Monthly Archives: April 2024

Current Events

Political Passports

2 Comments

Another great one from my friend and contributor Greg, and a good one it is. As promised I have given up posting President Joe Sanders’, no that’s not a typo, nation destroying actions. So what, besides Joe’s garbage, is going on in the swamp. even though it is Saturday. They never take a day off, not even Sundays, but I do. The Lord is going to get them for that. at least I sure hope so! 

 

 

 

 

By: G. Maresca

“Your Paper’s Please.”

It is a phrase with historical Cold War overtones from the East side of the Iron Curtin. Such an introduction may find itself being exercised from sea to shining sea if the armies of government bureaucratic COVID-19 zealots get their way regarding digital vaccine passports.

Communist China that tracks its citizens and uses medical tyranny to enforce compliance was onboard as soon as a vaccine was available.

I have yet to hear a cogent and convincing argument as to why COVID-19 is different from every other virus and every other pandemic. Why was it necessary to violate Constitutional rights and close down an economy, while censoring and ridiculing anyone who questions why?

The average age of COVID death is 78, while the average life expectancy is the same. Why should any healthy person be forced to take a vaccine where the recovery rate is 99.6%? Asking children to get vaccinated when effectively 0% of those under 18 with COVID die and the vast majority are asymptomatic is totally unnecessary.

There are far deadlier diseases than COVID that require nothing by way of vaccination. How about a bar code on the forehead, or is that too much Mark-of-the-Beast?

In a dichotomy of the times, many that are against voter ID covet vaccine passports. Showing an ID to vote supposedly suppresses. A digital vaccine passport would require downloading an app to your pricy phone to prove you received a vaccine for a virus that is no deadlier than influenza where you must be tested to know you contracted it.

While certain vaccines are required for overseas (ask any member of the Armed Forces) where some deadly diseases are more common, Americans have to understand such passports are being touted as a requirement for living within the land of the free.

The Patriot Act and other post-9/11 surveillance legislation by Washington that is arguably unconstitutional have been abused beyond their initial Orwellian reach. Recall how your Social Security number would be forbidden to be used outside of Social Security. Now picture a central vaccination database administered by Uncle Sam – what could possibly go wrong?

Since the length of vaccination efficacy is still unknown, when does your digital approval expire and who decides? What about those who possess natural immunities having recovered already?

This not only violates our Constitution, HIPPA laws, and liberty regarding decisions about one’s health. You must prove you are not the leper that everyone suspects. It is the equivalent of “guilty until proven innocent.” We should respect everyone’s wishes whether they want to get vaccinated or not. America was built on individual liberty and personal responsibility.

Vaccine passports is an anathema to our democratic principles and Constitutional rights. It is an insidious overreach allowing for bureaucrats to leverage fear and control the debate and push unconstitutional policies. This would serve to maintain the culture of shutdowns and restrictions, while violating one’s privacy, and act as a gateway for nefarious players for boundless abuse.

Requiring passports would endorse more political malfeasance in a society already drowning in it. The vaccine passport is not about easing restrictions but a coercive to vaccinate. It has nothing to do with health or the science, but everything to do with power and control.

It would place access in the hands of a bureaucrat akin to a Twitter or Facebook content reviewer. Passports will create another breed of identity politics that is destroying society by pitting brother against brother, friend against friend, neighbor against neighbor.

Noncompliance would give unelected bureaucrats power to discriminate and fashion another political identity class. For those who take the shot a somewhat pre-COVID life, but for those who refuse, repression of goods and services.

Americans are an autonomous people and would recoil at the thought of any restriction on our freedoms. Today, we just shrug and continue to scroll away on our phone masked up like a preteen on Halloween.

We all know what the road to Hell is paved with.

With every vaccine is informed consent. Passports would be coercion, not informed consent.

Texas, Tennessee, Florida and Mississippi have nixed vaccine passports.

The rest of the union needs to follow suit.

I have an idea. Something I learned from my cattle mentors in MT. Ear tags. We should place a certain color ear tag in everyone upon receiving their final vaccine shot. That way, we can see at a distance who is safe and who is not.  Those with the right colored ear tag need not wear a mask. So, if you meet up with someone who does not have the right ear tag and is not wearing a mask, you can shoot him/her. Right? I mean if we are going to force controls on our citizenship n preparation for us becoming a communist nation, no amount of force and coercion is unacceptable., and we need to get on with it. What do you think Joe?

 

Originally posted 2021-05-15 12:36:55.

Recent Posts

Our Military?

5 Comments

I have given up posting stuff about the head swamp creature. Mainly because nothing he does surprises me any more and I firmly believe  that while the slime coming from his mouth may be his voice, it’s not his words. He’s simply following the orders of the other swamp creatures. So, As one of my favorite commenters stated he simply can’t rant anymore  on what “HE” says or does.  I agree. Biden is not  my president or anyone’s president for that matter. It’s President Joe “Sanders et al.” So, I shall disregard what those fools do and post on other issues such as this one. That is, of course, until he does something really earth shattering other than just stupid, which is an everyday occurrence. 

Anyway, here is a article from the Tennessee Star on an organization we all are very familiar with — our military.

Commentary: The U.S. Military Is Just Another Woke Institution

 Admin
by Paul Bradford

Tucker Carlson spurred a much-needed reexamination of the military in March. His monologue criticizing the military’s political correctness drew a more furious response from top brass than any foreign threat is likely to do. The generals’ response only affirmed Tucker’s points about the degraded state of our armed forces. Why do generals—both current and retired—feel the need to condemn civilians who question the wisdom of putting women in combat?

The answer is that the military, along with the entire national security establishment, is at one with the Democrat-Media complex. The image we have of generals and senior officers as defenders of tradition is wildly out of step with reality.

This fact is underscored by its contrast with a letter issued in France last week. The letter—signed by 20 retired generals, 80 officers, and 1,000 lower-ranking soldiers—was stridently right-wing. “The hour is late, France is in peril, threatened by several mortal dangers,” the letter states. Though retired, we remain soldiers of France, and cannot, under the present circumstances, remain indifferent to the fate of our beautiful country.”

The dangers, according to the letter, are Islamism, multiculturalism, liberal state tyranny, and anti-white and anti-French cultural currents. “Today, some speak of racialism, of indigenism, and of anti-colonial theories, but with these words, those hateful and fanatical partisans seek to foment a racial war,” the letter declares. “They despise our country, her traditions, her culture, and want to watch her dissolve by tearing her away from her past and her history. Thus, by attacking statues and analyzing words from several centuries ago, their true goal is to undermine our ancient civil and military glories.”

The letter argues that if the politicians do nothing, the military “will be forced to step in and undertake the perilous mission of protecting our civilizational values and the lives of our fellow citizens.” The letter also clearly defines France as a particular nation, a homeland with its own unique traditions and heritage. It’s not merely an idea.

The contrast between the sentiments in this letter and those of our own military leadership is like night and day. Our generals support all the things the retired French commanders denounce. Our military happily resumed critical race theory training as soon as Donald Trump left office. Senior commanders essentially endorsed Black Lives Matter and its “mostly peaceful” demonstrations last year. They view too many white Americans in the service as the problem and embrace multiculturalism. The military endorses the abolition of American heritage if it offends modern sensibilities. The Defense Department vows to root out all “right-wing extremists” from its ranks. The same Pentagon that sent soldiers to D.C. to guard against imaginary threats to Joe Biden’s inauguration refused to use soldiers to curb BLM riots in 2020. Our military refuses to step in and protect any civilizational values.

Our retired generals also like to issue letters about political issues—but they sound more like Barack Obama than staunch conservatives. Retired Marine General James Mattis, one of the most recognizable faces of the American military, published a letter last summer endorsing Black Lives Matter and condemning Trump, the president who made him Secretary of Defense. He said the military should not be used to stop riots, which he claimed were nearly all peaceful. He also said that Black Lives Matter and Antifa merely call on Americans to “live up to our values—our values as people and our values as a nation.”

After the election, Mattis wrote an op-ed urging Biden to eliminate “America First” policies. The retired general said America should instead return to globalist policies. Evidently, Mattis is not someone who considers America his homeland with its own unique traditions and character. It’s merely an “idea,” best upheld by far-Left agitators and the generals who agree with them.

Mattis wasn’t alone in publicly expressing such sentiments. Eighty-nine former defense officials signed a joint condemnation of Trump’s attempted crackdown of rioters last summer. The letter accepted BLM’s assertion that our justice system oppresses blacks.

Fifty-six retired senior officers attacked Trump for barring transgender personnel from serving in the military. “Patriotic transgender Americans who are serving—and who want to serve—must not be dismissed, deprived of medically necessary health care, or forced to compromise their integrity or hide their identity,” the 2017 letter stated.

Granted, not all current or former generals are like this. There are those like retired Lt. General Michael Flynn and others who stand with middle America against the swamp. But the military, as an institution, is reflected in these letters. You will never see 20 retired generals issue a strong statement denouncing mass immigration, critical race theory, or the state persecution of Trump supporters. Neither are you likely to see a call from those quarters for the military to protect America from domestic threats—unless those threats happen to be white and conservative.

We can see further evidence of our military’s decline in two viral media posts from last week.

The U.S. Navy apparently made history last week when the first all-gay flight crew flew its first mission. The crew wore rainbow bandanas and proudly displayed the gay pride flag.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The pictures presented a bizarre image of the military to the world.

Additionally, the CIA recently released an odd ad that may portend to future military recruitment. The ad, titled “Humans of CIA” in a nod to the popular Humans of New York blog, shows a very different CIA from its popular image.

The agent in the ad declares:

“I am a woman of color.”

“I am a cisgender millennial.”

“I have been diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder.”

“I am intersectional.”

The agent also sports a t-shirt with a raised fist. As a member of one of the most powerful institutions in the world, it’s unclear what she is raising her fist against. She is the power, not the resistance.

This is the CIA, of course. But you could see the Pentagon producing very similar ads.

Many conservatives still think of the military as an institution dramatically different from and immune to the harmful trends infecting the rest of the government. To them, the military evokes “honor” and “country,” and you can trust the troops to resist liberal tyranny. Reality paints a very different picture. While many of the troops, including senior officers, are great Americans who serve our country with honor, the institution itself no longer serves the American people as conservatives imagine. It serves the American empire controlled by liberal elites.

We can’t hope for the troops to ride in to save the day like the French military. The American military is just another corrupt institution that requires serious reform.

Paul Bradford is a Capitol Hill refugee now earning an honest living.

Check out the link below for a letter signed by  120 retired generals and admirals warning the admiration’s policies are a serious threat to national security. As a Marine, I am glad to see some names  who I know, worked for, and respected.  But sadly there are some I had much respect for who are missing. Shame on them; they know who they are! And then there are those I had  little respect for and they are on the list e.g., Krulak, Mattis, Kelly, Allen, Hagee, Jones, and more. The letter is a good read and look and see if your heroes or villain’s are on the list.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/05/over_120_generals_and_admirals_warn_that_administration_policies_are_national_security_threat.html

Originally posted 2021-05-12 10:18:45.

Current Events

Biden’s Vaccine IP Debacle

4 Comments

Okay Mr. Joe Sanders-Pelosi-Harris-Warren-Ocasio-Cortez , you have done it now. How dare you do this to companies who have spent billions on research and development providing the world with safe, effective vaccines. You sir are a blooming idiot. If I were the CEO’s of Pfizer and BioNTech. I would tell you to go pound sand and refuse to give up the ingredients and processes for my vaccines. What would that fool do, close my business? Yeah, right. How would that settle with the American public? This is a travesty that we as Americans should not put up with. Note my opening sentence, Biden’s name isn’t there since I feel certain he was not able to come up with this communist scheme, they did! WHO IS IN CHARGE IN AT THAT PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE BUILDING? It sure isn’t him. 

Date: May 9, 2021 at 8:29:31 AM PDT

 “In one fell swoop he has destroyed tens of billions of dollars in U.S. intellectual property, set a destructive precedent that will reduce pharmaceutical investment, and surrendered America’s advantage in biotech, a key growth industry of the future.”

His patent heist is a blow to the Covid fight and U.S. biotech.

By The Editorial Board

May 6, 2021

We’ve already criticized President Biden’s bewildering decision Wednesday to endorse a patent waiver for Covid vaccines and therapies. But upon more reflection this may be the single worst presidential economic decision since Nixon’s wage-and-price controls.

In one fell swoop he has destroyed tens of billions of dollars in U.S. intellectual property, set a destructive precedent that will reduce pharmaceutical investment, and surrendered America’s advantage in biotech, a key growth industry of the future. Handed an American triumph of innovation and a great soft-power opportunity, Mr. Biden throws it all away.

***

India and South Africa have been pushing to suspend patents at the World Trade Organization for months. They claim that waiving IP protections for Covid vaccines and therapies is necessary to expand global access, but their motivation is patently self-interested.

Both are large producers of generic drugs, though they have less expertise and capacity to make complex biologics like mRNA vaccines. They want to force Western pharmaceutical companies to hand over IP free of charge so they can produce and export vaccines and therapies for profit. Their strategy has been to shame Western leaders into surrendering with the help of Democrats in the U.S.

But suspending IP isn’t necessary to expand supply and will impede safe vaccine production. The global vaccine supply is already increasing rapidly thanks to licensing agreements the vaccine makers have made with manufacturers around the world.

Pfizer and BioNTech this week said they aimed to deliver three billion doses this year, up from last summer’s 1.2 billion estimate. Moderna increased its supply forecast for this year to between 800 million and a billion from 600 million. AstraZeneca says it has built a supply network with 25 manufacturing organizations in 15 countries to produce three billion doses this year.

AstraZeneca and Novavax have leaned heavily on manufacturers in India to produce billions of doses reserved for lower-income countries. But India has restricted vaccine exports to supply its own population. IP simply isn’t restraining vaccine production.

Busting patents also won’t speed up production, since it would take months for these countries to set up new facilities. Competition will increase for scarce ingredients, and less efficient manufacturers with little expertise would make it harder for licensed partners to produce vaccines.

There’s also the problem of safety. Johnson & Johnson has experienced quality problems at an Emergent plant making its vaccines, and that’s in Baltimore. Imagine the potential problems with unlicensed producers in, say, Malaysia or Brazil. If vaccines made there have complications, confidence in licensed vaccines could plummet too. And who would Pfizer and Moderna sue to get their reputations back?

The economic self-damage is also hard to fathom. The U.S. currently has a competitive advantage in biotech and biologics manufacturing, which could be a growing export industry. Waiving IP protections for Covid vaccines and medicines will give away America’s crown pharmaceutical jewels and make the U.S. and world more reliant on India and China for pharmaceuticals.

Moderna has been working on mRNA vaccines for a decade. Covid represents its first success. Ditto for Novavax, which has been at it for three decades. Small biotech companies in the U.S. have been studying how to create vaccines using nasal sprays, pills and patches.

Thanks to Mr. Biden, all this could become the property of foreign governments. Licensing agreements allow developers to share their IP while maintaining quality control. Breaking patents and forcing tech transfers will enable China and low-income countries to manufacture U.S. biotech products on their own.

China’s current crop of vaccines are far less effective than those in the West, but soon Beijing might be able to purvey Pfizer knock-offs. The U.S. has spent years deploring China’s theft of American IP, and now the Biden Administration may voluntarily let China could reap profits from decades of American innovation.

***

Instead of handing over American IP to the world, Mr. Biden could negotiate bilateral vaccine agreements and export excess U.S. supply. If Mr. Biden wants to increase global supply safely, the U.S. could spend more to help the companies produce more for export. Then the jobs would go to Americans. We thought this was the point of the production deal Mr. Biden negotiated between J&J and Merck.

Alas, this President seems to be paying more attention these days to Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Nancy Pelosi. They think vaccines and new drugs can be conjured by government as a public good with no incentive for risk-taking or profit. This really is destructive socialism.

Mr. Biden ought to listen to Angela Merkel. Pfizer’s partner BioNTech is a German firm, and the German Chancellor said Thursday that she opposes the WTO heist: “The protection of intellectual property is a source of innovation and it must remain so in the future.”

At least IP is safe in Germany. Mr. Biden has sent a signal around the world that nobody’s intellectual property is safe in America.

There is nothing I can add to this pitiful, destructive, and downright idiotic  decision by that fellow who is supposed to be our president.

 

Originally posted 2021-05-10 12:37:20.

Recent Posts

A Star-Spangled Misfire

2 Comments

I have been remiss from posting any gobbly gook from the swamp creatures of late, but with good reason. We just returned from a weekend in Tuscaloosa, Alabama to witness our granddaughter graduating from the University. WOW.  Impressive is an  understatement! I’m sure some of you attended a university as large and impressive, as Alabama, but I had not. I was awestruck. At my granddaughter’s suggestion, I even had a “Yellow Hammer,” actually I had three, and I might add suffered the entire next day. LOL

But then I digress. Great article from my favorite presenter. Although growing up only 30 miles from D.C., and having been stationed there for two years, I must admit I really did not know much of  its history. Oh I knew it it was not a state, but beyond that I have to claim ignorance. Just in case you fall into the same category, please copy and paste the link below for a very good explanation of D.C. and why it is not a state from the Encyclopedia Britannica. 

https://www.britannica.com/place/Washington-DC

Then read Greg’s excellent article about Biden’s attempt to simply expect Congress to make it a state.

By Greg Maresca

In May 2008, presidential candidate Barack Obama announced during a campaign stop that he had been to 57 states. Such an embarrassing blunder was glazed over like a Crispy Cream donut. In retrospect, it was perhaps a Freudian slip. Provided Democrats get their way, they will get closer to 57 by adding Washington D.C. as the 51st state with Puerto Rico waiting on deck.

As president, Obama must regret not going for broke with the whole socialist agenda when he had the chance. President Biden has certainly wasted no time in picking up the slack in his first 100-days in office.

Provided you need to be reminded: elections have consequences.

In Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, the Founding Fathers created a special federal district for the sole purpose of not being a state. Writing in The Federalist No. 43, James Madison clarified that without a separate federal district, the federal government “might be insulted and its proceedings be interrupted with impunity.” It is obvious the Founders did not want to subject the federal government to the sway of any state government.

Moreover, D.C. statehood would violate the intent that states have substantial land mass. Aside from the original 13 states, no state was smaller than 30,000 square miles until Hawaii entered the union in 1959. However, with a total of 137 islands and over 10,000 square miles, Washington D.C. does not even come close.

If that’s not enough, the 23rd Amendment enfranchised D.C. residents in presidential elections with three Electoral College votes, tenured its venue and size, designating it as the “seat of Government.” The amendment established that the only way to repeal a constitutional amendment is with another amendment.

It was no oversight that the nation’s capital is not a state, but rather an exclusive territory under the absolute authority of Congress, where elected representatives and senators from every state in the union could meet on neutral ground to conduct the nation’s business.

The nation understands D.C.’s unique constitutional status. A 2020 Gallup poll said 64% of Americans opposed DC statehood vs. just 29% in favor. Sorted by party and region, there were “no major subgroups of Americans voice support for DC statehood.”

If the city’s denizens do not appreciate their longstanding historical significance, they can always vote with their feet and move. This legislation symbolically labeled H.R. 51 would turn the District into exactly what the Founders rebuffed.

In a dichotomy of the times, Democrats desire to localize what the Constitution explicitly has federalized, while at the same time trying to federalize everything else. The statehood push is ultimately a power play for Democrats who want to turn D.C. into a city-state as the deep blue District will guarantee them two seats in the Senate changing the chamber’s partisan composition in their favor. With the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee wanting to pack the Supreme Court, adding two additional Senators via D.C. is a Democrat two-fer.

Democrats’ carry-on like this because they know Republicans will not put up a fight. Here is yet another version of Democrat unity and healing where the end goal is a one-party totalitarian centralized state.

This legislation is nothing but a power grab in the first-degree. If it were truly about statehood and the fabricated mantra of “taxation without representation,” Democrats would introduce legislation for D.C. to become part of Maryland from which it was initially ceded. But that doesn’t work as it would not obtain the desired two additional Senate seats.

Without missing an opportunity to race bait, New York Democrat Rep. Mondaire Jones, called arguments against D.C. statehood “racist trash.” Naturally, if you oppose D.C. statehood on any level be it Constitutional, historical, you name it; you are to be smeared as a racist because a majority of its residents are black.

With the Senate filibuster requiring 60 senators to advance any legislation, the odds of D.C. statehood are formidable. Democrat Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia said he will not support the legislation or efforts to eliminate the filibuster. “If Congress wants to make D.C. a state, it should propose a constitutional amendment,” Manchin suggested.

Manchin is one Democrat who actually gets it.

Perhaps more will join him.

What  did surprise me was the  29%  who were in favor of making it a state. I wonder how many of those were ignorant, as I, about its history?

Originally posted 2021-05-06 14:13:55.

Recent Posts

Punishment

LOL, this is so funny. Some may have trouble understanding what Mr. Lindsey is saying in this article. Heck I had to read it again slowly to get the full drift. The bottom line is simple, raise the tax and get less revenue. LOL Makes sense to me, What an idiot this president is. That is unless he is doing it as Mr. Lindsey thinks, to punish the rich and the hell with revenue. OMG.

 

And if anyone is qualified to talk on this subject it is certainly Dr. Lawrence Lindsey, former Governor of the Federal Reserve System for six years.

The Biden administration last week proposed to increase the capital-gains tax rate—currently 20% for most assets held for at least a year—to 39.6% for people making more than $1 million. Since capital gains are also subject to the 3.8% Medicare tax, the new capital-gains rate would be 43.4%.

What makes this unusual is that 43.4% is well above the rate that would generate the most revenue for the government. Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation, which does the official scoring and is no den of supply siders, puts the revenue-maximizing rate at 28%. My work several decades ago puts it about 10 points lower than that. That means President Biden is willing to accept lower revenue as the price of higher tax rates. The implications for his administration’s economic thinking are mind-boggling.

Even the revenue-maximizing rate is higher than would be optimal. As tax rates rise, the activity being taxed declines. The loss to the private side of society increases at a geometric rate (proportional to the square of the tax rate) as rates rise. The government collects more revenue, but its gains slow as the taxed activity declines. The revenue-maximizing rate is the point at which the government starts losing from higher taxes. Tax rates above the revenue-maximizing rate are punitive: The government is giving up revenue simply to punish the rich.

Punishing the rich is distinct from redistribution. Higher taxes on the rich to finance spending, or to transfer money to lower-income people, may be good for society’s welfare. Economists express this idea in a “social-welfare function,” which weights additional income received by different people, usually based on income. The same sum is considered less valuable if it goes to a high-income person than a lower-income one. The weights are subjective and different analysts will choose different weights.

Still, economists can agree that the ideal is to make someone better off without making someone else worse off. The simplest case is a voluntary exchange of goods for money, in which the buyer values the purchase at least as much as the price, while the seller values the money at least as much as the item being sold. Economists call such an exchange Pareto-optimal after Vilfredo Pareto, the Italian economist who formally framed the concept.

There is no choice in paying taxes, and usually the government is better off and the taxpayer is worse off. But above the revenue-maximizing rate, even the government is worse off. This is called Pareto-pessimal.

Generally, the government can raise tax rates and transfer the money to lower-income people, thereby improving social welfare. The government can do this even after incurring the economic burdens caused by higher rates and the costs of transferring money (known as the “leaky bucket”). The trade-off depends on how much tax rates distort the economy, how big the leaky-bucket effect is, and how one evaluates the difference in value of money going to people in different income groups.

As indicated by other proposals, the current administration rates money going to lower-income people extremely highly relative to higher-income people—higher than has traditionally been the case in U.S. economic policy. It also seems to put little weight on excess economic burdens and leaky-bucket costs. The wisdom of those choices will be tested at the ballot box.

But to an economist, a Pareto-pessimal choice is unwise by definition. There is no set of “weights” one can devise to justify this proposal, because there are no highly prized winners to offset the losses to the low-weighted losers.

The concept of social-welfare maximization has been a cornerstone of economic thinking across the political spectrum for the past century. It dates back at least to Adam Smith in the 18th century, and arguably to the 17th, when Jean-Baptiste Colbert, King Louis XIV’s finance minister, declared “the perfection of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to procure the greatest amount of feathers with the least possible amount of squawking.”

That’s why it is shocking that this policy got past the economists in the administration, many of whom have had long and distinguished careers. The Biden administration is blowing up one of the key concepts that has united the economics profession: maximizing social welfare. It now believes in taxation purely as a form of punishment and is even willing to sacrifice revenue to carry it out.

Mr. Lindsey is president and CEO of the Lindsey Group. He served as a Federal Reserve governor (1991-97) and assistant to the president for economic policy (2001-02).

Originally posted 2021-04-26 15:14:18.