Victor Goley

Name a better administration. I’ll wait.

1) Just because someone has money doesn't mean you or the government are entitled to it. 2) If you force investors like Bezos to liquidate investments to pay taxes, then it will cost jobs and growth. 3) I don't know who this stuff is meant to fool, but anyone with any experience with government knows that adding $200 million or even $200 billion to federal budgets won't accomplish any of those things. We run a 2 trillion dollar annual deficit. That money would, as best, go toward paying off the interest on our debt. And if you created a new entitlement as you are suggesting, it would be so filled with fraud and waste within 2 years that it could eat up Bezos' entire fortune while barely helping anyone.COVID-19 To prove the point, Minnesota tried to offer to pay for meals for kids during Covid-19. The result was the Feeding Our Future scandal, where dozens of people conspired to steal $250 million+ from the program. We can start talking about increasing tax revenue and adding new programs when the people who run the government can show they can effectively use the massive budgets they already have instead of wasting them. Until then, stop demanding more of other people's money.

If you ever wondered what decades of bureaucratic bloat and zero accountability look like in human form, look no further than Roger Leon. Does anyone believe this guy? 😆

6 YEARS AGO: Celebrities join together and sing Imagine to help us with the lockdown

𝐇𝐀𝐑𝐕𝐀𝐑𝐃’𝐒 𝐎𝐖𝐍 𝐒𝐓𝐔𝐃𝐘 𝐄𝐗𝐏𝐎𝐒𝐄𝐃 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐓𝐇 𝐀𝐁𝐎𝐔𝐓 𝐃𝐈𝐕𝐄𝐑𝐒𝐈𝐓𝐘 — 𝐒𝐎 𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐘 𝐁𝐔𝐑𝐈𝐄𝐃 𝐈𝐓 𝐅𝐎𝐑 𝐅𝐈𝐕𝐄 𝐘𝐄𝐀𝐑𝐒 Robert Putnam is not a conservative. He’s not a Republican operative. He’s not a Fox News commentator. He’s a 𝐇𝐚𝐫𝐯𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐨𝐫, a past president of the 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐏𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐀𝐬𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, a recipient of the 𝐍𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐇𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐌𝐞𝐝𝐚𝐥 — awarded to him personally by 𝐁𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐎𝐛𝐚𝐦𝐚 𝐢𝐧 𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟑 — and the author of 𝘉𝘰𝘸𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘈𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘦, one of the most cited books in modern political science. He is, by any measure, a pillar of the liberal academic establishment. And in 2001, he completed the 𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐬𝐭𝐮𝐝𝐲 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐧 𝐜𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐜 𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚 — nearly 𝟑𝟎,𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰𝐬 across 𝟒𝟏 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 nationwide — and the results destroyed the central premise of the diversity industry. What did he find? In the most diverse communities, 𝐧𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐬 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐟 𝐚𝐬 𝐦𝐮𝐜𝐡 as they do in homogeneous settings. The greater the diversity, the 𝐟𝐞𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐯𝐨𝐭𝐞. The less they 𝐯𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐞𝐫. The less they 𝐠𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 and work on community projects. 𝐕𝐢𝐫𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐜 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐡 — trust, cooperation, friendship, community engagement — were 𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 in more diverse settings (Putnam, 𝘚𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘗𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘚𝘵𝘶𝘥𝘪𝘦𝘴, 2007). And here’s the part nobody mentions: the distrust wasn’t just between different racial groups. Trust declined 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐦𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐩. Diversity didn’t just erode inter-group cohesion — it eroded 𝐚𝐥𝐥 cohesion. People in diverse communities didn’t just distrust their neighbors of other races. They distrusted 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲𝐨𝐧𝐞. Putnam called it “𝘩𝘶𝘯𝘬𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯” — withdrawing from collective life entirely. So what did Putnam do with these findings? He 𝐬𝐚𝐭 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐟𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬. He told the 𝘍𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘛𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘴 in 2006 that he delayed publication until he could “𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘱 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘢𝘭𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘦𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘥𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘺” — in other words, he wouldn’t release the data until he could attach a politically acceptable spin. He later admitted he feared his work would be “twisted” and used in the immigration debate. He worried about facing the same attacks that destroyed Daniel Patrick Moynihan after his 1965 report on the breakdown of the black family — another set of inconvenient data that was suppressed for decades because it didn’t fit the narrative. The 𝘕𝘦𝘸 𝘠𝘰𝘳𝘬 𝘛𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘴 covered it once. In 2007. The headline: “𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘋𝘰𝘸𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘋𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘺.” Then it vanished. No follow-up investigations. No Congressional hearings. No policy reconsiderations. The largest empirical study on civic engagement in American history — and the political class treated it like it never happened. Ask yourself why. A 𝐇𝐚𝐫𝐯𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐨𝐫 with 𝐎𝐛𝐚𝐦𝐚’𝐬 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐦𝐞𝐝𝐚𝐥 𝐨𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐟 produced peer-reviewed data from 𝟑𝟎,𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐬 showing that forced diversity corrodes the social fabric — and the institutions that worship diversity as a religion decided the data was too dangerous to discuss. They didn’t refute it. They didn’t replicate it and find different results. They just 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐢𝐭. Because the findings don’t threaten a policy. They threaten an 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐲. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐠𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐡𝐢𝐦 𝐚 𝐦𝐞𝐝𝐚𝐥. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐛𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡. 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐬 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐥𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 — 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲’𝐫𝐞 𝐡𝐢𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠.