2008 Financial Crisis, Government Responsibility

Peter J Wallison’s book, “Hidden in Plain Sight: what really caused the world’s worst financial crisis and why it could happen again” was a fascinating read.

He is an eminent economist and member of the committee to investigate the 2008 crisis, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_J._Wallison.

Did the banks, mortgage companies, mortgage brokers contribute to the crisis? Without a doubt, yes. Were they totally responsible, absolutely not!

The role of government has been disregarded by the press and Congress. The private sector has had all the bad press, and they deserved some of it. But, Government deserves at least as much criticism, and both parties share in this criticism.

Government created the petri dish that this crisis grew in, as one of the leaders has admitted after retiring.  Barney Frank has admitted the policies to increase home ownership rates resulted in unintended consequences, the crisis of 2008, page 25…

If you read the book you cannot deny the conclusion, the data and evidence from those interviewed is overwhelming. Why is it not publicized, well, when the committee was formed by President Obama the makeup of the committee was not bi-partisan-chapter 3-eighty staff members total and one assigned to the republican members: six democrats and four republicans. Should it not have been half and half?

The lack of condemnation of government actions is infuriating to me. But the end of the book talks about this mess could happen again.

We are all entitled to our opinions, but not to our facts. This book is fact filled, please read, please contact your representative.

Problem solver caucus

The No Labels organization has been around for a number of years, Jon Huntsman and Joe Lieberman being the headliners; they promote bi-partisanship in our Congress, https://www.nolabels.org/.

Recently thirty or so congressmen formed the problem solver caucus, with equal numbers of republicans and democrats, to promote bipartisanship.

The PEW Trust did a study 2 years ago that detailed the drift from the center, by both sides in equal measures.

Tired of the caterwauling in DC? Look into the National Strategic Agenda promoted by the caucus, all ideas with surveyed data, bi-partisan support.

The following article appeared in the WSJ on March 29th.

How Trump Can Break the Gridlock

Bill Galston, WSJ, March 28

Donald Trump wasn’t elected to perpetuate the ideologically driven gridlock of the past six years. But his decision to pursue a one-party approach on health care threatened to do just that. Now that this approach has failed, however, Mr. Trump has an opportunity to begin again with a more inclusive strategy, as many members of his own party are urging.

Pennsylvania Rep. Charlie Dent, a leader of the center-right Republican Tuesday Group, told NBC on Sunday that “in order to reform health care in this country, we are going to have to do it in a durable, sustainable way and in a bipartisan manner.”

Ohio’s Gov. John Kasich declared the same day on CNN that “you cannot have major changes in major programs affecting things like health care without including Democrats from the very beginning.” Mr. Kasich placed this point in a broader context: “The Republicans tried to do it with just Republicans. It doesn’t work like that in our country. We are not a parliamentary system.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham, speaking Saturday at a town hall in Columbia, S.C., said that what should happen next is that “the president should reach out to Democrats, I should reach out to Democrats, and we should say ‘Let’s get a shot at doing this together, because it ain’t working doing it by ourselves.’ ” Maine’s Sen. Susan Collins expressed optimism about this strategy: “With the demise of the House bill, there’s a real window of opportunity for a bipartisan approach to health care.”

Why didn’t the House Freedom Caucus support the GOP health bill? “I have no idea,” Mick Mulvaney, President Trump’s budget director, told NBC on Sunday. “I know the Freedom Caucus. I helped found it. I never thought it would come to this.” Mr. Mulvaney must have slept through the events that culminated in John Boehner’s resignation.

The question now is whether the Trump administration will allow its entire agenda to be held hostage by a minority faction of Republicans who will accept nothing less than policy purity—as they define it. This is the inevitable consequence of trying to legislate with the votes of only one party. But there are signs that the White House is contemplating a course correction. “This president is not going to be a partisan president,” Chief of Staff Reince Priebus told Fox News. “It’s time to potentially get a few moderate Democrats on board.”

It is not clear, however, that Mr. Priebus understands the implications of his statement. Real bipartisanship means getting the parties together around a table at the beginning of the legislative process. Asking Democrats to sign on to bills that Republicans have already drafted won’t work; not enough of them will break ranks to change the dynamic.

In today’s polarized climate, real bipartisanship needs to make it impossible for the most intransigent forces to veto potential agreements. This means building coalitions from the center out, beginning with the forces in both parties that do not reject the very legitimacy of compromise.

If the White House gets serious about this approach, it won’t need to start from scratch. Thirty-six representatives, evenly balanced between Democrats and Republicans, have formed the independent Problem Solvers Caucus, co-chaired by New Jersey Democrat Josh Gottheimer and New York Republican Tom Reed. (Full disclosure: I am a co-founder of No Labels, a bipartisan group that some years ago set in motion the process that led eventually to the formation of this caucus.)

Many of these elected officials have been working together across party lines for years and can boast some modest legislative successes. Now they are developing common approaches to many of the forthcoming issues, beginning with the resolution to continue government funding beyond its current expiration date of April 28.

On Feb. 8, all 36 Problem Solvers sent President Trump a letter requesting a meeting to discuss where they could work together with his administration. The signatories pointed out that “the most consequential and long-lasting reforms are usually bipartisan, from the passage of Social Security and Medicare to the last time comprehensive tax reform in 1986 was achieved.”

They declared their willingness to begin working immediately with the White House on tax reform and infrastructure legislation. “Addressing either issue on a broad bipartisan basis,” they said, could “give a significant boost to our economy and provide Americans with confidence that government can work for them.” As Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R., Ill.), a member of the Problem Solvers, recently said: “I think that’s going to have to be the new coalition.”

If Mr. Trump wants a strategy that can break the gridlock and promote the common good, he knows where he can start.

 

Dieselgate Is a Political Disaster

The above is the title of an OP-ED in the WSJ, 2/15/17 by Homan Jenkins, Jr.

In the late 90’s Europe decided to convert passenger cars to diesel, after Kyoto. The result, as estimated .004 reduction in temperature, (how can you estimate to that specificity boggles my mind-my comment) and noticeably dirty air due to soot and nitrogen oxide. How did that happen?

Scientists all agreed that this was the right thing to do. I guess they all got in a hot tub and bought into group think.  But wait, scientists rely on data correct?  They invite opposing opinions and do their best to remain objective, correct? They encourage multiple tests measuring results and comparing to their assumptions, correct?

Well a funny thing happened on the way to consensus. Opinions got in the way and objectivity was lost. Big government got involved throwing money around and those who objected were called names, careers ruined and the news media heaped more on the pile.

So, what has VW done in the aftermath of dieselgate? First it will cost them $25 billion. So, they have, “..adopted a set of faddish promises to invest in electric cars, ride-sharing and the new’mobility economy.’ All this was cover for the real agenda–a big pay hike and fresh promises for job security for union workers. It currently takes VW twice the man hours to build a car than Toyota.”

How many more examples do we need to recognize, “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” R Reagan. Bill Clinton disagreed, but the evidence and data tells a different story. Oh wait, evidence and data matter not, group think does!

 

Senator Warren. In favor of school vouchers. 2003

In “Notable & Quotable” from 2/6/17 WSJ. “The Two-Income Trap: Why are Middle-Class Parent Are (Still) Going Broke,” a book by Elizabeth Warren and Anielia Tyagi.

“A well designed voucher program would fit the bill neatly. A taxpayer funded voucher that paid the entire cost of education a child would open a range of opportunities to all children…Fully funded vouchers would relieve parents from the terrible choice of leaving kids in lousy schools or bankrupting themselves to escape those schools.”

Hmmmm, I guess the senator has evolved her thinking some.  Betsy DeVos is proposing vouchers as one of her primary policy offerings in the next four years. Senator Warren voted against Ms. DeVos.

Yale, Calhoun College

Yale has renamed Calhoun College Grace Hopper College. Mr. Calhoun was a white “supremacist” according to Peter Salovey, president of the University. Mr. Calhoun owned slaves.

According the WSJ article, “Yale’s Inconsistency Name-Dropping” by Roger Kimball, other colleges namesakes did also. Timothy Dwight, Benjamin Silliman, Ezra Stiles, John Davenport, Johnathon Edwards all owned slaves, all have colleges names after them.

Now the big one, Elihu Yale, who gave 800 pounds to help start the college also owned slaves, and according to history accounts treated them poorly, hung a stable boy for stealing a horse,  and was fired from a post in India for corruption. The same history books tell of Calhoun’s kind treatment.

None of us are without sin. I hope one day a grandchild of mine gets into Yale, and my wife and I are providing the funds, and we convince our kids to tell Yale to stuff it. What a waste of time and money, $46,000 a year in just tuition, ouch.

Cory Booker, this is amazing!

From “Notables and Quotable” in the WSJ.

2012. Cory Booker speaking to a conference of American Federation for Children, the organization Betsy DeVos ran.

“I cannot ever stand up and stand against a parent having options, because I benefited from my parents having options. And when people tell me they’re against school choice whether its’ the Opportunity Scholarship Act, or CHARTER (my emphasis) schools, I look at them and say:”As soon as you’re telling me you’re willing to send your kid to a failing school in my city, or in Camden or Trenton, then Ill be with you.”

“I’m going to out there fighting for my president, but he does not send his kids to DC schools.  I got a governor in the statehouse, he does not send his kids to public schools. I could all the way down to city council people in Newark, that do not send their kids–so what have we created? A system that if you’re connected, elected, have wealth and privilege you get freedom in the county? And now you want to deny to my community? No. I am  going to fight for the freedom and the liberty and the choice and the options of my  people, in the same way you will defend that right for yourself.”

When the chairperson of the organization he gave that speech to came up for a vote as Education Secretary Senator Booker voted against, AGAINST (my emphasis) her.

I guess, as the progressives say, he has evolved in his views. Like former president Obama on gay marriage, or Clinton on everything. A conservative, let’s say President Trump changes his views on an issue, say abortion. He is ________ you fill in the blanks.  He certainly hasn’t evolved per our media.

 

Climate scientists lie, again

As was widely reported, climate scientists have lied, again. Or maybe, it was just a different way of interpreting data?  Holman Jenkins wrote an op-ed in the WSJ on February 3rd, titled, “Change Would Be Healthy at U.S. Climate Agencies”.

He restates that 2016 was the warmest on record according  to NASA, except it wasn’t. The readings were within the margin of error for such measurements, that fact should have been stated versus a black and white declaration. But that isn’t the whole story, or page two as Paul Harvey used to say.

We should be concerned about climate change, the question is how much of our GDP should be dedicated to reducing gaseous output?  The difference between 2015 and 2016 is one tenth the margin of error, 1/10, 0.1. Does that warrant the headline, yes if you want to further your dreams of a carbon less future and load up the economy with very expensive energy; or no if you want to reduce emissions over time and continue to increase employment.

George Schultz and James Baker later that same week wrote an op-ed titled “A Conservative Answer to Climate Change”, again the WSJ. They propose a four step plan that in my opinion goes a long way towards the U.S. leading the world without huge government control, and also returning money to taxpayers.

Just recently a British article caused many people to cast doubt on whether temperatures are rising, Politifact ran this down and feels that is not the case.

We should reduce our emissions. All of us around the world. We also need to do it in as much of a free market method as possible since almost nothing any government does (excluding the totalitarian ones) actually produces the result needed efficiently.

Confessions of a Catholic convert to capitalism. Income Inequality. The Reality.

Arthur Brooks leads AEI, http://www.aei.org/, and penned the article below. He leads us through his spiritual journey from musician, to becoming a Catholic, to feeling a call to help those in need, to economics, to free market capitalism as a foundation for ameliorating human suffering. The article is followed by comments that agree, to those that call him evil, well not actually but close.

See the full article here. It’s worth the read.

Cory Booker, a Hypocrite, and Potential Democrat Candidate

The article below from National Review online says it all about the hoopla over Betsy DeVos.  All of you folks who have to put up with lousy schools remember this when he runs for president in 2020.

School choice, competition will help.

 

IAN TUTTLE February 8, 2017 4:43 PM @IPTUTTLE

Booker has suddenly discovered that he’s against school choice after a career spent promoting it. Cory Booker should think about consulting a physician. He seems to be suffering a severe case of amnesia. Last month, Booker became the first senator in history to testify against a colleague in a Cabinet confirmation hearing — in this case, Alabama senator Jeff Sessions, Donald Trump’s nominee for attorney general. When he was not holding back righteous tears, Booker warned that Sessions would fail to “aggressively pursue the congressional mandate of civil rights, equal rights, and justice for all,” and that he would not “bring hope and healing to our country.” Besides being a novel assessment of the duties of an attorney general, Booker’s testimony was somewhat undermined by his own comments from eleven months earlier, when he declared himself “blessed and honored to have partnered with Senator Sessions” to award the Congressional Gold Medal to participants in the 1965 Voting Rights March from Selma to Montgomery, Ala. This week, Senator Booker apparently had another memory lapse. On Tuesday, New Jersey’s junior senator cast his vote against education secretary nominee Betsy DeVos. “I’m frustrated and deeply saddened” by DeVos’s confirmation, Booker wrote on Facebook, continuing mournfully: Somewhere in America, right now, there is a child who is wondering if this country stands up for them. They are probably enduring some things I never had to endure. They are probably worried about their safety. They are probably being put in a situation where they are questioning their worth. They probably feel alone and isolated. . . .  To all those worried about their civil rights, about having equal access and opportunity to an education, please know: even if Betsy DeVos doesn’t see it as her role as a federal leader to work for your rights, equality or freedom from bullying or harassment, know that I and many others will always fight for you. Booker’s concerns about DeVos are odd — considering that he’s spent much of his career as an ardent school-choice advocate, and a supporter of . . . Betsy DeVos. In 2006, Booker was elected mayor of Newark, New Jersey’s largest city and home to its largest school system, which currently serves more than 35,000 students. In July 1995, the state had taken control of Newark’s public schools, citing gross malpractice. State officials published a 1,700-page report detailing questionable expenditures, collapsing facilities, dismal student performance, and more — in short, a long chronicle of corruption and mismanagement. Ten years on, the situation had improved little, if at all. Booker saw an opportunity in the school-choice movement. He encouraged using taxpayer funds to establish and strengthen already-existing public charter schools, as well as private and religious schools, and traveled the country soliciting help. He was a powerful advocate. In early 2009, Oprah Winfrey gave more than $1.5 million to five local nonprofits, among them a public charter school and a Catholic school; a year and a half later, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg gave the school system an extraordinary $100 million gift. Republican governor Chris Christie, finding in Booker’s education policy much to like, permitted the mayor more control over Newark’s school system than the state had permitted his predecessors. Although Booker’s efforts met with aggressive resistance from certain quarters, many Newark residents seized on the opportunity to exit the city’s traditional public schools. Currently, 14,000 students are enrolled in the city’s 20 charter schools, and enrollment has tripled in the last five years. According to a report from the Newark Education Success Board (a nine-member panel created by Christie and current Newark mayor Ras Baraka), published in August, 42 percent of Newark families selected a charter school as their first choice. A 2013 poll of 500 Newark residents found that 71 percent favored expanding the city’s charter-school system. Predictably, all of this incensed — and continues to rankle — the Newark Teachers Union, which during Booker’s 2010 reelection bid backed his unsuccessful opponent. (They have found a friendlier ear in Baraka, a fierce charter-school opponent.) Commenting on Booker’s vote against DeVos, union president John Abeignon said he was “kind of surprised,” adding: “He’s a strong advocate for school choice,” Abeigon said. “We never saw him much as a supporter of traditional public schools and don’t see him as one now.” Until this week, Booker might have described himself similarly. In fact, he was unequivocal about his position during his second mayoral term: I cannot ever stand up and stand against a parent having options, because I benefited from my parents having options. And when people tell me they’re against school choice, whether it’s the Opportunity Scholarship Act or charter schools, I look at them and say: “As soon as you’re telling me you’re willing to send your kid to a failing school in my city, or in Camden or Trenton, then I’ll be with you.” . . . I am going to fight for the freedom and the liberty and the choice and the options of my people, in the same way you will defend that right for yourself. As it happens, those remarks were delivered in 2012, at a conference of the American Federation for Children — the school-reform group founded, and at the time chaired, by Betsy DeVos. That was not Booker’s only association with the group. He spoke to AFC’s Policy Summit just last year. The senator is planning a run for the presidency in 2020, and he needs to make nice with the teachers’ unions. How it is that the woman Cory Booker viewed as an ally less than a year ago is now a threat to children’s “safety” is no particular mystery. The senator is planning a run for the presidency in 2020, and he needs to make nice with the teachers’ unions, whose outsized influence in the Democratic party is the only plausible explanation for the unprecedented anathema heaped on DeVos since her nomination was announced. (Indeed, even two union-reliant Republicans — Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski and Maine’s Susan Collins — bowed to the unions’ demands.) That his opposition to DeVos was out of keeping with his own education-policy vision Booker rationalized away by repairing to that all-purpose excuse, “civil rights.” In fact, school choice is disproportionately popular among minority groups. AFC surveyed 1,100 likely voters in January 2016: 70 percent supported school choice, defined as “giv[ing] parents the right to use the tax dollars associated with their child’s education to send their child to the public or private school which better serves their needs.” Among African Americans and Latinos, the number was 76 percent. A poll commissioned last year by the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools showed similar levels of support. Having concerned himself with these issues for some time, Booker is no doubt aware of these facts, and he didn’t forget them on Tuesday. He ignored them, and many of his constituents, and his principles. Booker’s lamentations in the wake of the vote are so much theater. What he did this week, he didn’t do for the kids. — Ian Tuttle is the Thomas L. Rhodes Fellow at the National Review Institute.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444738/cory-booker-betsy-devos-statement-hypocritical-school-choice-teachers-union-education?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily%20Trending%20Email%20Reoccurring-%20Monday%20to%20Thursday%202017-02-08&utm_term=NR5PM%20Actives

Voter Fraud Dismissed by Media, “Trump is Nuts”

“Trump’s initial comments on voter fraud came Monday during a meeting with congressional leaders, where he reiterated an unsubstantiated claim that 3 to 5 million illegal votes cost him the popular vote, according to two sources familiar with the meeting.”  This from CNN

Three to five million votes would be about 3% of those cast in 2016 (136,628,000). Every media outlet is repudiating what our president is saying; dismissing his statement and adding it to the evidence that Trump is an idiot, not fit to be president. It seems high to me also. But there seems to be some smoke in the air. Voter ID, a sensible idea, not prejudicial.

So, the WSJ on February 2d, 2017, has an editorial about a 2013 investigation in NYC by their department of investigation that looked at voter records, etc. http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doi/downloads/pdf/2013/dec13/BOE_Unit_Report12-30-2013.pdf

Page iii of this report tells what happened when 63 investigators went out to vote fraudulently, 61 were successful.  The NYC election board then wanted to prosecute them for voter fraud!  The DA did not.

National Review wrote an article in 2013, below, http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/367278/report-new-york-investigators-obtain-fraudulent-ballots-97-percent-time-john-fund

Caucasians voting where the registered voter is mixed race, a 20 year voting for a 63 year old; and it goes on. Is it five million, who knows? Do we have a problem, there certainly is smoke around up. Voter ID, not prejudicial, only sensible.

Report: New York Investigators Obtain Fraudulent Ballots 97 Percent of Time

by JOHN FUND December 31, 2013 8:25 AM @JOHNFUND

New York City’s Department of Investigation (DOI) has just shown how easy it is to commit voter fraud that is almost undetectable. Its undercover agents were able to obtain ballots for city elections a total of 61 times — 39 times using the names of dead people, 14 times using the names of incarcerated felons, and eight times using the names of non-residents. On only two occasions, or about 3 percent of the time, were the agents stopped by polling-place officials. In one of the two cases, an investigator was stopped only because the felon he was trying to vote in the name of was the son of the election official he was dealing with. Ballot security in checking birth dates or signatures was so sloppy that young undercover agents were able to vote using the name of someone three times their age who had died. As the New York Post reports: “A 24-year female was able to access the ballot at a Manhattan poll site in November under the name of a deceased female who was born in 1923 and died in April 25, 2012 — and would have been 89 on Election Day.” All of the agents who got ballots wrote in the names of fictitious candidates so as not to actually influence election outcomes. Last year, guerrilla videographer James O’Keefe sent hidden cameras into polling places around the country to demonstrate just how easy it is to commit voter fraud and how hard it is to ever know it happened. In Washington, D.C., one of his assistants was able to obtain Attorney General Eric Holder’s ballot even though Holder is 62 years old and bears no resemblance to the 22-year-old white man who obtained it by merely asking if Holder was on the rolls. In New Hampshire, poll workers handed his assistants ballots in the names of ten dead people. After a public outcry, New Hampshire’s legislature passed a photo-ID law over the veto of the state’s Democratic governor. But opponents of photo-ID laws scoffed at O’Keefe’s revelations. The Department of Justice, which is currently suing Texas to block that state’s photo-ID law, dismissed the Holder ballot incident as “manufactured.” The irony was lost on them that Holder, a staunch opponent of voter-ID laws, could have himself been disenfranchised by a white man because Washington, D.C., has no voter-ID law. Polls consistently show that more than 70 percent of Americans — including clear majorities of African Americans and Hispanics — support such laws.  An even richer irony is that it is the people Attorney General Holder purports to speak for — the poor, often minority, inner-city residents — who suffer the most from voter fraud. As law professor Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit noted: “Many of America’s largest and worst-governed cities suffer from entrenched and corrupt political machines that maintain their position in no small part via voter fraud. Corrupt machines (like that of Detroit’s disgraced ex-Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick) siphon off money that should go to essential services and instead divert it to political fatcats and their supporters.” But after O’Keefe’s stings, the elite media once again yawned and dismissed concerns about voter fraud. New York magazine asked if it were possible to organize fraudsters to go to different polling places to vote for a particular candidate. “Sure, it’s probably doable,” they concluded. “But it has never happened. . . . National Weather Service data shows that Americans are struck and killed by lightning about as often [as voter fraud happens].” But how would we know fraud had occurred if procedures are as lax as New York’s Department of Investigation found? If one of the undercover agents had cast a vote for a real candidate, would any of the dead people, felons sitting in jail, or out-of-city residents have complained? “It could be the perfect crime because once a secret ballot is cast you can’t go back and identify one that’s fraudulent,” former California secretary of state Bruce McPherson once told me. “Because it’s so hard to detect is why strong prevention measures against fraud, like clean voter rolls, voter ID, and better security on absentee ballots are vital.” The issue of dead people on the voter rolls is a real one: A 2012 study by the Pew Research Center found that nationwide that are at least 1.8 million deceased voters still registered to vote. The New York Department of Investigation’s report doesn’t address the serious issue of absentee-ballot fraud, where at least a paper trail to catch fraud can be created. But it does highlight a troubling case indicating that voter impersonation Chicago-style is still with us. The report noted that the Gothamist newspaper had reported that in New York City’s September primary election: People had attempted to vote for other registered voters at IS 71, a poll site in Williamsburg, Brooklyn. DOI spoke with four poll workers assigned to IS 71 who cited multiple instances of young men they believed were attempting to vote for other registered voters at IS 71 during the 2013 primary and additional instances during the 2013 runoff election. Two of the poll workers recalled instances where young men who appeared to be 19 or 20 years old sought to vote as registered voters who were in their thirties or sixties based on the dates of birth recorded in the registration books. One of the poll inspectors stated that she asked some individuals to confirm their dates of birth, after which they typically walked away without voting.” The city’s Board of Elections monitored that polling site for the rest of the day but how much hanky-panky could have been happening at the city’s other polling places? The DOI report paints a scathing picture of a Board of Elections chock full of political patronage employees and rife with “systemic problems with accountability, transparency and dysfunction.”   As the New York DOI report demonstrates, it is comically easy to commit voter fraud in person, and, unless someone confesses, it’s very difficult to ever detect — or stop. The Gothamist reported that police officers observed the problems at IS 71 last September but did nothing because voter fraud isn’t under the department’s purview. Opponents of photo-ID laws — which the DOI report does not address — claim they will block people from voting. But there are very few cases of legitimate voters who have been unable to have their vote counted because they lacked ID. People who show up without photo ID at the polls are allowed to cast a provisional ballot that is counted after proof of identity is offered. “From voter fraud to election chicanery of all kinds, America teeters on the edge of scandal every November,” writes Larry Sabato, the director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia and author of a comprehensive survey of voter fraud called “Dirty Little Secrets.” The fact that so many people want to thwart legitimate and prudent efforts to improve ballot integrity has become a scandal in its own right.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/367278/report-new-york-investigators-obtain-fraudulent-ballots-97-percent-time-john-fund