming more apparent that the GOP ticket will likely be Rubio/Fiorina. With this ticket, the GOP can claim support for women and hispanics and for them, hopefully increase hispanic and women support. It might work to a degree, but it will be offset by the tax issue.

The problem is that Rubio/Fiorina is no better than what the Dems offer. They are all indebted to Wall Street and K Street. So nothing will really change.

What the GOP is ignoring is that with Rubio/Fiorina, once again a large part of the GOP electorate will stay home and not vote. I will be one of them. Why vote if nothing will change? It is all the Uni-Party.

With my post yesterday, I am really coming to the conclusion that the GOP would prefer to lose the Presidency again. After all, we all recognize that the next 4 years are fraught with economic danger, homeland security dangers, and society dangers caused by the ethnic divide. The next President will face all of these issues and reality suggests that there will be no easy solution.

Would you want to be President for the next four years, or eight and be responsible for handling what is coming? I would not...........and I bet that the GOP actually feels the same way.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/09/30/after-professing-disgust-for-trump-these-hillary-supporters-learn-they-just-endorsed-his-tax-plan/

[ppulatie]

CD,

Kimmel proves the other part of the problem with politics.

People are STUPID!!!  They are conditioned by the government, the schools and the media to one particular belief system  and will not consider other alternatives. Just take into consideration what is said about Congress.

"They are all crooks. They only look out for themselves. They should be voted out of office. But, my Congress Critter is GOOD! He/she is the only reputable one."

We are so screwed................

[ppulatie]

Interesting listening in line at the local supermarket this morning. People were talking about the Trump Tax Plan. 7 people for it, some because they would no longer pay taxes on the income they have, others because it would help the economy, and 2 people against it because others would not be paying taxes at all.

A fight almost broke out..........

[DougMacG]

Interesting listening in line at the local supermarket this morning. People were talking about the Trump Tax Plan. 7 people for it, some because they would no longer pay taxes on the income they have, others because it would help the economy, and 2 people against it because others would not be paying taxes at all.

A fight almost broke out..........

He has brought two big issues to the public awareness.  Maybe he has accomplished something big and positive whether he wins the nomination or not.

"... and 2 people against it because others would not be paying taxes at all."

It shouldn't be presented as millions of people paying nothing at all.  It really is that everyone's first dollars are earned tax free - helping people to move above and beyond that minimum level.

[Crafty_Dog]

 By Daniel Henninger
Sept. 30, 2015 7:44 p.m. ET
654 COMMENTS

The oddest moment in the second GOP debate was when the first thing Donald Trump did was to launch an assault on Sen. Rand Paul, who was standing about three miles away at the end of the podiums: “Well, first of all, Rand Paul shouldn’t even be on this stage. He’s number 11, he’s got 1% in the polls, and how he got up here, there’s far too many people anyway.” Ummm, what was that all about?

Since that Sept. 16 debate, as measured by the RealClearPolitics polling average, Mr. Trump has lost about a quarter of his support, down to 23% from 30% on the eve of the debate. In this week’s Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, he is at 21%.

It’s not going to get better. The Trump numbers are going to drift sideways, or fall.

A few weeks ago, Mr. Trump tweeted that getting his business out of Atlantic City before the casinos collapsed was “great timing.” The moment has come for the timing master to recognize it’s Atlantic City all over again. For his phenomenal presidential campaign, it’s time to go.

In politics, there’s that famous thing known as Big Mo—momentum. Donald Trump had Big Mo like no one’s ever seen. It’s gone. The odds are he’ll soon be in second or third place, behind someone he insulted as a loser, as the heartless, mocking media will note. He’s not going to enjoy not being on top.

Politics is about winning at the margin. It is about securing a base of voter support and then finding ways to attract additional voters at the margin. In the highly partisan presidential elections since 2000, the Republican and Democratic nominees both have had a base vote rotating in the mid-40s. Then the candidates have to add marginal votes toward the 50% threshold. (In 2000, with third-party candidate Ralph Nader getting 3%, George W. Bush and Al Gore both finished with about 48%, hanging chads and a generation of political bitterness.)

The Trump candidacy is pure base, and Mr. Trump has not built out from that base, which topped out at about 30%. It’s become obvious that this third of angry conservative voters is volatile. Mr. Trump’s famous support base has eroded, dispersing to the other outsider candidates, Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina.

More important, it is now clear that Mr. Trump is personally incapable of doing what is necessary to expand beyond his early burst of support. The tax plan he released this week, admirable as a broad outline, is supposed to show he’s getting serious. That’s the problem. His core base didn’t want that kind of serious.

Even at the level of performance art, what’s happening now is the slow-motion disintegration of “Trump.” His candidacy is detouring into weird and confusing fights, such as the “boycott” of Fox News. News reports on the Trump candidacy increasingly note remarks from admirers who essentially say: I really like that he tells it like it is, but I’m not sure he’s a good fit for the presidency.

The pace of volatility in contemporary politics is unprecedented, as a 74-year-old Vermont socialist is revealing to the preordained candidacy of Hillary Clinton. That the improbable Mr. Trump could rise and then flatline in so little time is startling but not surprising. What Mr. Trump ought to recognize is that his place in the 2015 moment—his political legacy—is secure, unless he lets it evaporate.

Donald Trump was the first person to tap into the zeitgeist of disgust coursing through politics everywhere. The fed-up voters of Guatemala have just made a TV comedian with no political experience the top finisher in their first-round presidential vote. In Spain, a referendum last Sunday revealed many in Catalonia would jump off the political cliff to separate from Madrid, their version of despised Washington.

In the 1996 presidential campaign, the Republican nominee, Sen. Bob Dole, coined a political phrase for the ages: “Where’s the outrage?” That’s the question a lot of Republican voters were asking themselves about their declared presidential candidates earlier this year: Where’s the outrage? With Donald Trump’s June 16 presidential announcement, they finally got it.

Mr. Trump’s singular personality is simply at odds with the political skills necessary to carry that mood any further than his mere arrival accomplished. His support is moving to candidates who are variations on the Trump theme. What people saw and heard in Carly Fiorina was your basic straight-razor woman. Her rage looks to be about one degree below boiling. Ben Carson radiates an intelligent everyman’s bemusement at a gridlocked system.

When the primaries arrive early next year, the Trump vote will subdivide further among the other Republican tortoises. If he stays in, Donald Trump becomes another presidential also-ran. With ostentation suitable to his stature, Mr. Trump should retire to a skybox, and enjoy what he has wrought.

Write to henninger@wsj.com

[ppulatie]

is this the 6th time Trump has been declared finished? The 20th?

Henninger should look at the latest polls and not just CNN or NBC.  Their results are completely different than what is otherwise being reported.

That said, the new post on the Primaries I am working on will show how Jeb will still be the nominee. (Maybe Rubio.)

[Crafty_Dog]

http://nypost.com/2015/10/01/trump-ill-drop-presidential-run-if-i-fall-behind-in-polls/?utm_source=jolt&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Jolt10022015&utm_term=Jolt

[ppulatie]

See my last post on the GOP thread how Rubio/Jeb will win the nomination even though Trump wins and might have greater support.

[Body-by-Guinness]

Somin nails it:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/10/04/trump-polls-immigration-taxes-column/72755896/

[Crafty_Dog]

I'm not a big Trump fan, but IMHO that article is rather snide (which is fine) and emotionally self-indulgent.  There is more to Trump I think than for which the author gives him credit.

[ppulatie]

Actually, the author was really going after the Trump supporter. We are now ignorant along with all the other things we are called.

All I know is that there is a huge disconnect between the middle class and the "sexual intellectuals".

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.facebook.com/frienddogstudios/videos/1627096487540629/

[ppulatie]

I am the guy sitting next to him.

[DougMacG]

A limo parking lot for a privately held casino is equal to building a public highway?

This will be a major contributor to his eventual downfall, and you heard it here (almost) first.

He will never be my candidate with this view.  Supreme Court appointments are perhaps the President's most powerful duty, above CinC, in the big government era we have created.  Big Government Power and Crony Government Power is something this non-conservative wants more of.

"for instance you're going to create thousands of jobs" ...   Ends Justify Means.

Just happens to be false in his two prominent examples, Pfizer in New London and casinos in Atlantic City.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/10/06/trump_eminent_domain_wonderful.html

"I think eminent domain is wonderful if you're building a highway and you need to build as an example, a highway, and you're going to be blocked by a hold-out or in some cases, it's a hold-out, just so you understand, nobody knows this better than I do, I built a lot of buildings in Manhattan and you'll have 12 sites and you'll get 11 and you'll have the one hold-out and you end up building around them and everything else," Trump said Tuesday on Special Report.

"I think eminent domain for massive projects, for instance you're going to create thousands of jobs and you have somebody that's in the way. Eminent domain, they get a lot of money," Trump said. "And you need a house in a certain location because you're going to build this massive development that's going to employ thousands of people or you're going to build a factory that without this little house, you can't build the factory. I think eminent domain is fine."

[G M]

Doug,

This country is past the tipping point, so it really doesn't matter.

[Crafty_Dog]

Except for the Eminent Domain/Kelo discussion, IMHO Trump's interview with Bret Baier showed an improving candidate.

I was glad to hear him mention for the first time that Bush handed over a decent situation to Baraq in Iraq and that had Baraq not thrown it away that things would be very different now.

That said, as Steve Hayes and Charles K. said in the panel discussion, part of Trump's appeal is that he is seen as looking out for the middle class and the working class, but his behavior and position here is pure crony capitalist and as such it runs contrary to the narrative in his favor and therefore could have a surprising amount of negative consequence for him.

[ppulatie]

I was just going to post this for Doug.  

Some  questions:

Is the use of Imminent Domain ever acceptable when a Private Company is concerned? What about the Public Benefit that occurs with a shopping center, a casino, a hospital, etc? After all, such projects do create jobs. Furthermore, they add to the tax base in far greater dollar amounts that a single home could offer.

What happens when a single homeowner is the only holdout of a project with immense public benefit? That homeowner does not want to sell under any circumstances, no matter what the price?

Every case must be considered based upon the merits of the situation. It is not a one size fits all situation.

As to CD's comments about the negative consequences, Imminent Domain is a subject that matters only to a small minority of politically astute people. It pales in comparison to Immigration, Taxes and other things.

In fact, I would suggest that if Imminent Domain was the "deal-breaker", then Trump would not get those votes anyway.

[DougMacG]

Doug,

This country is past the tipping point, so it really doesn't matter.

In order to turn the country around, you would have to cause the few remaining non-radicalized Dems and newcomers to this country to actually remember and understand what originally made this country great and change their lives and their voting accordingly.  To do anything near that in the face of media, primary education and higher education who have all become 99% radicalized is perhaps, as GM says, past the tipping point.

Our job is to take our best shot at reversing course in the time that we have.  Getting behind someone who made his fortune in big government cronyism and doubles down on it now won't ever get us there.

'I will build the best, biggest, most powerful and efficient, crony government the world has ever seen.'  - Donald Trump (translated)

[G M]

Better to invest your energy into preparing you and yours for what is coming.

Doug,

This country is past the tipping point, so it really doesn't matter.

In order to turn the country around, you would have to cause the few remaining non-radicalized Dems and newcomers to this country to actually remember and understand what originally made this country great and change their lives and their voting accordingly.  To do anything near that in the face of media, primary education and higher education who have all become 99% radicalized is perhaps, as GM says, past the tipping point.

Our job is to take our best shot at reversing course in the time that we have.  Getting behind someone who made his fortune in big government cronyism and doubles down on it now won't ever get us there.

'I will build the best, biggest, most powerful and efficient, crony government the world has ever seen.'  - Donald Trump (translated)

[DougMacG]

I was just going to post this for Doug.  

Some  questions:

Is the use of Imminent Domain ever acceptable when a Private Company is concerned? What about the Public Benefit that occurs with a shopping center, a casino, a hospital, etc? After all, such projects do create jobs. Furthermore, they add to the tax base in far greater dollar amounts that a single home could offer.

What happens when a single homeowner is the only holdout of a project with immense public benefit? That homeowner does not want to sell under any circumstances, no matter what the price?

Every case must be considered based upon the merits of the situation. It is not a one size fits all situation.

As to CD's comments about the negative consequences, Imminent Domain is a subject that matters only to a small minority of politically astute people. It pales in comparison to Immigration, Taxes and other things.

In fact, I would suggest that if Imminent Domain was the "deal-breaker", then Trump would not get those votes anyway.

"Every case must be considered based upon the merits of the situation. It is not a one size fits all situation."

   - Every case must be considered and decided BY WHOM?  is the question.  The final decision of private property ownership transactions is the 5 person city council in my town or the 13 person (all Dem) city council in Minneapolis, etc.?  Superior, big government, central planning allied with the largest private interests is what made America great?

No, it was the amazing aggregate wisdom of all the individual participants in a mostly free market that made this country exceptional.

The Kelo decision isn't on everyone radar screen.  But it will be when Trump starts receiving return fire for his own attacks.


Ten Nine years after the Supreme Court’s Kelo decision gutted the right of American property owners to resist eminent-domain seizures, the neighborhood at the center of the case remains a wasteland.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/370441/nine-years-after-kelo-seized-land-empty-alec-torres

Bankrupt Trump Plaza Casino Closes in Atlantic City
http://www.ykabankruptcy.com/bankrupt-trump-plaza-casino-closes-in-atlantic-city/

These are his examples of smart growth.  Yes, I oppose that - even when it appears to succeed.

Even if you favor big government cronyism, we already have a party for that.  What we are looking for is an alternative.

[DougMacG]

Under what reading of equal protection under the law does government get the power to prefer one private interest over another?

[ppulatie]

Doug,

Let's look at why the development did not occur.  Pfizer backed out and the developer could not get financing. How much of this was caused by the litigation and the length of time, publicity, etc? If Kelo had not challenged the development, would it have occurred?  Nothing exists in a vacuum.

From Wikipedia. (I know about its credibility.)

Following the decision, many of the plaintiffs expressed an intent to find other means by which they could continue contesting the seizure of their homes.[9] Soon after the decision, city officials announced plans to charge the residents of the homes for back rent for the five years since condemnation procedures began. The city contended that the residents have been on city property for those five years and owe tens of thousands of dollars of rent. In June 2006, Governor M. Jodi Rell intervened with New London city officials, proposing the homeowners involved in the suit be deeded property in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood so they may retain their homes.[10] A group of New London residents formed a local political party, One New London, to combat the takings. While unsuccessful in gaining control of the New London City Council, they gained two seats and continue to try to gain a majority in the New London City Council to rectify the Ft. Trumbull takings.[citation needed]

The controversy was eventually settled when the city paid substantial additional compensation to the homeowners and agreed to move Kelo’s home to a new location.[11] The land was never deeded back to the original homeowners, most of whom have left New London for nearby communities.[2] Three years after the Supreme Court case was decided, the Kelo house was dedicated after being relocated to 36 Franklin Street, a site close to downtown New London.[12] Susette Kelo, however, has moved to a different part of Connecticut.

In spite of repeated efforts, the redeveloper (who stood to get a 91-acre (370,000 m2) waterfront tract of land for $1 per year) was unable to obtain financing, and the redevelopment project was abandoned. As of the beginning of 2010, the original Kelo property was a vacant lot, generating no tax revenue for the city.[2] In the aftermath of 2011's Hurricane Irene, the now-closed New London redevelopment area was turned into a dump for storm debris such as tree branches and other vegetation.[13] As of February 2014, it was still vacant.[14][15]

Pfizer, whose employees were supposed to be the clientele of the Fort Trumbull redevelopment project, completed its merger with Wyeth, resulting in a consolidation of research facilities of the two companies. Pfizer chose to retain the Groton campus on the east side of the Thames River, closing its New London facility in late 2010 with a loss of over 1000 jobs. That coincided with the expiration of tax breaks on the New London site that would have increased Pfizer's property tax bill by almost 400 percent.[16][17]

After the Pfizer announcement, the San Francisco Chronicle in its lead editorial called the Kelo decision infamous:

The well-laid plans of redevelopers, however, did not pan out. The land where Susette Kelo's little pink house once stood remains undeveloped. The proposed hotel-retail-condo "urban village" has not been built. And earlier this month, Pfizer Inc. announced that it is closing the $350 million research center in New London that was the anchor for the New London redevelopment plan, and will be relocating some 1,500 jobs.[18]

The Chronicle editorial quoted from The New York Times:

"They stole our home for economic development," ousted homeowner Michael Cristofaro told the New York Times. "It was all for Pfizer, and now they get up and walk away."[18]

The final cost to the city and state for the purchase and bulldozing of the formerly privately held property was $78 million.[19] The promised 3,169 new jobs and $1.2 million a year in tax revenues had not materialized. As of 2014 the area remains an empty lot.[20]

[G M]

For something that is in the government's interest, meaning in the public's interest, there can be an argument for seizing a person's property. Say for the purposes of national defense. This is quite different that seizing the property of a citizen for the profit of a well connected fatcat.

[ppulatie]

Under what reading of equal protection under the law does government get the power to prefer one private interest over another?

This is the question. Does equal protection mean that there is never a government power to act in a private interest? Is this even in the event that a Private Interest benefits the Public Interest significantly?

These are questions that will always generate huge debate. And there are no easy answers.

What if Kelo was a private hospital being built that would benefit a community that had no hospital?  Would this make a difference? (Actually this reminds me of my childhood. Lived in Sapulpa Oklahoma. Back in about 1962, the local hospital, Bartlett Hospital, needed to expand to meet the community needs. It had to take at least a square city block. What if one homeowner refused to sell. Would Imminent Domain be acceptable when the health of the community was considered?

Again, each case must be taken on its own merits.

[G M]

A hospital where there is none is one thing. A mall or sporting venue is quite different. We must get away from the government picking winners.

[G M]

https://www.stlouisfed.org/Publications/Regional-Economist/April-2001/Should-Cities-Pay-for-Sports-Facilities

[ppulatie]

But what about a shopping center? Building it would create thousands of jobs over 2-3 years. Thousands of jobs would be added after completion of the center with the new stores coming in. Millions would be added to the tax base yearly.

Does the interest of one person outweigh the benefit to the community in such a case?  If so, how would this impact future developments if one person did not want to see any development and refused to sell?  Tough questions............

As to Sports Facilities.....usually that is put up as a referendum for the public to vote on. Just because it may not be as financially beneficial as another use for the funds does not invalidate it if the public agrees.

Hmmm, maybe a public vote for ED actions when a private use is considered? And if the public votes for it, does that mean the affected homeowners cannot challenge, especially if it is just one person who does not want to sell?

[DougMacG]

There is no tyranny worse than the tyranny of the majority.  No, I don't want my private property rights (did we even agree there are any?) put up for a vote.

Proponents keep saying hospital and highway, but the issue is private development.  Why is there no way the developer can entice the homeowner to sell willingly?

Hospitals are public use in a different way than malls and casinos.

[ppulatie]

Just a note. The key determination is the definition of Public Use. Using the definition and cases below, Kelo and other cases like the Casino would fit the Public Use definition.  Pe

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/eminent+domain

Public Use - The third element, public use, requires that the property taken be used to benefit the public rather than specific individuals. Whether a particular use is considered public is ordinarily a question to be determined by the courts. However, if the legislature has made a declaration about a specific public use, the courts will defer to legislative intent (Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229, 104 S. Ct. 2321, 81 L. Ed. 2d 186 [1984]). Further, "[t]he legislature may determine what private property is needed for public purpose … but when the taking has been ordered, then the question of compensation is judicial" (Monongahela Navigation Co. v. United States, 148 U.S. 312, 13 S. Ct. 622, 37 L. Ed. 463 [1893]).

To determine whether property has been taken for public use, the courts first determined whether the property was to be used by a broad segment of the general public. The definition of public use was later broadened to include anything that benefited the public, such as trade centers, municipal civic centers, and airport expansions. The U.S. Supreme Court continued to expand the definition of public use to include aesthetic considerations. In Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26, 75 S. Ct. 98, 99 L. Ed. 27 (1954), the Court ruled that slums could be cleared in order to make a city more visually attractive. The Court in Berman stated further that it is within legislative power to determine whether a property can be condemned solely to beautify a community.

State courts have also expanded the definition of public use. The Michigan Supreme Court even allowed property to be condemned for the private use of the General Motors Company, under the theory that the public would benefit from the economic revitalization a new plant would bring to the community (Poletown Neighborhood Council v. City of Detroit, 410 Mich. 616, 304 N. W. 2d 455 [1981]).

As to your most recent comment about enticing the homeowner to sell willingly, almost always there have been attempts to do just that..........but there are simply some people who are stubborn and will not sell under any circumstances. Others use the refusal to sell to jack up the price beyond all reason as sort of an extortion attempt. So when either of these happen, does one just stop the project?

[G M]

Do people have a right to demand any price they wish for whatever they own?

[ppulatie]

They can demand whatever price they want...............sure.  But there has to be some reason to it.

Remember, these types of cases go on for years. The cost to litigate climbs into the millions rather quickly. Would a developer prefer to not have those costs? Also, what happens if a developer pays a highly inflated price? The next person demands even more and so forth. Where does it end?

Reminds me of a case I was recently involved in. Value of the property was $200k. I calculated damages to the borrower for improper practices at about $40k. The lender did not want to go to court so they asked what the homeowner wanted for a reasonable settlement. They told their attorney to ask for $5m. The lender puked and said let's go to trial. I was asked to then testify to damages of $5m. When the case ended, the homeowner was awarded damages of $7,500.

I cite this case because this is how unreasonable things could get in ED cases by a single homeowner holdout.

[G M]

No, there does not need to be a reason beyond the internal reason of the lawful owner. Not if you want to live in a society where liberty is a real value.

[DougMacG]

"....but there are simply some people who are stubborn and will not sell under any circumstances. Others use the refusal to sell to jack up the price beyond all reason as sort of an extortion attempt. So when either of these happen, does one just stop the project."

Yes.  And what if I want my new house built where their small sits and they 'stubbornly' refuse to sell?  Again, choose between equal protection under the law, and tyranny.  WHO decides

How come proponents of big government cronyism never propose AMENDING the constitution instead of just running roughshod over it?

4th amendment in part:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable seizures, shall not be violated...

Yes, what if I stubbornly don't want to move or have time commitments for the next couple of years that don't allow me to do that in a orderly way?  I should cancel my life plans for the best interests of Government Motors.  Only if I lose elections because I'm not voting for a government command economy.

Kelo takings and major league sports teams getting special treatment that the rest of us can't get are actually areas where conservatives and true liberals agree.  Why not lock in and grow that agreement rather than piss it all away in the false promise of a better economy brought to you by superior, central planning?

This is a fundamental difference between Trump and liberty seeking free markets conservatives - like the founders.

A Pfizer or General Motors plant is not public use - even if both already have an inbreeding of crony government collaboration.  A key part of competitive business expansion planning is the acquisition of real estate to expand.   Valuable land goes to General Motors instead of a bakery because that is best use - based on their willingness to pay the highest price for the parcels.  Only in a dictatorial, socialist country is private business land acquisition (an oxynoron) a government function.  Oops, now I understand ...

NEVER answered is where else to draw the line that effectively prevents abuse if not to honor the words and meaning of the constitution.

[ppulatie]

Like I said, there are never any answers to these types of questions.

We leave it up to the Courts to decide based upon the Constitutiion, Bill of Rights, Common Law interpretations and statutory law and then hope that they can unravel the mess.

A problem that I have resolving is that the Constitution was written in a time and period that is radically different that what exists today. Does that mean that the interpretation can never change to meet today's needs, and then as you suggest, amending it through the Bill of Rights, which as we know is probably a losing proposition? Or can the Courts interpret it to meet the new challenges.

One thing I have discussed with attorneys about the financial crisis is Innovation and Law. For example:

In the financial arena, financial innovations  such as loan securitization, MERS, derivatives and other instruments push the boundaries of the law into areas that have not existed before, or else it challenges existing law. (I have directly seen this with securitization and MERS.) The innovations are such that current law is not properly equipped to handle the innovations, so Courts must interpret and rule, often making new law. For the "traditionalists", this represents overreach, but for the innovators, this represents an evolving of the law.

In the case of Kelo and other ED decisions, this may very well be occurring. ED was generally not an issue prior to the urbanization of the country. But with urbanization, especially in the bigger cities, land becomes a premium. Finding usable land for projects both private and public is difficult to acquire in areas that the projects could benefit the Public Interest. And even one person could stop the project from occurring just by refusing to sell. This would hurt not just the Public Interest, but also all other homeowners involved who could not sell their properties to benefit their own interests.

Now, with the different urbanization situation, the Courts must step in and decide what is correct. 

No easy answers and lots of controversy to continue...

[Crafty_Dog]

"Under what reading of equal protection under the law does government get the power to prefer one private interest over another?"

Exactly so.

As far as I am concerned this is all that matters.  Pat's logic here is the one of crony capitalism, fascist economics (state direction of the private sector/means of production etc.) and is thoroughly mistaken IMHO.

[ppulatie]

CD,

I am trying to figure out how to respond to your post. I just cannot accept that there can never be a position whereby the private interest of one person could not be infringed upon when another's private action could benefit to the rest of a community.  This just seems too black and white.

Guess I am just a crony capitalist and fascist economics supporter....

[ppulatie]

One final comment:

If the 5th Amendment Private Property Rights Section is inviolate, then my question must be:

1. Why is the 2nd Amendment not inviolate? Why discriminate against felons, the mentally disturbed, etc? Why can't a person own an rpg, fully automatic machine gun, etc?

2. Why is Freedom of Speech not inviolate? Why can I not yell Fire in a crowded theater?

3. Why is the Search and Seizure provision not inviolate?

One can argue that the Courts keep getting it wrong, or it is government overreach in each and every case, but there has to be circumstances when a private interest becomes for the public good.

And that is my final comment.

[DougMacG]

When you look at one Suzette Kelo, one Vera Coking, one Nancy MacG, each individually standing in the way of progress, it looks kind of silly and petty versus getting the immense public benefit of a new Pfizer facility, a new Trump parking lot or new yuppie housing where none existed before, but that is not the issue.  

When you look at the aggregate of EVERYONE having the right to feel safe and secure in their home all their life, especially against the threat posed by their own government, that is an enormously valuable liberty, bigger than the Mall of America and Coors field combined - by many times.  That is what separates us from the third world countries and what separates us from the tyrannical regime of Iran or the fascist regime of Nazi Germany.  Having that enshrined in the constitution means that no simple majority can ever take that away from us - although one Justice Kennedy in a room full of liberals can.


"Guess I am just a crony capitalist and fascist economics supporter...."


Joking aside, this isn't personal.  Even if you don't see it this way, I think it is important for you to know how strongly other people see it.  You've seen good projects get done and the rest of us have seen small people get trampled on.  Those people who do get all militant about property rights tend on the side of the political spectrum where Donald Trump is trying to build his coalition.  

We just lost a Presidential election and two of the reasons for that loss were that our candidate couldn't make the case for important conservative principles.  He couldn't advocate his economic plan including tax cuts because he was rich and couldn't make the case against Obamacare because of his own Romneycare.  Now as we try to swing slightly back in the direction of founding principles, individual rights and limits on government, our front runner is a bigger advocate for expanding government power than every Supreme Court liberal we have seen.   Trump courting conservatives is not a good fit.  He can go the way of JEB who said he can win the general election (as a Republican) without winning the base.  Good luck with that.
-------------------------------

To the final point, those who have seen their 2nd amendment rights chipped away, the first, the 9th, the 14th, those who saw the Court in Wickard Filburn define growing wheat for your own cattle as interstate commerce, etc. are READY for a fight.  None of that is an excuse to erode rights further.  In fact any further imagined encroachment might set off a political firestorm. The reaction some talk about goes a beyond voting...

[Body-by-Guinness]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/07/donald-trump-claims-taking-of-property-for-private-development-is-not-taking-property/