Dr. Drew's Ballot Recommendations for MAGA California

LAGUNA NIGUEL, CA - I thought it was about time that I put out my personal ballot recommendations for the propositions in California. These are tedious and often difficult to sort through. Here you go.

Proposition 14: No

This measure would authorize the issuance of $5.5 billion of bonds to finance stem cell research. This is a function best left to private investors, not taxpayers. At a time when finite resources are more important than ever, we can think of much better uses for the $260 million of public funds a year for 30 years this measure would require to repay the bonds. 

Proposition 15: No

Best known as the “split roll” measure, Prop. 15 is the most significant and direct threat to Proposition 13 in decades. The measure would split off commercial and industrial properties from Prop. 13’s protections in a misguided effort to raise billions in new taxes that will ultimately go toward papering over California’s public sector pension problem.

Proposition 16: No

Government should treat all people equally. Since Prop. 209 was passed, the state’s civil service and public colleges have increasingly reflected the diversity of the state. Prop. 16 seeks to sacrifice the principle of equality in the name of justice. That is unjust.

Proposition 17: Yes

Parolees who have done their time should have their voting rights restored.

Proposition 18: No

17-year-olds can wait until they’re 18 to vote.

Proposition 19: No

This special interest measure is the result of the California Association of Realtors basically “buying” the support of a state firefighters union in an effort to pass what they couldn’t two years ago with Prop. 5.

Proposition 20: No

The Legislature needs to do a better job overseeing criminal justice reform. But that doesn’t justify this heavy-handed measure, backed mainly by police unions and the state’s prison guard union.

Proposition 21: No

This measure would make it easier for local governments to adopt rent control policies. Amid a housing crisis, all this measure would do is make the housing crisis worse.

Proposition 22: Yes

This measure would create a middle-ground between Assembly Bill 5 and the gig economy as we knew it for app-based drivers by establishing minimum pay, portable health care benefits and other perks for those who choose to drive for companies like Lyft, DoorDash and Uber. While we’d rather see AB5 repealed, this is the next best alternative.

Proposition 23: No

This measure is a cynical effort by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West to raise costs on the dialysis industry in an effort to pressure dialysis companies into letting them unionize their workers. The measure presents as a good faith proposal to improve dialysis clinics. It’s not.

Proposition 24: No

This measure is a convoluted privacy law crafted behind closed doors that would authorize a new state agency to enforce the aforementioned convoluted data privacy laws.

Proposition 25: No

This is a referendum on Senate Bill 10, a bail reform law signed into law in 2018. A “yes” vote upholds the law, while a “no” vote rejects it. It is fundamentally unjust for anyone to commit crimes. If you don't want to be locked behind bars before you've been convicted for your crime stop stealing and hurting people.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

The Front of the Line: How Can Your Charity Access the SBA Paycheck Protection Program?

The SBA Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) is a bold and timely reaction by the federal government to the present crisis. It provides $350 billion in relief to small businesses and nonprofits.

PPP will give you the resources to pay salaries and benefits even as charitable contributions continue to decline. I'm sure many charity leaders and board members are anxious to benefit from this program. They do not want to be left out of what may be a once-in-a-lifetime deal that will keep their churches, charities or schools alive.

After all, the loans that will be given out can be completely forgiven. It will be like having an ATM in the lobby of your institution spitting out money all day long.

Buy Now

For most of us, the problem is we are not sure where to turn for help, whether we are eligible, if we are too late, or how to prepare ourselves to secure PPP funding once the application process opens up on Friday, April 3, 2020. Even worse, we can be frustrated that only larger charities or small businesses with up to 500 employees will have the resources, connections or staff needed to be first in line to get this money.

I know what it's like. I'm applying for a PPP forgivable loan myself to protect Drew & Associates and our staff.

We are now working with a number of our non-profit clients to get them ready to apply later this week. As one of them reminded me it easy to put this off because you're afraid it is too much work, that it is a waste of time, or that it only goes to more established charities. I get it.

Frankly, it seems silly for me and my staff to work hard to win you grants when the SBA Paycheck Protection Program is coming on line. I can't think of anything more important right now that to help you participate in this program. The amounts and benefits will be amazing.

According to the SBA, your total loan amount will be equal to your annual expenses for labor - wages, salaries, benefits, and 1099s - divided by 12 and then multiplied by 2.5. We have a spreadsheet calculator that will help you figure out the exact amount you can request.

NOTE: If any of those 1099s went to people who were providing your with services, like your accountant or attorney, then you'll need to leave them out of the mix. They should be applying for this funding on behalf of their own businesses. 

As long as you maintain at least 90% of your current staffing, you can spend this money anyway you want as long as you focus on payroll, utilities, rent and interest expenses. If you do that, your loan will be completely forgiven.

I have put together a new service to help you quickly, easily and reliably access these funds with the assistance of our conscientious team. 

Personally, I've got years of experience in dealing with federal loan programs as a loan officer, a client of the SBA, and as a grant writing consultant. My skills will help you to get started and to secure this money. We will:

• Save you time by screening your charity for eligibility.
• Fill out the appropriate PPP paperwork for you.
• Help you gather the necessary documentation.
• If you do not have it, we will help you find it or create it for you.
• Submit your application on time.
• Answer any inquiries or requests for additional information.
• Make sure you get paid quickly.

As far as we know, you should be getting your funding instantly after receiving your application approval from your existing bank or lender. Later, we will work with you to make sure you collect the exact receipts, records, and financial reports you need to qualify for the forgiveness of your loan.

One of the cool things about this process is that we will help you become one of the first community leaders to protect their employees and their non-profit by accessing PPP funding. You will be a hero.

On the other hand, I have to be real with you. If you do not apply for this funding it may be catastrophic for your charity.

Buy Now

We have no way of knowing exactly how long this crisis will last or how long this PPP funding will be available. Since this money is given on a first come, first served basis, it will eventually run out and some people will not be able to get it. Even if you manage to survive without the income needed to cover your payroll, utilities and rent, your charity will be threatened because it will emerge from this crisis damaged, living on a tighter margin and potentially even more vulnerable to continuing financial and pandemic shocks.

All it takes to get started is to pay a small deposit of $250.00 and set-up an intake phone call with me at 949-338-5921.

In that phone call, I ask you some questions about your charity, screen you for eligibility, and then make a recommendation on whether or not it makes sense to bring you on as a client for this PPP opportunity. If it is not a fit, then I will refund your money. If it looks like you are a good prospect, then we will move forward with the paperwork. I'll provide you with a list of needed documents, a loan amount calculator, urgent program updates, official SBA application w/ instructions, unlimited email and phone support.

Once we are ready to go we will charge you an additional $750.00 The total fee for our service will be a flat rate of $1,000.00

The final result will be astounding for you and your charity. Your employees will enjoy the peace of mind and security that you have wisely provided for them. You will be able to keep up your rent and utility payments. You will be able to put your people to work again doing useful things even if they are no longer meeting with your clients face-to-face.

You will also be prepared to go after a second round of funding too. This will most likely happen if stay-at-home orders, quarantines or marshal law are declared in your area. All in all, you will be appreciated for leading your charity in a crisis and protecting its capacity to complete its mission now and in the years to come. I'm excited to work with you to make this happen. To get started, use the Buy Now button below.

Buy Now

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Laguna Niguel Nice: My Passive Aggressive Outreach to Moderate Democrats Addicted to Facebook

I've spent the last few weeks debating some of the last moderate Democrats in my life, mainly friends and acquaintances of business acquaintances and others. They are all older, white, mainly retirees with pensions from the public sector. If I have time, maybe this should be an article for American Thinker?

Some of what I'm doing is too good to lose track of completely, and might be useful in the upcoming campaign...especially if Bernie Sanders wins the next election. I'd feel sad, give what I've written, is suddenly blocked or erased. So, here's some of my best stuff, particularly my complaint about Bernie Sanders' socialist views and the naive faith of those who underestimate his dangerous views. For the sake of privacy, I'll only give you my written comments. I'll start with the simple statement that started the polemics as follows: 

Round One - You Don't Know What You're Talking About

I don't think you appreciate the degree to which the programs you are defending actually leave the most vulnerable worse off. You need to read up on the concept of moral hazard.

Round Two - Well, Yes...

Moral hazard applies just as well to corporate decision makers.

Round Three - Corporations Aren't Mean

A corporation is just a way of organizing human activity. It provides investors with limited liability and separate legal existence.

There are dozens of different kinds of corporations in the U.S. and they exist in multiple forms internationally based on the laws of each country. Modern life is inconceivable without the corporate form of organization.

Even a non-profit is organized as a corporation.

Personally, I'm extremely curious to learn what you think of a new national poll showing Bernie Sanders, a socialist, pulling ahead of Joe Biden. https://www.msn.com/.../sanders-overtakes.../ar-BBZQKeb...

For a moderate Democrat like yourself, I'm wondering to what degree, if any, Bernie's success is making you anxious about your party's future.

Round Four - Let's Read Hayek

As an ex-socialist, I may be in the perfect position to help you understand why you are being naive about the dangers of socialism. The one book that did the most to help me understand why socialism has never worked was Friedrich Hayek's book Road to Serfdom. The book explains why the idealism of my youth was both appealing and doomed to failure. You should check it out.

Round Five - Others to Read

No. I'm more of a fan of J.D. Salinger. The political scientists who have had the greatest influence on my thinking - particularly my rejection of Marxism and socialism - were Theodore Lowi, James Q. Wilson, Thomas Sowell and Charles Murray. If you want to understand my take on contemporary politics, rent the film The Enemies Within by Trevor Loudon. This is a documentary which gave me my best opportunity to share my political views. One of my former students, Ann Coulter, also has some outstanding books which will help you better understand conservative thought.

Round Six - Trust Me About Bernie Sanders, I'm an Ex-Socialist Myself

When I was in graduate school at Cornell University, I took courses in the field of political economy and studied countries like Sweden, Norway, Denmark, England, Canada.

Two of the professors I took courses from later became presidents of the American Political Science Association.

I've taught political economy at Williams, our nation's most prestigious liberal arts college.

If I sincerely thought your take on socialism was correct, then I would tell you so.

I'm totally confident that if you had taken the same courses, hung out with the same international experts, and read the same articles and books that you would come to the same conclusions as me regarding the desirability of electing a socialist like Bernie Sanders.

One of the reasons why I recommended you read Hayek is because he explains how socialism starts with the innocent appeal of prosperity for all, but then - inevitably - drifts into a horrific system where threats of violence and persecution are the only way to obtain crucial information and to get things done.

A lot of people report that reading Hayek was a turning point for them ideologically. Part of the appeal is that Hayek was himself a former socialist.

If you are not interested in reading a book which has persuaded thousands of socialists to change their views, then I recommend you check out Trevor Loudon's movie, The Enemy Within. It is a documentary film which features my take on the attraction of socialism among young people. I understand you can rent it through Amazon Prime.

Round Seven - Can You Take Bad News? Socialism Makes People Worse Off, 

Not Better...Even in Sweden.

The per capita income of the USA is $62,606. This is above Sweden at $52,984, above Denmark at $52,121, way above Canada at $49,651 and incredibly above the UK at $45,606. Most Bernie bros do not realize that a socialist economy makes people poorer while at the same time taking away personal freedom, individuality and ability to make your own choices.

You didn't get my reference to scarce resources. Capitalist economies use markets to quickly and effectively allocate scarce resources. Typically socialist economies, say like Sweden, make poorer choices regarding the allocation of scarce resources. This inevitably creates a lower standard of living as measured by per capita GDP.

I think you are being a tad naive about how socialism limits your freedom. If you read Hayek's book, you will have a better grasp about exactly why socialism is incompatible with freedom of speech. There are now steep penalties for language which violates politically correct standards in Sweden or Canada or the UK. I don't think you would like living in any of these countries if you value being able to speak your mind.

Again, please read Hayek. You may be surprised to learn that Joseph Stalin was the wealthiest man in the world during the height of his power. In a similar manner, we see how African and Latin American socialist politicians betray their followers by stealing enough to become millionaires or billionaires. They enjoy their wealth in Swiss bank accounts while their people are starving.

The bottom line is that socialism in the USA would look less like Denmark or Sweden and a lot more like Cuba or Venezuela.

Round Eight - You Are Still in the Fight? It is Time to School You with Statistics

First, per capita income is the statistic typically used to measure the standard of living by political economists. Measurement theory helps explain why this is so. For example, as you add more measurements to assess the standard of living it quickly becomes increasingly difficult to understand what, if anything, you are actually measuring. This becomes a growing weakness in what is called the validity of a measure.

For example, in the survey you have shared with us, the rating system includes measurements for crime...a variable which makes Sweden appear higher in the ranking than the USA. Since crime has causes which have nothing to do with economics, it is inappropriate to include crime rates in an evaluation of a socialist economy.

Likewise, as you add additional terms to your measure, you reduce the reliability of your measurement. This is simply the degree to which we are confident that the measurement will produce the same results after repeated trials. Think of it as being a juggler. The more balls you toss in the air, the more likely you are to drop one or find one has inadvertently gone astray. Does this help?

Next, I would think the most typical errors in the allocation of scarce resources among socialist economies like Sweden are in the field of labor resources. In virtually all socialist economies it becomes increasingly difficult to hire skilled professionals. In many cases, skilled professionals will exit the country to find higher paying positions elsewhere. If you study the socialist countries you seem to admire, you will find they have great difficulties in attracting and retaining skilled professionals in their labor forces.

Your complaint about using Stalin as an example of socialism gone astray is what we call the No True Scotsman logical fallacy. You are basically trying to protect the general idea that socialist systems are good by saying that Stalin was not a socialist. If you want, there are plenty examples of socialism enriching its leaders and their families in contemporary Cuba and Venezuela.

It is interesting to me that you are not addressing my earlier point that socialist countries are less protective of freedom of speech. You may not completely understand that socialist countries are also less protective of private property, gun ownership, rule of law, and of course personal privacy. It is difficult for me to understand how you might measure the quality of life in a country separate from its built in protections for freedom of speech or the right to bear arms.

I think you are naive in your expectation that socialism in the USA would end up leaving us like Sweden. The demographics and political culture of a socialist majority-minority USA would have far more in common with Cuba or Venezuela than it would in largely white, Protestant Sweden or the five million white folks who live in Norway. I think that the more you educate yourself on these matters, the closer you and your ideological friends will come to agreeing with me.

After all, I am a former Democrat myself. I'm a former Marxist socialist who used to see the economic and social systems of Sweden as the goal for us all. I'm just sharing with you the facts which have changed my views over time.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Time to Chill - Nothing is as Black and White as You Suppose: Note to a Friend Regarding the Trump Impeachment

I've been a little surprised at the hostility to Trump I have seen among people I have known for a while. Their level of outrage seems out of proportion to what is actually going on. I took out some time in December to draft some detailed answers to a friend's questions. Maybe you can use my answers with your friends too?

I don’t have a lot of time. So please pardon the limits of my response. The most important thing to state is that the U.S. Department of Justice has determined that Trump committed no crime. 

Regarding you’re particular legal theory, I would only point out that it assumes a level of repression which would violate the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of speech.

Regarding you questions over Trump’s motivations, it looks to me like you are following Democrat party talking points and may not be familiar with the full story. I do not think that things are as bad or as black and white as you imagine. In many cases, the assumptions behind your questions have already been debunked. I’ll try to go through them all quickly.

Why did Trump not follow the protocols outlined in the Legal Assistance Treaty with Ukraine?

I think you are assuming that this treaty controls a president’s actions. This is just not true. There is nothing in the treaty which limits a president’s Article II powers.

Why did Trump never mention corruption in either of his phone calls with Zelensky? 

I’m assuming your concern here is based on your belief that the Biden family was not involved in corruption. As I have stated earlier, Biden violated the Hobbs Act. Burisma was clearly a corrupt company and Hunter Biden was on its board.

Why did he wait until Biden had become a front runner to bring up his concerns about the former vice president? 

I don’t think you have the timeline right here. As I understand it there were concerns about the Biden family’s corruption long before the phone call with Zelenski.

Why did he only mention the Bidens when there are other Americans involved in potentially more nefarious activities in Ukraine (Paul Manafort, Igor Buzyukov to mention just two)? 

I double checked. I couldn’t find anything regarding corruption and these two individuals. Manafort was a political consultant and Buzyukov was involved in money laundering. I don’t think this question gets you anywhere.

Why did Trump ignore the DOD report that certified that Ukraine was adequately addressing corruption and was therefore eligible to receive the military aid that had been funded by Congress?

Again, you seem to assume this report was controlling. That was not the case. The report itself asserted that more investigations into corruption in Ukraine were still needed.

Why did Trump not go through the DOJ, but instead used his personal lawyer, and even directed Zelensky to talk to him? 

My understanding is that representatives from the government of Ukraine sought out Rudy Guliani because they felt they were being stonewalled by U.S. and Ukrainian bureaucrats. It is actually pretty normal for presidents to use alternative forms of communication and investigation. Historically, there is nothing nefarious about this element of the story.

Why did Sondland, a big Trump donor, believe that this was a quid pro quo, and that everyone was in the loop? 

Sondland’s testimony was not a clear cut nor as decisive as you think. At best, it was one man’s opinion. In other parts of his testimony Sondland makes it clear that Trump did not want a quid pro quo.

Why did Mulvaney also state that this was a quid pro quo? 

As I recall, Mulvaney walked back that statement indicating it was an error on his part.

Why ask Zelensky to make a public statement about opening an investigation into the Bidens? 

I don’t understand this either. I don’t recall Trump asking for this. Trump released the transcripts of the conversation. At best, this looks like a second-hand report.

Why did Trump wait until after the whistleblower was known to him and an investigation was imminent to unfreeze the military aid? 

This question has already been debunked. It appears that the release of the funds was caused by the passage of the budget in the Congress which made delays in the military aid perfunctory. Trump signed that budget. The decision had nothing to do with the whistleblower.

Why did Trump fire Ambassador Yovanovitch when she was highly regarded in addressing corruption in Ukraine? 

As I understand it, Yovanovitch was seen as being too close to George Soros. Her values and behavior were inconsistent with Trump administration policies. Finally, all ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the president.

Why does Trump still refuse to release documents? 

Trump’s actions here are pretty standard. Most presidents are reluctant to do this and seek to preserve their independence from the Congress through exercise of executive privilege.

Why does Trump still keep people from testifying? 

Again, there is nothing nefarious here either. Defense of executive privilege is a long-standing tradition. Normally, the Congress would appeal to the courts to resolve this issue. Congressional Democrats declined to challenge Trump on this in the courts, most likely because they know the Supreme Court would defend the president’s prerogatives.  For better or worse, allowing Congress unfettered powers in this arena would undermine the balance of power between the Congress and the president.

Once again, I am surprised to see the degree to which you are making a mountain out of a molehill. There was no crime committed. As far as I can tell, most of your questions are based in what is best referred to as fake news. They have been debunked by later investigations as was your earlier assertion that the investigation into Burisma was winding down prior to Joe Biden’s explicit quid pro quo demand. 

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.