Predictions are like health insurance policies. Every American must have one in the New Year or cough up a fine. Check that. Pay a tax.
Nothing stings like a bite out of your income, so here are the predictions for 2014 from an insured healthy author who wants to avoid any human contact with the Infernal Revenue Service.
1. Obamacare enrollments fall woefully short of 7 million goal. An estimated 4.1 million people sign up for health insurance through government exchanges. Even that number is skewed because the figure only includes those who applied. Many Americans learn in January that their applications were chewed up in the system and they are without insurance.
2. The Republicans capture control of the Senate. After the mid-term elections the GOP emerges with a 55-45 advantage in the senate chamber. Exit polling shows the unpopularity of Obamacare and distrust of the president are key factors in the Republican victory. The Grand Old Party maintains an advantage in the House, assuring Obama's second term is a flop.
3. EU taxes savings accounts to fund bloated entitlements. The European Union Commission follows the lead of Greece in levying a tax on savings accounts above $100,000 in the 34-member nations. Democrats in the United States float a similar plan after Obamacare costs exceed projections, prompting more borrowing and increased budget deficits.
4. Mortgage rates inch past 5 percent. After a long run of low rates, interest creeps upward after the Federal Reserve tapers its bond buying. The increase slams housing starts as prices flatline and sales flutter below 2013 levels. Many homeowners with adjustable rate mortgages scramble to avoid foreclosure.
5. The Dow dips below 16,000 before a year end rally. After a four-year bull stampede, the stock market begins to flounder as interest rates climb, making bonds and certificates of deposit more attractive investments. Without the Fed stimulus, investors worry that the market has been overvalued. Puny first quarter profits from major companies exacerbate the rush for the exits.
6. Lois Lerner, the disgraced IRS official, resurfaces. Lerner is the 34-year career IRS manager who "retired" after the scandal erupted over her overzealous scrutiny of conservative charitable organizations. Lerner reappears on the Washington scene as an employee of a George Soros funded organization.
7. Cash registers disappear in most big retail stores. The advent of mobile payment devices advances from the trial stage to full blown deployment among large nationwide retailers. More stores will have roaming employees armed with mobile devices to assist with in-aisle purchases.
8. Goggle Glass finally goes on sale to the public. The head-mounted device, unveiled to much fanfare in 2012, makes its debut to cheers from the marketplace. The product, ballyhooed and criticized in the test stage, becomes the must-have gadget for the tech savvy and millennials racking up sales of 7 million.
9. Smart watch purchases soar with improved applications. The watches, basically wearable computers, add more features for health and wellness monitoring along with sports and fitness functions. After tepid sales in 2013, more early adopters and the health conscious snap up the devices fueling sales of more than 6 million in the new year.
10. U.S. economic growth remains languid. After a hopeful first quarter, the economy slides in last half of the year as mounting household debt, rising interest rates and slow personal income growth stymie consumer consumption. The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) ends the year with growth of 2.25 percent, a sign of continuing economic weakness.
As with any predictions, these forecasts come with no guarantees. However, there is one certainty. The year will be filled with more uncertainty than anyone could foresee.
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
Monday, December 23, 2013
What Santa Wants For Christmas
Dear Girls and Boys:
I hesitate to say it, but some of you are becoming too greedy. You plop yourself on my lap and recite a long list of goodies you want for Christmas. Sorry, but you sound like you think you're entitled. You want contraceptives. Abortions. Cell phones. Insurance. Who do you think I am? President Obama?
I think many of you have become Santa-dependent. If I may suggest, you cannot expect me to solve all the problems in your life. That's why we have a fat federal government. Washington is awash in cash, unlike old Santa who gets by on a monthly Social Security check.
Believe it or not, I have my own share of problems. The elves organized themselves into a union after some folks from the AFL-CIO showed up at the North Pole. Now they are demanding a 35-hour work week during the Christmas season. It really has gummed up toy production.
Then Rudolph came out of the closet and declared he was homosexual. Surprised me, because I always thought Prancer was the gay one. Some of the other reindeer objected, which caused a ruckus. Next thing I know, TV reporters from North Pole's only station arrived with cameras when Al Sharpton came with a bus load of protesters wearing antler hats.
Mrs. Claus has not been much help this year. She spent most of the Christmas season trying to sign up for Obamacare. The website crashed just as she entered the information about her political affiliation. I told her she should never admit to being a Republican.
Then a team of environmentalists parachuted into the North Pole. They shut down the coal-fired plant in town and converted it to wind power. Santa's workshop is now dependent on northers for electricity. When the wind doesn't blow, Santa's lights don't glow.
To make matters worse, a record snow storm hit the North Pole this week. The reindeer have gone into hiding just thinking about hauling that heavy sleigh through deep snow. I keep hearing about global warming, but it's as cold as a reindeer's you-know-what up here. Call me a denier.
Even old Santa has landed in the middle of a controversy. Some newscaster at the Fox network said I was white. I never thought there was any doubt. But apparently a few folks were offended. To make amends, I have visited my local tanning salon for a month. I swear I could pass for Jesse Jackson.
Heck, I no longer dream of a White Christmas. I want a rainbow Christmas. If he were alive, Bing Crosby would be crooning, "I'm Dreaming of A Black, Brown, Yellow, White Holiday." The word "Christmas" ticks off some people, so it'd have to be scratched.
Then Mrs. Claus put me on a Jenny Craig diet. I tried to tell her that I was supposed to have an ample belly. It's part of the legend of Santa. But that didn't matter. If I eat one more asparagus tip, I think I am going to explode in anger. In my current state, I keep imagining Dancer in a pot roast.
As you can see, boys and girls, Santa could use a few gifts of his own to brighten my Christmas. My list is shorter than most of yours. I desire a little family peace. Some joy. Perhaps, a few good tidings. But most of all, I just want to rejoice in the spirit of Christmas.
I think you boys and girls should wish for the same things. You can do without all the stuff you think you need. And you would be a lot happier, too.
Merry Christmas,
Santa Claus
I hesitate to say it, but some of you are becoming too greedy. You plop yourself on my lap and recite a long list of goodies you want for Christmas. Sorry, but you sound like you think you're entitled. You want contraceptives. Abortions. Cell phones. Insurance. Who do you think I am? President Obama?
I think many of you have become Santa-dependent. If I may suggest, you cannot expect me to solve all the problems in your life. That's why we have a fat federal government. Washington is awash in cash, unlike old Santa who gets by on a monthly Social Security check.
Believe it or not, I have my own share of problems. The elves organized themselves into a union after some folks from the AFL-CIO showed up at the North Pole. Now they are demanding a 35-hour work week during the Christmas season. It really has gummed up toy production.
Then Rudolph came out of the closet and declared he was homosexual. Surprised me, because I always thought Prancer was the gay one. Some of the other reindeer objected, which caused a ruckus. Next thing I know, TV reporters from North Pole's only station arrived with cameras when Al Sharpton came with a bus load of protesters wearing antler hats.
Mrs. Claus has not been much help this year. She spent most of the Christmas season trying to sign up for Obamacare. The website crashed just as she entered the information about her political affiliation. I told her she should never admit to being a Republican.
Then a team of environmentalists parachuted into the North Pole. They shut down the coal-fired plant in town and converted it to wind power. Santa's workshop is now dependent on northers for electricity. When the wind doesn't blow, Santa's lights don't glow.
To make matters worse, a record snow storm hit the North Pole this week. The reindeer have gone into hiding just thinking about hauling that heavy sleigh through deep snow. I keep hearing about global warming, but it's as cold as a reindeer's you-know-what up here. Call me a denier.
Even old Santa has landed in the middle of a controversy. Some newscaster at the Fox network said I was white. I never thought there was any doubt. But apparently a few folks were offended. To make amends, I have visited my local tanning salon for a month. I swear I could pass for Jesse Jackson.
Heck, I no longer dream of a White Christmas. I want a rainbow Christmas. If he were alive, Bing Crosby would be crooning, "I'm Dreaming of A Black, Brown, Yellow, White Holiday." The word "Christmas" ticks off some people, so it'd have to be scratched.
Then Mrs. Claus put me on a Jenny Craig diet. I tried to tell her that I was supposed to have an ample belly. It's part of the legend of Santa. But that didn't matter. If I eat one more asparagus tip, I think I am going to explode in anger. In my current state, I keep imagining Dancer in a pot roast.
As you can see, boys and girls, Santa could use a few gifts of his own to brighten my Christmas. My list is shorter than most of yours. I desire a little family peace. Some joy. Perhaps, a few good tidings. But most of all, I just want to rejoice in the spirit of Christmas.
I think you boys and girls should wish for the same things. You can do without all the stuff you think you need. And you would be a lot happier, too.
Merry Christmas,
Santa Claus
Monday, December 16, 2013
Budget Charade: How Republicans Forfeited Our Future
Hand-wringing Republicans, skittish about the media thrashing over the government shutdown, have surrendered America's future to spendthrift Democrats. The recent capitulation by the House majority resulted in a two-year budget deal that leaves unaddressed the nation's fiscal problems.
In the name of the political Holy Grail of bipartisanship, the jelly-spined GOP agreed to eliminate $45 billion of scheduled sequester budget cuts next year and another $18 billion in 2015, wiping out the first meaningful reductions in spending since President Obama took office.
As a result of the deal, the nation continues on a fiscal collision course that will leave the United States with nothing but Draconian choices in the near future.
The agreement, forged by Republican Rep. Paul Ryan and Democrat Sen. Patty Murray, still must be approved by the totalitarian Senate, ruled by iron-fisted dictator Harry Reid. However, prospects appear good that the bargain will slither through the upper chamber.
Fearful Republicans succumbed to the House accord after the 16-day government shutdown in October triggered a media savaging of the party brand. Against this fusillade of criticism, GOP party insiders lobbied for appeasement to shore up Republicans' chances in next year's mid-term elections.
But the bipartisan compact does not address reforms needed in the nation's bloated entitlement programs, which account for 62 percent of spending. Unless Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare and welfare programs are pared, prudent deficit and debt reduction cannot be achieved. Period.
In their haste to make concessions, cowardly House Republicans waved the white flag over spending. Under the deal, discretionary expenditures would climb to $1.012 trillion in 2014 and $1.014 trillion the following year. There is no reduction in spending, despite what the media has reported.
As a result, deficits will continue to add to the nation's swollen debt. This month U.S. debt crossed over the $17 trillion mark for the first time in history. Unfunded liabilities, money owed to Social Security and other programs, now stands at $126.9 trillion and mounting daily.
As part of the covenant, the two parties "propose" to save $85 billion and reduce the deficit by more than $20 billion. There are no details on how these future cutbacks will be accomplished. This is nothing more than a Washington gimmick designed to defer decisions indefinitely.
Weak-kneed Republicans also reneged on their promise to enact no new taxes. They signed on to a sneaky increase in millions of dollars in user fees on air travel and customs. Only in Washington would the establishment refuse to call these tax increases.
Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, architects of a nonpartisan report in 2010 on the nation's fiscal threats, were critical of the agreement's provisions because of the missed opportunity to address entitlement reform and to amend the tax code.
"That leaves only tough choices for future deficit reduction or sequester replacement, which are critically necessary to keep entitlement programs affordable and the economy vibrant," the two policy makers wrote in an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times.
Reaching middle ground on issues often requires trade-offs. But Republicans caved into Democrats for the tawdry allure of victory at the polls in November. In exchange, they received a one-day pass from the media but lost the trust of many GOP voters they will need next year.
In the name of the political Holy Grail of bipartisanship, the jelly-spined GOP agreed to eliminate $45 billion of scheduled sequester budget cuts next year and another $18 billion in 2015, wiping out the first meaningful reductions in spending since President Obama took office.
As a result of the deal, the nation continues on a fiscal collision course that will leave the United States with nothing but Draconian choices in the near future.
The agreement, forged by Republican Rep. Paul Ryan and Democrat Sen. Patty Murray, still must be approved by the totalitarian Senate, ruled by iron-fisted dictator Harry Reid. However, prospects appear good that the bargain will slither through the upper chamber.
Fearful Republicans succumbed to the House accord after the 16-day government shutdown in October triggered a media savaging of the party brand. Against this fusillade of criticism, GOP party insiders lobbied for appeasement to shore up Republicans' chances in next year's mid-term elections.
But the bipartisan compact does not address reforms needed in the nation's bloated entitlement programs, which account for 62 percent of spending. Unless Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare and welfare programs are pared, prudent deficit and debt reduction cannot be achieved. Period.
In their haste to make concessions, cowardly House Republicans waved the white flag over spending. Under the deal, discretionary expenditures would climb to $1.012 trillion in 2014 and $1.014 trillion the following year. There is no reduction in spending, despite what the media has reported.
As a result, deficits will continue to add to the nation's swollen debt. This month U.S. debt crossed over the $17 trillion mark for the first time in history. Unfunded liabilities, money owed to Social Security and other programs, now stands at $126.9 trillion and mounting daily.
As part of the covenant, the two parties "propose" to save $85 billion and reduce the deficit by more than $20 billion. There are no details on how these future cutbacks will be accomplished. This is nothing more than a Washington gimmick designed to defer decisions indefinitely.
Weak-kneed Republicans also reneged on their promise to enact no new taxes. They signed on to a sneaky increase in millions of dollars in user fees on air travel and customs. Only in Washington would the establishment refuse to call these tax increases.
Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, architects of a nonpartisan report in 2010 on the nation's fiscal threats, were critical of the agreement's provisions because of the missed opportunity to address entitlement reform and to amend the tax code.
"That leaves only tough choices for future deficit reduction or sequester replacement, which are critically necessary to keep entitlement programs affordable and the economy vibrant," the two policy makers wrote in an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times.
Reaching middle ground on issues often requires trade-offs. But Republicans caved into Democrats for the tawdry allure of victory at the polls in November. In exchange, they received a one-day pass from the media but lost the trust of many GOP voters they will need next year.
Monday, December 9, 2013
Childhood Obesity: America's Epidemic
Obesity rates among school-aged children and adolescents have tripled over the past thirty years, fueling skyrocketing health care costs for America's youth. Trends indicate childhood obesity has reached an epidemic level, affecting the projected life span of the next generation.
Despite the alarming direction, the nation has done little to address the problem. In fairness, First Lady Michelle Obama has tried to shine a light on the issue, but progress has been non-existent in reversing the decades-old trend that threatens America's future.
As one sign of failure, current data on childhood obesity is elusive. Although a plethora of health organizations have generated research reports, much of the data is outdated. Conflicting statistics are also rampant, which bedevils policy makers looking for easy solutions.
However, a majority of experts agree that nearly one in three U.S. children is obese. In some areas of the country, the numbers are higher. For example, the Rio Grande Valley in Texas holds the dubious distinction of being home to the largest percentage of obese children and adults, 38.5%.
As a result of the crisis, children in the Rio Grande Valley already have a projected life span that is less than their parents. If trends continue, experts predict obesity nationwide could trim lifespans of the next generation by two to five years, according to the Children's Defense Fund (CDF).
Hispanics, the majority ethnicity in the Rio Grande, are particularly at risk for obesity. Nearly one-half (47.8 percent) of Mexican-American children and teens, aged 2-19, have been told by a doctor they are overweight, reports a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services research study.
Despite the urgency, it remains difficult to get the medical profession to agree on what constitutes obesity. The formula for determining obesity involves a mathematical ratio of a person's height and weight, making it impossible to define obesity with a single number or percentage.
Instead of obsessing over a definition, it is more illuminating to focus on the causes. Here there is general agreement in the medical community that poor eating habits, lack of exercise and family history are major triggers of obesity in children.
Only one in five high school children eat the recommended servings of fruits and vegetables each day, writes the CDF. Meanwhile, fast food consumption has increased fivefold among children since 1970. Sugar-sweetened beverages constitute 11 percent of an average child's total calorie intake.
Exhaustive studies show today's children are spending less time in sports or other activities. Two-thirds of children do not meet the daily recommendation of 60-minutes of moderate activity, according to a study reported by the CDF.
Children and adolescents are also spending more time watching television, playing video games or surfing on the computer. Recent research cited by CDF showed that children ages 11 to 14 spent nearly 12 hours in front of those various screens.
For a long time, the medical profession has known that family history also plays a significant role in childhood obesity. The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry reported that children with obese parents have an 80 per cent chance of suffering from obesity, too.
Medical costs for obesity are soaring. A 2009 study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that "direct and indirect" expenses of obesity totaled $147 billion annually. Obesity is responsible for such health problems as diabetes, high blood pressure and depression.
Solutions for reducing childhood obesity have been predictable failures. Banning soft drinks in schools, policing fast-food restaurants and building more parks have produced no tangible results. Increased government intervention has not curbed childhood obesity.
The number one defense in the battle against childhood obesity is parents. They have the responsibility to monitor eating, exercise and lifestyles of their children. Educated and motivated parents are the last best hope for arresting childhood obesity.
Despite the alarming direction, the nation has done little to address the problem. In fairness, First Lady Michelle Obama has tried to shine a light on the issue, but progress has been non-existent in reversing the decades-old trend that threatens America's future.
As one sign of failure, current data on childhood obesity is elusive. Although a plethora of health organizations have generated research reports, much of the data is outdated. Conflicting statistics are also rampant, which bedevils policy makers looking for easy solutions.
However, a majority of experts agree that nearly one in three U.S. children is obese. In some areas of the country, the numbers are higher. For example, the Rio Grande Valley in Texas holds the dubious distinction of being home to the largest percentage of obese children and adults, 38.5%.
As a result of the crisis, children in the Rio Grande Valley already have a projected life span that is less than their parents. If trends continue, experts predict obesity nationwide could trim lifespans of the next generation by two to five years, according to the Children's Defense Fund (CDF).
Hispanics, the majority ethnicity in the Rio Grande, are particularly at risk for obesity. Nearly one-half (47.8 percent) of Mexican-American children and teens, aged 2-19, have been told by a doctor they are overweight, reports a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services research study.
Despite the urgency, it remains difficult to get the medical profession to agree on what constitutes obesity. The formula for determining obesity involves a mathematical ratio of a person's height and weight, making it impossible to define obesity with a single number or percentage.
Instead of obsessing over a definition, it is more illuminating to focus on the causes. Here there is general agreement in the medical community that poor eating habits, lack of exercise and family history are major triggers of obesity in children.
Only one in five high school children eat the recommended servings of fruits and vegetables each day, writes the CDF. Meanwhile, fast food consumption has increased fivefold among children since 1970. Sugar-sweetened beverages constitute 11 percent of an average child's total calorie intake.
Exhaustive studies show today's children are spending less time in sports or other activities. Two-thirds of children do not meet the daily recommendation of 60-minutes of moderate activity, according to a study reported by the CDF.
Children and adolescents are also spending more time watching television, playing video games or surfing on the computer. Recent research cited by CDF showed that children ages 11 to 14 spent nearly 12 hours in front of those various screens.
For a long time, the medical profession has known that family history also plays a significant role in childhood obesity. The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry reported that children with obese parents have an 80 per cent chance of suffering from obesity, too.
Medical costs for obesity are soaring. A 2009 study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that "direct and indirect" expenses of obesity totaled $147 billion annually. Obesity is responsible for such health problems as diabetes, high blood pressure and depression.
Solutions for reducing childhood obesity have been predictable failures. Banning soft drinks in schools, policing fast-food restaurants and building more parks have produced no tangible results. Increased government intervention has not curbed childhood obesity.
The number one defense in the battle against childhood obesity is parents. They have the responsibility to monitor eating, exercise and lifestyles of their children. Educated and motivated parents are the last best hope for arresting childhood obesity.
Monday, December 2, 2013
American Workers: Vanishing Under Obama
For the first time in the nation's history, the number of working-age Americans not in the labor force has crept up to 90.473 million people, a disturbing trend that threatens the economic future of the United States.
Since President Obama was sworn into office, there are more than 5.7 million fewer people working or looking for a job. American workers are vanishing by the hundreds of thousands every year and the number of laborers underemployed may be as high as 17.4 percent, according to Gallup researchers.
Yet this administration still touts how it hauled the country out of a deep recession. The numbers from the federal government's own Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) offer a different economic reality--one that underscores the failure of Obama's policies.
The official unemployment rate stands at 7.3 percent, a full two percentage points higher than the White House promised four years ago when it unleashed billions of dollars in economic stimulus spending. However, the unemployment percentage only masks the real problem.
Fewer Americans than ever are participating in the workforce. When Obama swept into the Oval Office, 65.7 percent of the working age population was employed. The most recent figures from the BLS show it has plummeted to 58 percent, the lowest in American history.
Worker participation rates may sound like economic jargon. But it matters because it is a key gauge of the employment situation. Many economists argue participation rates are more reliable than unemployment figures as a measure of the economy's strength.
The precipitous fall in participation rates means that the overall supply of employed workers is dropping. As a result, the economy is being driven by a smaller portion of the population. That leaves fewer people to pay taxes, but more Americans who qualify for government assistance.
As the supply of laborers dries up, it shrinks the available pool of workers necessary for economic growth. Many American businesses are beginning to worry about an adequate supply of workers to fill jobs as the last of the Boomer generation retires.
The United States' economic standing in the world has begun to reflect the decline. Average worker participation rates in 16 countries with developed economies now surpass the U.S. Once America owned the title of job creation leader.
The Heritage Foundation, a national think-tank, found that the drop in labor force participation "accounts for about the entire net drop in the unemployment rate over the past three years." In other words, if participation rates had remained static, unemployment would be even higher.
How can the United States reclaim its position as the world leader in worker participation?
It begins with a smaller government and less intervention. As the federal government appropriates more power and influence over the economy, the result is a shrinking private business sector that spawns fewer jobs for a growing population.
Jobs, living standards and economic opportunities depend on a growing workforce. The U.S. faces a dim economic future unless there is a sharp reversal of current trends and policies.
Since President Obama was sworn into office, there are more than 5.7 million fewer people working or looking for a job. American workers are vanishing by the hundreds of thousands every year and the number of laborers underemployed may be as high as 17.4 percent, according to Gallup researchers.
Yet this administration still touts how it hauled the country out of a deep recession. The numbers from the federal government's own Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) offer a different economic reality--one that underscores the failure of Obama's policies.
The official unemployment rate stands at 7.3 percent, a full two percentage points higher than the White House promised four years ago when it unleashed billions of dollars in economic stimulus spending. However, the unemployment percentage only masks the real problem.
Fewer Americans than ever are participating in the workforce. When Obama swept into the Oval Office, 65.7 percent of the working age population was employed. The most recent figures from the BLS show it has plummeted to 58 percent, the lowest in American history.
Worker participation rates may sound like economic jargon. But it matters because it is a key gauge of the employment situation. Many economists argue participation rates are more reliable than unemployment figures as a measure of the economy's strength.
The precipitous fall in participation rates means that the overall supply of employed workers is dropping. As a result, the economy is being driven by a smaller portion of the population. That leaves fewer people to pay taxes, but more Americans who qualify for government assistance.
As the supply of laborers dries up, it shrinks the available pool of workers necessary for economic growth. Many American businesses are beginning to worry about an adequate supply of workers to fill jobs as the last of the Boomer generation retires.
The United States' economic standing in the world has begun to reflect the decline. Average worker participation rates in 16 countries with developed economies now surpass the U.S. Once America owned the title of job creation leader.
The Heritage Foundation, a national think-tank, found that the drop in labor force participation "accounts for about the entire net drop in the unemployment rate over the past three years." In other words, if participation rates had remained static, unemployment would be even higher.
How can the United States reclaim its position as the world leader in worker participation?
It begins with a smaller government and less intervention. As the federal government appropriates more power and influence over the economy, the result is a shrinking private business sector that spawns fewer jobs for a growing population.
Jobs, living standards and economic opportunities depend on a growing workforce. The U.S. faces a dim economic future unless there is a sharp reversal of current trends and policies.
Monday, November 25, 2013
Five Reasons To Be Thankful You Live In the United States
America's first Thanksgiving was celebrated 392 years ago near Massachusetts Bay. The festival, organized in 1621 by colonial Governor William Bradford, honored the successful harvest of the corn crop by the Pilgrims. The invitation list included the colony's Native American allies.
The historic banquet's menu remains lost in the mists of time, but at least one chronicler reports meat dishes included fowl and deer, but not likely turkey. Historians also doubt pumpkin pie was served at the first feast because of a lack of sugar.
That is a far cry from the the sumptuous spreads that will be enjoyed in dining rooms across America this week. But one truth remains the same. Americans, then and now, have many reasons to be grateful for their country.
Here are just five reasons to be thankful you live in the United States of America today:
1. The U.S. is still the country where most people want to live. A recent survey conducted by Gallup found that 150 million people would like to leave their country and immigrate to the U.S. Four times as many people surveyed chose the U.S. over the second ranked nation, the United Kingdom. American continually ranks number one in the annual poll. There are 40 million immigrants living in the country and this figure does not include those here illegally.
2. Americans are the most generous people in the world. Individuals doled out $217.79 billion dollars to charities last year, according to Internal Revenue Service data published by The Urban Institute. These numbers do not include the billions given by two-thirds of tax filers who do not itemize their deductions. Donations by individuals have risen 38 percent since 2009, despite the recession.
3. Americans are the most inventive people in the world. There were 253,155 new patents issued for inventions in the United States in 2012, the highest annual number on record. It represents a 13 percent increase over the previous year. Seventeen U.S.-based firms rank in the top 50 worldwide companies issued patents and IBM was the business leader in 2012, according to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
4. The U.S. offers more opportunities for people to start their own business. There are 23 million small businesses in the country, which provide 55 percent of all the available jobs, according to the Brookings Institute. Small firms, those with one to 49 employees, make up nearly 90 percent of all businesses in the U.S. The number of small businesses has increased 49 percent since 1982, far outpacing growth in large firms.
5. The U.S. spends more per capita on health care than any other nation. The World Health Organization estimates the the country spends $7,960 per person on health care, the highest figure in the world. As a percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), health care spending represents 17.6 percent of expenditures, earning the U.S. the top spot on that measure. The U.S. also has some of the world's best health care facilities, including two of the top three cancer treatment centers in the world, according to Healthcare Global.
Those of us blessed to call the United States of America home have many more reasons to feel indebted to our country. The list is almost endless. But the best reason of all is that we live in a free country. Let us take time today to thank God for his divine guidance and continuing protection for these United States.
The historic banquet's menu remains lost in the mists of time, but at least one chronicler reports meat dishes included fowl and deer, but not likely turkey. Historians also doubt pumpkin pie was served at the first feast because of a lack of sugar.
That is a far cry from the the sumptuous spreads that will be enjoyed in dining rooms across America this week. But one truth remains the same. Americans, then and now, have many reasons to be grateful for their country.
Here are just five reasons to be thankful you live in the United States of America today:
1. The U.S. is still the country where most people want to live. A recent survey conducted by Gallup found that 150 million people would like to leave their country and immigrate to the U.S. Four times as many people surveyed chose the U.S. over the second ranked nation, the United Kingdom. American continually ranks number one in the annual poll. There are 40 million immigrants living in the country and this figure does not include those here illegally.
2. Americans are the most generous people in the world. Individuals doled out $217.79 billion dollars to charities last year, according to Internal Revenue Service data published by The Urban Institute. These numbers do not include the billions given by two-thirds of tax filers who do not itemize their deductions. Donations by individuals have risen 38 percent since 2009, despite the recession.
3. Americans are the most inventive people in the world. There were 253,155 new patents issued for inventions in the United States in 2012, the highest annual number on record. It represents a 13 percent increase over the previous year. Seventeen U.S.-based firms rank in the top 50 worldwide companies issued patents and IBM was the business leader in 2012, according to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
4. The U.S. offers more opportunities for people to start their own business. There are 23 million small businesses in the country, which provide 55 percent of all the available jobs, according to the Brookings Institute. Small firms, those with one to 49 employees, make up nearly 90 percent of all businesses in the U.S. The number of small businesses has increased 49 percent since 1982, far outpacing growth in large firms.
5. The U.S. spends more per capita on health care than any other nation. The World Health Organization estimates the the country spends $7,960 per person on health care, the highest figure in the world. As a percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), health care spending represents 17.6 percent of expenditures, earning the U.S. the top spot on that measure. The U.S. also has some of the world's best health care facilities, including two of the top three cancer treatment centers in the world, according to Healthcare Global.
Those of us blessed to call the United States of America home have many more reasons to feel indebted to our country. The list is almost endless. But the best reason of all is that we live in a free country. Let us take time today to thank God for his divine guidance and continuing protection for these United States.
Monday, November 18, 2013
Obamacare: Beware Of Doctor Shortage
A deeply troubling government report on projections of doctor shortages has been surpressed by Obama Administration officials because the news potentially would further undermine the promises made by the president on health care reform.
The report, authored by the independent Government Accountability Office (GAO), was issued September 30 in Washington and was greeted with stony silence by the news outlets and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
The investigation by the GAO was requested by three Republican senators, including Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Richard Burr of North Carolina and Mike Enzi of Wyoming. In its report, GAO exposes the administration's failings in offering an analysis of a future scarcity of health care providers.
"Since 2008, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) within the Department of Health and Human Services has awarded five contracts to research organizations to update national workforce projections, but HRSA has failed to publish any new reports containing projections," the report documents.
As the GAO points out, government, academic and health organizations have all issued projections of shortfalls in health care professions, which could "adversely affect patients access to care." Yet Sebelius' stormtroopers have steadfastly refused to release figures, despite spending millions to research the issue.
It is painfully obvious that Sebelius' and her boss want to cover up what health care industry experts already know. The United States faces a crippling deficit of doctors, which has been exacerbated by the introduction of Obamacare.
In a recent report, the Association of American Colleges estimated the country will experience a shortage of more than 90,000 physicians by 2020. That number is expected to balloon to more than 130,000 doctors by 2025.
Democrats and Obama sycophants are quick to point out those are just projections. However, the forecast may actually be too low in light of last week's announcement that insurance firm United Healthcare has dropped thousands of doctors from its networks in at least ten states.
The reason many doctors are fleeing for the exits is because Obamacare whittles payments to physicians for many patient services while increasing paperwork and administrative red tape, which raises staffing requirements. That means doctors' expenses increase while their income falls.
If the projected shortfalls in health care workforce materialize, the GAO warns that this could "result in delays in getting care, or patients not receiving needed care." Without the government estimates, policy makers are handicapped in addressing the shortage, the GAO underscores in its narrative.
These are sobering cautions that are anathema to the president and Sebelius. Neither want to hear there won't be enough medical professionals to deliver on their promises of improved health care. They would prefer to dupe Americans in order to reach their political agenda of socialized medicine.
Of course, it wouldn't be the first time the duo has engaged in deception. Just ask the millions of Americans who are now discovering they can't keep their current health coverage despite the president's repeated assurances on at least 23 separate occasions.
Wait until Americans learn they won't be able to keep their doctor either.
The report, authored by the independent Government Accountability Office (GAO), was issued September 30 in Washington and was greeted with stony silence by the news outlets and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
The investigation by the GAO was requested by three Republican senators, including Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Richard Burr of North Carolina and Mike Enzi of Wyoming. In its report, GAO exposes the administration's failings in offering an analysis of a future scarcity of health care providers.
"Since 2008, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) within the Department of Health and Human Services has awarded five contracts to research organizations to update national workforce projections, but HRSA has failed to publish any new reports containing projections," the report documents.
As the GAO points out, government, academic and health organizations have all issued projections of shortfalls in health care professions, which could "adversely affect patients access to care." Yet Sebelius' stormtroopers have steadfastly refused to release figures, despite spending millions to research the issue.
It is painfully obvious that Sebelius' and her boss want to cover up what health care industry experts already know. The United States faces a crippling deficit of doctors, which has been exacerbated by the introduction of Obamacare.
In a recent report, the Association of American Colleges estimated the country will experience a shortage of more than 90,000 physicians by 2020. That number is expected to balloon to more than 130,000 doctors by 2025.
Democrats and Obama sycophants are quick to point out those are just projections. However, the forecast may actually be too low in light of last week's announcement that insurance firm United Healthcare has dropped thousands of doctors from its networks in at least ten states.
The reason many doctors are fleeing for the exits is because Obamacare whittles payments to physicians for many patient services while increasing paperwork and administrative red tape, which raises staffing requirements. That means doctors' expenses increase while their income falls.
If the projected shortfalls in health care workforce materialize, the GAO warns that this could "result in delays in getting care, or patients not receiving needed care." Without the government estimates, policy makers are handicapped in addressing the shortage, the GAO underscores in its narrative.
These are sobering cautions that are anathema to the president and Sebelius. Neither want to hear there won't be enough medical professionals to deliver on their promises of improved health care. They would prefer to dupe Americans in order to reach their political agenda of socialized medicine.
Of course, it wouldn't be the first time the duo has engaged in deception. Just ask the millions of Americans who are now discovering they can't keep their current health coverage despite the president's repeated assurances on at least 23 separate occasions.
Wait until Americans learn they won't be able to keep their doctor either.
Monday, November 11, 2013
NFL Case Shines Light On Bullying
The National Football League, under siege for players' off-field behavior, has an ugly new problem that threatens to soil the organization's already tattered reputation. News reports out of Miami have unmasked bullying as part of pro teams' routine hazing of incoming players.
When the story leaked out, too many NFL players reacted with a shrug. They dismissed the threats and racist remarks of the Miami player as "boys just being boys." Many in the violent sport of pro football called for the offended player to "man up" and accept the verbal abuse without complaint.
Even the media failed to grasp the serious nature of bullying, despite the fact the hectoring prompted a Dolphin player to leave the team because of "emotional issues." Apparently, a few mental casualties are acceptable on the sports pages of America's jaded media.
For their part, the Dolphins suspended the player accused of bullying. Good for them. But the larger message about bullying has been lost in the media accounts, which have focused on the code of brotherhood among players that condones the initiation as part of some rite of passage.
Bullying should never be socially acceptable, regardless of the age or occupation of the perpetrator. If you need convincing, just look at the trends in bullying among young people, who unfortunately often take their behavioral cues from sports and entertainment personalities.
--About thirty percent of students in the United States are involved in bullying on a regular basis, either as a victim, perpetrator or both, according to a recent survey. Verbal bullying is most common, although a growing number are physically attacked.
--An estimated 160,000 students every day miss school out of fear of an attack or intimidation by their peers. An alarming 56 percent of students report they have personally witnessed some type of bullying at their school.
--More than one in 10 high school students reported they were in a physical fight on school property in the last year, according to the Crimes Against Children Research Center.
--A recent study presented at the American Psychological Association's annual convention found that more than 20 percent of those who were bullied throughout childhood and adolescence were convicted of crimes. Victims also had higher incidences of delinquency and substance abuse in school.
Outside of school, many young people are being victimized by cyber bullying, which is spreading like a virus on the Internet. About one-half of all teens have been verbally assaulted by harmful messages on social media, reported The Wall Street Journal.
When any organization, business or person condones bullying, it should be exposed and condemned. Bullying will never be stopped until everyone refuses to make excuses for verbal or physical abuse, even if it masquerades under the seemingly innocuous name of hazing.
Now that the situation in Miami has come to light, the NFL should move expeditiously to stamp out bullying league-wide as an example for others to follow.
When the story leaked out, too many NFL players reacted with a shrug. They dismissed the threats and racist remarks of the Miami player as "boys just being boys." Many in the violent sport of pro football called for the offended player to "man up" and accept the verbal abuse without complaint.
Even the media failed to grasp the serious nature of bullying, despite the fact the hectoring prompted a Dolphin player to leave the team because of "emotional issues." Apparently, a few mental casualties are acceptable on the sports pages of America's jaded media.
For their part, the Dolphins suspended the player accused of bullying. Good for them. But the larger message about bullying has been lost in the media accounts, which have focused on the code of brotherhood among players that condones the initiation as part of some rite of passage.
Bullying should never be socially acceptable, regardless of the age or occupation of the perpetrator. If you need convincing, just look at the trends in bullying among young people, who unfortunately often take their behavioral cues from sports and entertainment personalities.
--About thirty percent of students in the United States are involved in bullying on a regular basis, either as a victim, perpetrator or both, according to a recent survey. Verbal bullying is most common, although a growing number are physically attacked.
--An estimated 160,000 students every day miss school out of fear of an attack or intimidation by their peers. An alarming 56 percent of students report they have personally witnessed some type of bullying at their school.
--More than one in 10 high school students reported they were in a physical fight on school property in the last year, according to the Crimes Against Children Research Center.
--A recent study presented at the American Psychological Association's annual convention found that more than 20 percent of those who were bullied throughout childhood and adolescence were convicted of crimes. Victims also had higher incidences of delinquency and substance abuse in school.
Outside of school, many young people are being victimized by cyber bullying, which is spreading like a virus on the Internet. About one-half of all teens have been verbally assaulted by harmful messages on social media, reported The Wall Street Journal.
When any organization, business or person condones bullying, it should be exposed and condemned. Bullying will never be stopped until everyone refuses to make excuses for verbal or physical abuse, even if it masquerades under the seemingly innocuous name of hazing.
Now that the situation in Miami has come to light, the NFL should move expeditiously to stamp out bullying league-wide as an example for others to follow.
Monday, November 4, 2013
Obama: The Bystander-in-Chief
In what has become a familiar tactic for this administration, President Obama tried to duck responsibility for the botched roll out of his health care reform by claiming he had no clue the critical government website was hopelessly flawed.
Yet insurance industry experts had been publicly warning for months the web portal was burdened with glitches. The digital platform had failed hundreds of internal tests, still Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius green-lighted the aborted launch.
The government, Obama's government, belly flopped in its effort to deliver the insurance enrollment system it promised. Instead of accepting responsibility, Obama and his mouthpiece Jay Carney assured the nation the president was uninvolved, despite warning signs he should have exercised due diligence.
This president has adopted this same head-in-the-sand defense before.
Name a scandal and the president has pleaded ignorance. Benghazi. Mexican gun-running. NSA snooping on U.S. citizens. Tapping reporters phones. IRS blacklisting of conservative political groups. Government spying on leaders of nations. In each case, Obama feigned enlightenment.
Apparently, the president wants Americans to believe he is a mere bystander, not the chief executive of the nation. The sign on the desk in the Oval Office must read: "I disavow all knowledge that a buck ever visited here, much less stopped."
He certainly had every motivation to learn first-hand about the roll out of the website. His name has become synonymous with the law. It is the top achievement cited by his administration and the Democrat Party nearly five years into his presidency.
How could he have been so blind to what so many insiders knew?
The answer is the president deliberately put distance between himself and the flawed website because of the political connections to the contractor responsible for the debacle. Obama feared a major scandal, if the nature of the relationship with the website's architect was exposed.
In the days after the fiasco, news stories began to surface that a senior executive at the website contractor CGI Federal had ties to First Lady Michelle Obama. The executive and former classmate, Toni Townes-Whitely, appears to have exploited her cozy relationship.
Townes-Whitely joined the Canadian-based CGI in May of 2010, less than two months after the president penned his signature on the health care law. Soon after her arrival, the firm received a no bid contract for $678 million for work on the website and related services.
The selection of the company appears curious in light of recent revelations that CGI fumbled a health care system project for the providence of Ontario in Canada. After missed deadlines and other setbacks, the Ontario government pulled the plug on the $46.2 million project.
Despite the bungled venture, the administration handed the contract to CGI to build a transaction-based website, like hundreds that already exist on the internet. This did not involve new technology or sophisticated software. It should have been a routine project for a competent tech firm.
In the months leading up to the catastrophic launch, White House visitor logs show Townes-Whitely had a least four meetings with senior administration officials from April to June. Did she forewarn the White House about the impending disaster? The administration and Townes-Whitely remain mum.
In the harsh spotlight of public scrutiny, it is more than a little suspicious that one of the largest government contracts for such a high-profile project was awarded to a non-U.S. based business without a competitive bid, despite its less than sterling performance in the health care arena.
As usual, the administration that once promised to be the "most transparent in history" has stiff-armed requests by House committees anxious to look deeper into the the matter. Secretary Sebelius' testimony before Congress about the website collapse stands as a tutorial in obfuscation.
Americans shouldn't expect Sebelius' boss President Obama to shed any light either on this latest scandal. He has already admitted he is just an innocent bystander.
Yet insurance industry experts had been publicly warning for months the web portal was burdened with glitches. The digital platform had failed hundreds of internal tests, still Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius green-lighted the aborted launch.
The government, Obama's government, belly flopped in its effort to deliver the insurance enrollment system it promised. Instead of accepting responsibility, Obama and his mouthpiece Jay Carney assured the nation the president was uninvolved, despite warning signs he should have exercised due diligence.
This president has adopted this same head-in-the-sand defense before.
Name a scandal and the president has pleaded ignorance. Benghazi. Mexican gun-running. NSA snooping on U.S. citizens. Tapping reporters phones. IRS blacklisting of conservative political groups. Government spying on leaders of nations. In each case, Obama feigned enlightenment.
Apparently, the president wants Americans to believe he is a mere bystander, not the chief executive of the nation. The sign on the desk in the Oval Office must read: "I disavow all knowledge that a buck ever visited here, much less stopped."
He certainly had every motivation to learn first-hand about the roll out of the website. His name has become synonymous with the law. It is the top achievement cited by his administration and the Democrat Party nearly five years into his presidency.
How could he have been so blind to what so many insiders knew?
The answer is the president deliberately put distance between himself and the flawed website because of the political connections to the contractor responsible for the debacle. Obama feared a major scandal, if the nature of the relationship with the website's architect was exposed.
In the days after the fiasco, news stories began to surface that a senior executive at the website contractor CGI Federal had ties to First Lady Michelle Obama. The executive and former classmate, Toni Townes-Whitely, appears to have exploited her cozy relationship.
Townes-Whitely joined the Canadian-based CGI in May of 2010, less than two months after the president penned his signature on the health care law. Soon after her arrival, the firm received a no bid contract for $678 million for work on the website and related services.
The selection of the company appears curious in light of recent revelations that CGI fumbled a health care system project for the providence of Ontario in Canada. After missed deadlines and other setbacks, the Ontario government pulled the plug on the $46.2 million project.
Despite the bungled venture, the administration handed the contract to CGI to build a transaction-based website, like hundreds that already exist on the internet. This did not involve new technology or sophisticated software. It should have been a routine project for a competent tech firm.
In the months leading up to the catastrophic launch, White House visitor logs show Townes-Whitely had a least four meetings with senior administration officials from April to June. Did she forewarn the White House about the impending disaster? The administration and Townes-Whitely remain mum.
In the harsh spotlight of public scrutiny, it is more than a little suspicious that one of the largest government contracts for such a high-profile project was awarded to a non-U.S. based business without a competitive bid, despite its less than sterling performance in the health care arena.
As usual, the administration that once promised to be the "most transparent in history" has stiff-armed requests by House committees anxious to look deeper into the the matter. Secretary Sebelius' testimony before Congress about the website collapse stands as a tutorial in obfuscation.
Americans shouldn't expect Sebelius' boss President Obama to shed any light either on this latest scandal. He has already admitted he is just an innocent bystander.
Monday, October 21, 2013
Minimum Wage, Maximum Propaganda
The battle over the federal minimum wage has morphed into a propaganda war waged by President Obama and his Democrat cronies. Armed with deception, urban fables and distortions they have marched into the arena of public opinion to promulgate a counterfeit argument for increasing pay.
To hear Obama and his puppets tell it, there are millions of poor single mothers with two or more kids toiling in minimum wages jobs, unable to put food on the family's table. This image has been nurtured to promote the idea of raising the federal minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $10 or more.
However beguiling the illustration, it has been fabricated to deceive average Americans. The duplicity is easily exposed by facts. But the mainstream media has invested itself in substantiating Obama's agenda, even if it means sacrificing what little journalistic scruples remain.
Few Americans are actually working for the federal minimum wage. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, about four percent of hourly-paid employees earn $7.25. If you include both hourly and salaried employees, just 2.9 percent of Americans make the federal minimum.
Last year, a total of 1.6 million workers were paid the federal minimum wage. Ninety-seven percent of American workers earn more than the minimum wage.
Nearly two-thirds of minimum wage earners receive a raise within 1-to-12 months on the job. The notion that minimum wagers earners are a permanent underclass is simply false. Part-time workers are more likely to earn the minimum wage than full-time employees.
The majority of minimum-wage workers are between the ages of 16 and 24. Many are students or part-timers just starting their working careers. Three-fourths of workers 25 and older in a minimum wage jobs live above the federal poverty line.
A recent study at American University found that among families where one adult was earning minimum wage, 94 percent had a spouse who brought home more money. In fact, the average household income of a majority of minimum-wage workers is more than $53,000 a year.
The mythical single mom with kids working for minimum wage is more fiction rather than fact. That doesn't mean there are not some that fit this description, but it is a rarity and not the rule. Single parents making minimum wage are just four percent of the workforce.
The mantra of the Obama apostles has been to clamor for a "living wage." It is an elusive concept. For example, a minimum wage worker in New York City would need to earn nearly $30 an hour to match the buying power of a entry level employee making $7.25 hourly in Harlingen, Texas.
Many cities and states already have minimum wage rates that are above the federal level. Oregon hiked its minimum to $8.30 an hour. Washington state trumped that by raising its minimum to $9.04. California's legislature recently passed a bill to shove the rate to $10. San Francisco has extorted a $10.24 hourly minimum from businesses.
So why are Obama and Democrats hell bent on bumping up the federal minimum wage?
The answer is two-fold. First, it is good politics because the issue resonates with most Americans. Everyone can rally around the idea of a decent wage. Since more than 9 out of 10 Americans already earn more than federal minimum, it is hard for them to be against the idea.
Secondarily, the issue has the backing of powerful unions. Many union contracts peg wage rates to the federal hourly minimum. For instance, an agreement might have provisions for automatic adjustments if the hourly minimum increases. The unions are not interested in single moms unless they pay dues.
Even supporters of jacking up the minimum wage surely understand the economic reality that an hourly wage boost will suppress job growth. Studies have repeatedly shown that businesses hire fewer workers, or reduce hours or layoff employees in the face of sharp increases in wages.
There has been no empirical evidence to date to buttress Obama's case for bumping up the federal minimum wage. Until there is something more than emotional exaggerations and dishonest information, the minimum should remain exactly where it is today.
To hear Obama and his puppets tell it, there are millions of poor single mothers with two or more kids toiling in minimum wages jobs, unable to put food on the family's table. This image has been nurtured to promote the idea of raising the federal minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $10 or more.
However beguiling the illustration, it has been fabricated to deceive average Americans. The duplicity is easily exposed by facts. But the mainstream media has invested itself in substantiating Obama's agenda, even if it means sacrificing what little journalistic scruples remain.
Few Americans are actually working for the federal minimum wage. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, about four percent of hourly-paid employees earn $7.25. If you include both hourly and salaried employees, just 2.9 percent of Americans make the federal minimum.
Last year, a total of 1.6 million workers were paid the federal minimum wage. Ninety-seven percent of American workers earn more than the minimum wage.
Nearly two-thirds of minimum wage earners receive a raise within 1-to-12 months on the job. The notion that minimum wagers earners are a permanent underclass is simply false. Part-time workers are more likely to earn the minimum wage than full-time employees.
The majority of minimum-wage workers are between the ages of 16 and 24. Many are students or part-timers just starting their working careers. Three-fourths of workers 25 and older in a minimum wage jobs live above the federal poverty line.
A recent study at American University found that among families where one adult was earning minimum wage, 94 percent had a spouse who brought home more money. In fact, the average household income of a majority of minimum-wage workers is more than $53,000 a year.
The mythical single mom with kids working for minimum wage is more fiction rather than fact. That doesn't mean there are not some that fit this description, but it is a rarity and not the rule. Single parents making minimum wage are just four percent of the workforce.
The mantra of the Obama apostles has been to clamor for a "living wage." It is an elusive concept. For example, a minimum wage worker in New York City would need to earn nearly $30 an hour to match the buying power of a entry level employee making $7.25 hourly in Harlingen, Texas.
Many cities and states already have minimum wage rates that are above the federal level. Oregon hiked its minimum to $8.30 an hour. Washington state trumped that by raising its minimum to $9.04. California's legislature recently passed a bill to shove the rate to $10. San Francisco has extorted a $10.24 hourly minimum from businesses.
So why are Obama and Democrats hell bent on bumping up the federal minimum wage?
The answer is two-fold. First, it is good politics because the issue resonates with most Americans. Everyone can rally around the idea of a decent wage. Since more than 9 out of 10 Americans already earn more than federal minimum, it is hard for them to be against the idea.
Secondarily, the issue has the backing of powerful unions. Many union contracts peg wage rates to the federal hourly minimum. For instance, an agreement might have provisions for automatic adjustments if the hourly minimum increases. The unions are not interested in single moms unless they pay dues.
Even supporters of jacking up the minimum wage surely understand the economic reality that an hourly wage boost will suppress job growth. Studies have repeatedly shown that businesses hire fewer workers, or reduce hours or layoff employees in the face of sharp increases in wages.
There has been no empirical evidence to date to buttress Obama's case for bumping up the federal minimum wage. Until there is something more than emotional exaggerations and dishonest information, the minimum should remain exactly where it is today.
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
A Debt Ceiling Primer
"America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. America deserves better." Those two sentences frame the plight of a nation witnessing a vitriolic political tug-of-war in Washington over raising the debt ceiling.
The summary of the country's quandary was offered by then Senator Barrack Obama. He made the comments in March of 2006 before he voted against increasing the nation's debt ceiling. Obama turned thumbs down on another debt request in 2007, ignoring warnings of a financial apocalypse.
That's why it is ironic that President Obama has resorted to trashing Republicans who stand in the way of his attempt to hike the U.S. debt ceiling, which now teeters at $16.7 trillion. Those who oppose the president are labeled hostage takers, extortionists and extremists.
No one can remember any politician spewing such bilge about Senator Obama for his defiant stance on the debt ceiling less than seven years ago.
The current debt limit hysteria, fueled by the president and his slavish media, has drowned out all reasoned debate over the question of whether the nation will benefit by raising the limit on the government credit card.
This toxic atmosphere in Washington has contributed to obfuscation, deception and dishonesty that does nothing to promote a negotiated settlement. Here are some facts to put the battle over the debt limit in perspective:
1. President Obama has forewarned that default is likely if Congress fails to act on the debt ceiling. However, the tax receipts for the current year are expected to top $3 trillion, more than enough to cover the annual interest payment of $237 billion. The president and the Treasury secretary should have no problem figuring out how to avoid default on the debt. They alone will make the call on whether to default. As proof, read about what another president did in the next paragraph.
2. President Obama has chided legislators for contemplating something no other Congress has done. In 1953, Republican President Dwight Eisenhower's request for a modest lift in the debt ceiling was rebuffed by Senate Democrats, who argued the existing cap would impede runaway federal spending. In order to meet debt obligations, the president ordered drastic cuts in government expenditures. A full year after Eisenhower's request, the Congress finally approved an increase in the debt ceiling.
3. President Obama continually harps about Congress paying the bills for its spending. This borders on hypocrisy because the president has presided over the largest increase in the nation's debt in the history of the country. Since Obama assumed the Oval Office, debt has skyrocketed $4.939 trillion, a 51 percent increase since 2009. Gargantuan federal deficits run up under Obama have created the ticking debt bomb.
4. President Obama contends raising the debt ceiling will not add to the nation's borrowing. That is like a credit card holder asking for an increase in his or her borrowing limit while promising not to add more debt. Then why do it? Every time the debt ceiling has been raised by Obama, the nation has quickly bumped up against the cap. Deficits create the need for borrowing and Obama's federal budget sent to Congress last month projects the ballooning debt to stretch into another financial galaxy.
5. President Obama deserves the lion's share of the blame for the deficits. Obama has steadfastly rejected any Republican efforts to scale back entitlements which are growing at an alarming rate. Federal spending for major health care programs and Social Security are expected to increase at twice the average of the past 40 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office's recent report on the budget outlook. Increasing debt to cover the spending will result in "negative consequences for both the economy and the federal budget," the CBO cautioned.
A healthy debate over the debt ceiling is necessary for the country to come to terms with galloping federal spending that threatens the nation's future. Instead of stonewalling and haranguing, President Obama should lead the discussion.
By refusing to indulge in serious dialogue, Obama has abdicated his leadership role and polluted the environment for an agreement to end the crisis.
The summary of the country's quandary was offered by then Senator Barrack Obama. He made the comments in March of 2006 before he voted against increasing the nation's debt ceiling. Obama turned thumbs down on another debt request in 2007, ignoring warnings of a financial apocalypse.
That's why it is ironic that President Obama has resorted to trashing Republicans who stand in the way of his attempt to hike the U.S. debt ceiling, which now teeters at $16.7 trillion. Those who oppose the president are labeled hostage takers, extortionists and extremists.
No one can remember any politician spewing such bilge about Senator Obama for his defiant stance on the debt ceiling less than seven years ago.
The current debt limit hysteria, fueled by the president and his slavish media, has drowned out all reasoned debate over the question of whether the nation will benefit by raising the limit on the government credit card.
This toxic atmosphere in Washington has contributed to obfuscation, deception and dishonesty that does nothing to promote a negotiated settlement. Here are some facts to put the battle over the debt limit in perspective:
1. President Obama has forewarned that default is likely if Congress fails to act on the debt ceiling. However, the tax receipts for the current year are expected to top $3 trillion, more than enough to cover the annual interest payment of $237 billion. The president and the Treasury secretary should have no problem figuring out how to avoid default on the debt. They alone will make the call on whether to default. As proof, read about what another president did in the next paragraph.
2. President Obama has chided legislators for contemplating something no other Congress has done. In 1953, Republican President Dwight Eisenhower's request for a modest lift in the debt ceiling was rebuffed by Senate Democrats, who argued the existing cap would impede runaway federal spending. In order to meet debt obligations, the president ordered drastic cuts in government expenditures. A full year after Eisenhower's request, the Congress finally approved an increase in the debt ceiling.
3. President Obama continually harps about Congress paying the bills for its spending. This borders on hypocrisy because the president has presided over the largest increase in the nation's debt in the history of the country. Since Obama assumed the Oval Office, debt has skyrocketed $4.939 trillion, a 51 percent increase since 2009. Gargantuan federal deficits run up under Obama have created the ticking debt bomb.
4. President Obama contends raising the debt ceiling will not add to the nation's borrowing. That is like a credit card holder asking for an increase in his or her borrowing limit while promising not to add more debt. Then why do it? Every time the debt ceiling has been raised by Obama, the nation has quickly bumped up against the cap. Deficits create the need for borrowing and Obama's federal budget sent to Congress last month projects the ballooning debt to stretch into another financial galaxy.
5. President Obama deserves the lion's share of the blame for the deficits. Obama has steadfastly rejected any Republican efforts to scale back entitlements which are growing at an alarming rate. Federal spending for major health care programs and Social Security are expected to increase at twice the average of the past 40 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office's recent report on the budget outlook. Increasing debt to cover the spending will result in "negative consequences for both the economy and the federal budget," the CBO cautioned.
A healthy debate over the debt ceiling is necessary for the country to come to terms with galloping federal spending that threatens the nation's future. Instead of stonewalling and haranguing, President Obama should lead the discussion.
By refusing to indulge in serious dialogue, Obama has abdicated his leadership role and polluted the environment for an agreement to end the crisis.
Monday, October 7, 2013
America's Poor: The Numbers & The Myth
The coiffed news readers at the nation's television stations have been practically apoplectic in reporting that the world's richest country is awash in poverty. Some 46.4 million Americans are now entombed in beggary, the highest figure in the nation's history, they have gleefully recited from their teleprompter.
Those figures, compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau, were recently released just as Congress began wrestling with the federal budget. The news was timed to arm Democrats with data to justify fattened funding for a host of federal programs, most notably food stamps.
As has been the case so often, the Democrat footmen in the media omitted a few salient facts that would cast a different light on the Census data.
For instance, the federal poverty level is adjusted annually. The threshold is established by using metrics developed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The official yardstick measures inflation, size of a family, ages of the members, total family income and a few other benchmarks.
The household income includes only earned wages. It does not take into account any federal aid, such as food stamps, housing assistance, Medicaid and other non-cash state or federal benefits. Likewise, there is no accounting for the discrepancies in living costs between geographic regions.
Different federal agencies that administer aid programs employ different poverty guidelines. That fuels confusion about the exact income point for poverty in the U.S.
Currently, the official federal poverty level for an average family of four is $23,550. However, a family of eight can earn up to $39,630 and still be counted as poor. In many industrialized countries, an income of $40,000 would be considered upper middle class.
Most Americans are surprised by the federal income delineation between poor and middle class. Surveys show that the majority imagine the poor are lacking food, shelter, clothing and transportation. They consider poverty to connote that a family is destitute.
But many of America's poor live in luxury compared to their brethren in other parts of the world.
According to Census data, 80.9 percent of the households below the poverty level have cell phones. Nearly 6 in 10 (58.2%) own computers. Practically all (96.1%) have televisions. Almost 80 percent have satellite or cable TV service. Ninety-seven percent have refrigerators. Nine in 10 have microwaves. Most of the world's poor have none of these conveniences.
Those facts were missing from the media's newscasts, but the most glaring omission of all is the spike in unemployment under President Obama's stewardship.
Since Obama assumed office, poverty in the United States has zoomed 16.73 percent. Median income has fallen every year of Obama's reign. Twenty-even percent of African-Americans live at or below the poverty line, the highest since the civil rights movement.
The president gets a pass from the media because he always points the finger at his predecessor, George W. Bush. But his blame-shifting rings hollow after nearly five years in office, billions in stimulus spending and record funding for federal poverty programs.
There is no escaping the fact that poverty has grown worse under President Obama. His own government's measurements prove it. Obama needs to point the finger at himself for a change.
Those figures, compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau, were recently released just as Congress began wrestling with the federal budget. The news was timed to arm Democrats with data to justify fattened funding for a host of federal programs, most notably food stamps.
As has been the case so often, the Democrat footmen in the media omitted a few salient facts that would cast a different light on the Census data.
For instance, the federal poverty level is adjusted annually. The threshold is established by using metrics developed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The official yardstick measures inflation, size of a family, ages of the members, total family income and a few other benchmarks.
The household income includes only earned wages. It does not take into account any federal aid, such as food stamps, housing assistance, Medicaid and other non-cash state or federal benefits. Likewise, there is no accounting for the discrepancies in living costs between geographic regions.
Different federal agencies that administer aid programs employ different poverty guidelines. That fuels confusion about the exact income point for poverty in the U.S.
Currently, the official federal poverty level for an average family of four is $23,550. However, a family of eight can earn up to $39,630 and still be counted as poor. In many industrialized countries, an income of $40,000 would be considered upper middle class.
Most Americans are surprised by the federal income delineation between poor and middle class. Surveys show that the majority imagine the poor are lacking food, shelter, clothing and transportation. They consider poverty to connote that a family is destitute.
But many of America's poor live in luxury compared to their brethren in other parts of the world.
According to Census data, 80.9 percent of the households below the poverty level have cell phones. Nearly 6 in 10 (58.2%) own computers. Practically all (96.1%) have televisions. Almost 80 percent have satellite or cable TV service. Ninety-seven percent have refrigerators. Nine in 10 have microwaves. Most of the world's poor have none of these conveniences.
Those facts were missing from the media's newscasts, but the most glaring omission of all is the spike in unemployment under President Obama's stewardship.
Since Obama assumed office, poverty in the United States has zoomed 16.73 percent. Median income has fallen every year of Obama's reign. Twenty-even percent of African-Americans live at or below the poverty line, the highest since the civil rights movement.
The president gets a pass from the media because he always points the finger at his predecessor, George W. Bush. But his blame-shifting rings hollow after nearly five years in office, billions in stimulus spending and record funding for federal poverty programs.
There is no escaping the fact that poverty has grown worse under President Obama. His own government's measurements prove it. Obama needs to point the finger at himself for a change.
Monday, September 30, 2013
Obamacare Stumbles Out Of The Gate
Although nothing about the law is working as advertised, open enrollment for Obamacare will kickoff tomorrow. Starting October 1, Americans will be able to sign up for private health coverage through exchanges, the majority operated all or in part by federal government bureaucrats.
The health insurance plans sold through the exchanges will take effect January 1, 2014. Americans who fail to obtain health care insurance next year will be forced to pay a tax (penalty) to the Internal Revenue Service, those lovable, cuddly folks who routinely bully taxpayers.
Experts expect major problems as the roll out begins. Software glitches have already been identified, insurance pricing quirks threaten to spook consumers, the government website designed to help Americans navigate the plans is replete with errors, according to health care industry leaders.
In recognition of the impending train wreck, the Obama Administration months ago delayed the employer mandate, which required businesses to provide workers with health insurance this year. The requirement was shoved to 2015, after the 2014 mid-term elections.
In another concession, the Obama Administration decided on its own to reduce the tax for those who opt to remain uninsured. They have to cough up $95 per adult in the household, plus $47.50 per child. That is a far cry from the $2,000 penalty the administration originally included in the law.
Despite these stumbles, President Obama continues to flog his healthcare reform, holding campaign-style, carefully staged events with hand-picked crowds. However, the president is hedging his bet, admitting there may be some hitches in the introduction.
Obama and his Democrat disciples have reason to be wary. If Americans encounter delays, errors and sticker-shock, it will hand Republicans a red-hot issue to hammer the party of donkeys during the upcoming elections for the House of Representatives and the Senate.
It is not inconceivable that a poorly executed start could spell doom for Obamacare. The roll out comes 11 days after the House of Representatives voted along party lines to de-fund Obamacare. As expected, the Senate reversed the decision, but the final outcome seems far from settled.
Against this backdrop, Americans are struggling to make sense of the new law. Polls show many do not have the foggiest notion about the enrollment process, coverage or costs. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found nearly 70 percent of the uninsured don't understand the new law.
More than 40 percent of the uninsured do not even realize they have to buy insurance, according to a recent USA Today/Pew Research poll. This people are supposed to be the beneficiaries of the law which extends health coverage to every American.
Worse for Democrats, their reliable dupes in the unions have recently broken ranks. The powerful Teamsters, AFL-CIO, United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) and others have demanded Democrats make changes in the law that negatively impact unions.
Already unpopular with a majority (54%) of Americans, a false start for Obamacare would impact the implementation of the remainder of the law. Enough pressure could force Democrats to gut major portions of the reform to save face with their uniformed, lemming-like base.
The first major hurdle for Obamacare is to enroll seven million Americans by March 31. For the system to work, nearly half of those enrollees (2.7 million) need to be healthy young adults between the ages of 18 and 35 to make it feasible for private insurers to assume the additional risks.
If the governments fails to reach that goal, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office warns that insurance costs could spike. There is no gloomier scenario for President Obama, who repeatedly has assured Americans their insurance rates would fall with his health law.
Meanwhile, there has been no delay in unfurling new taxes. The majority of the taxes won't take affect until next year, including a hefty new levy on the purchase of health insurance, aimed at raising $8 billion in 2014 and mushrooming to $14.3 billion in 2018.
The more Americans experience Obamacare, the more likely the uproar will grow. As word-of-mouth spreads, many of the uninsured may simply choose to pay the tax (penalty) rather than endure the aggravation. That may lead well intentioned Americans to wonder why the law was enacted.
The president and Democrats have bet the farm on Obamacare. They may find out they are left with the barnyard stench of a failed program that will cling to them for not just one election, but for decades.
The health insurance plans sold through the exchanges will take effect January 1, 2014. Americans who fail to obtain health care insurance next year will be forced to pay a tax (penalty) to the Internal Revenue Service, those lovable, cuddly folks who routinely bully taxpayers.
Experts expect major problems as the roll out begins. Software glitches have already been identified, insurance pricing quirks threaten to spook consumers, the government website designed to help Americans navigate the plans is replete with errors, according to health care industry leaders.
In recognition of the impending train wreck, the Obama Administration months ago delayed the employer mandate, which required businesses to provide workers with health insurance this year. The requirement was shoved to 2015, after the 2014 mid-term elections.
In another concession, the Obama Administration decided on its own to reduce the tax for those who opt to remain uninsured. They have to cough up $95 per adult in the household, plus $47.50 per child. That is a far cry from the $2,000 penalty the administration originally included in the law.
Despite these stumbles, President Obama continues to flog his healthcare reform, holding campaign-style, carefully staged events with hand-picked crowds. However, the president is hedging his bet, admitting there may be some hitches in the introduction.
Obama and his Democrat disciples have reason to be wary. If Americans encounter delays, errors and sticker-shock, it will hand Republicans a red-hot issue to hammer the party of donkeys during the upcoming elections for the House of Representatives and the Senate.
It is not inconceivable that a poorly executed start could spell doom for Obamacare. The roll out comes 11 days after the House of Representatives voted along party lines to de-fund Obamacare. As expected, the Senate reversed the decision, but the final outcome seems far from settled.
Against this backdrop, Americans are struggling to make sense of the new law. Polls show many do not have the foggiest notion about the enrollment process, coverage or costs. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found nearly 70 percent of the uninsured don't understand the new law.
More than 40 percent of the uninsured do not even realize they have to buy insurance, according to a recent USA Today/Pew Research poll. This people are supposed to be the beneficiaries of the law which extends health coverage to every American.
Worse for Democrats, their reliable dupes in the unions have recently broken ranks. The powerful Teamsters, AFL-CIO, United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) and others have demanded Democrats make changes in the law that negatively impact unions.
Already unpopular with a majority (54%) of Americans, a false start for Obamacare would impact the implementation of the remainder of the law. Enough pressure could force Democrats to gut major portions of the reform to save face with their uniformed, lemming-like base.
The first major hurdle for Obamacare is to enroll seven million Americans by March 31. For the system to work, nearly half of those enrollees (2.7 million) need to be healthy young adults between the ages of 18 and 35 to make it feasible for private insurers to assume the additional risks.
If the governments fails to reach that goal, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office warns that insurance costs could spike. There is no gloomier scenario for President Obama, who repeatedly has assured Americans their insurance rates would fall with his health law.
Meanwhile, there has been no delay in unfurling new taxes. The majority of the taxes won't take affect until next year, including a hefty new levy on the purchase of health insurance, aimed at raising $8 billion in 2014 and mushrooming to $14.3 billion in 2018.
The more Americans experience Obamacare, the more likely the uproar will grow. As word-of-mouth spreads, many of the uninsured may simply choose to pay the tax (penalty) rather than endure the aggravation. That may lead well intentioned Americans to wonder why the law was enacted.
The president and Democrats have bet the farm on Obamacare. They may find out they are left with the barnyard stench of a failed program that will cling to them for not just one election, but for decades.
Monday, September 23, 2013
The Untold Story of Fracking
As if President Obama hasn't already done enough to stymie the American economy, the administration has unleashed its federal regulatory Rottweilers to hound the oil industry over its use of fracking to tap oil and gas reserves.
Both the U.S Interior Department and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are nosing around, sniffing for ways to restrict the process that has fueled the nation's biggest energy bonanza in nearly 60 years.
Fracking has been tainted in the realm of public opinion, thanks to shoddy science, made-for-television pseudo documentaries and a movie that has been thoroughly discredited. But like the debate over global warming, emotion has trumped the facts in the war of words over fracking.
Hydraulic fracking, a process that has been around for decades, involves extracting natural gas and oil from dense deposits of shale deep underneath the earth where sea basins once existed. Highly-pressurized fluids are pumped into shale, unlocking deposits of oil and natural gas.
Before fracking and horizontal drilling, it was impossible to extract the energy using traditional methods, particularly at depths of more than a mile beneath the earth's surface. More than one million wells have been hydraulically fractured since the 1940's.
Anti-fracking activists have constructed a boogie man around allegations that harsh chemicals used in the process pollute water supplies. However, the fluids used to unlock the gas and oil are mostly water (90%) and sand (9.5%). Less than one percent of the fluids are chemicals.
The Department of Energy released a landmark study earlier this year based on 12 months of monitoring a slew of wells in Pennsylvania, where fracking was employed. The department found no traces of leakage of fracking chemicals into water supplies.
Another study measured methane levels at 489 "fracked" natural gas wells, finding "modestly low" levels of emissions, even below EPA estimates."This is good news in that it shows emissions can be controlled," said an Environmental Defense Fund executive. The fund was one of the research sponsors.
This hardly satisfied most environmentalists who are never swayed by facts unless the data supports their jaundiced viewpoint.
Yet there can be no arguing the economic benefits of fracking. A study by IHS Consulting, a global leader in data and analytics, measured the economic contribution of oil and gas production from fracking and found that more than 1.7 million new jobs have been created during the boom.
Nearly $62 billion in additional federal, state and local tax receipts were generated in a single year (2012). IHS estimates that cumulative added tax revenues from oil and gas production using fracking will top the $2.5 trillion level between 2012 and 2035.
Since 2008, the U.S. has recorded a 25 percent increase in domestic oil production, largely attributable to fracking. This represents the highest domestic growth of any country in the world. As a result, the U.S. now sends more petroleum products overseas than it imports for the first time in 60 years.
Not only has the boom helped reduce the U.S. trade deficit, but it has shored up energy security. U.S. dependence on foreign oil has fallen as the oil industry has replaced imported crude with domestic supplies from North Dakota, Texas, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and West Virginia.
None of this impresses the environmental extremists attached like leaches to President Obama. Their mantra is oil and gas are bad, solar and wind are good. This simplistic view of energy threatens the economic well being and security of the nation.
Some states, such as New York and California, have already erected barriers to fracking. For instance, New York, is now entering the sixth year of a fracking moratorium. Meanwhile, neighboring Pennsylvania has added an estimated 250,000 shale related jobs in recent years.
There is not likely to be a truce anytime soon in the battle over fracking. To be sure, there are legitimate concerns about safety and the environment. But the oil industry has made good faith efforts to address those, even if it has done a lousy job of public education.
Nevertheless, the debate over fracking deserves a fair public hearing unencumbered by Hollywood fables, fraudulent environmental claims, biased media coverage and a president bent on impeding growth of oil and gas exploration.
Both the U.S Interior Department and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are nosing around, sniffing for ways to restrict the process that has fueled the nation's biggest energy bonanza in nearly 60 years.
Fracking has been tainted in the realm of public opinion, thanks to shoddy science, made-for-television pseudo documentaries and a movie that has been thoroughly discredited. But like the debate over global warming, emotion has trumped the facts in the war of words over fracking.
Hydraulic fracking, a process that has been around for decades, involves extracting natural gas and oil from dense deposits of shale deep underneath the earth where sea basins once existed. Highly-pressurized fluids are pumped into shale, unlocking deposits of oil and natural gas.
Before fracking and horizontal drilling, it was impossible to extract the energy using traditional methods, particularly at depths of more than a mile beneath the earth's surface. More than one million wells have been hydraulically fractured since the 1940's.
Anti-fracking activists have constructed a boogie man around allegations that harsh chemicals used in the process pollute water supplies. However, the fluids used to unlock the gas and oil are mostly water (90%) and sand (9.5%). Less than one percent of the fluids are chemicals.
The Department of Energy released a landmark study earlier this year based on 12 months of monitoring a slew of wells in Pennsylvania, where fracking was employed. The department found no traces of leakage of fracking chemicals into water supplies.
Another study measured methane levels at 489 "fracked" natural gas wells, finding "modestly low" levels of emissions, even below EPA estimates."This is good news in that it shows emissions can be controlled," said an Environmental Defense Fund executive. The fund was one of the research sponsors.
This hardly satisfied most environmentalists who are never swayed by facts unless the data supports their jaundiced viewpoint.
Yet there can be no arguing the economic benefits of fracking. A study by IHS Consulting, a global leader in data and analytics, measured the economic contribution of oil and gas production from fracking and found that more than 1.7 million new jobs have been created during the boom.
Nearly $62 billion in additional federal, state and local tax receipts were generated in a single year (2012). IHS estimates that cumulative added tax revenues from oil and gas production using fracking will top the $2.5 trillion level between 2012 and 2035.
Since 2008, the U.S. has recorded a 25 percent increase in domestic oil production, largely attributable to fracking. This represents the highest domestic growth of any country in the world. As a result, the U.S. now sends more petroleum products overseas than it imports for the first time in 60 years.
Not only has the boom helped reduce the U.S. trade deficit, but it has shored up energy security. U.S. dependence on foreign oil has fallen as the oil industry has replaced imported crude with domestic supplies from North Dakota, Texas, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and West Virginia.
None of this impresses the environmental extremists attached like leaches to President Obama. Their mantra is oil and gas are bad, solar and wind are good. This simplistic view of energy threatens the economic well being and security of the nation.
Some states, such as New York and California, have already erected barriers to fracking. For instance, New York, is now entering the sixth year of a fracking moratorium. Meanwhile, neighboring Pennsylvania has added an estimated 250,000 shale related jobs in recent years.
There is not likely to be a truce anytime soon in the battle over fracking. To be sure, there are legitimate concerns about safety and the environment. But the oil industry has made good faith efforts to address those, even if it has done a lousy job of public education.
Nevertheless, the debate over fracking deserves a fair public hearing unencumbered by Hollywood fables, fraudulent environmental claims, biased media coverage and a president bent on impeding growth of oil and gas exploration.
Monday, September 16, 2013
An Open Letter To Vladimir Putin
Dear Mr. Putin:
Your letter that appeared in the New York Times was an affront to the American people. It sounded like you were scolding a child for bad behavior rather than offering an honest attempt to broker peace. You may have fooled President Obama, but most Americans were not amused.
Your henchman in Syria, president Bashar Assad, is a despot who poisoned his own people with a deadly gas. Yet your letter blamed opposition forces for the attack, despite no evidence. That claim alone undermines the credibility of your plea for caution and diplomacy.
Your offer to mediate the Syrian crisis is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to buy time for Assad. He has enjoyed your nation's loyal support during his reign of terror. This dictator has trampled democracy and embraced thuggish behavior to save his tyrannical regime from crumbling.
You may take credit for stalling an American missile attack, but it is a rather hollow victory. Not many Americans support our president's feeble handling of the crisis and even Congress was prepared to deliver a death knell to his plans for unleashing our military's might.
Americans are not buying your offer of an olive branch in Syria. Secretary of State John Kerry may have jumped at the overture, but that is because he was desperate to cover up his own diplomatic ineptness. Americans know Russia has never been on the side of freedom at home or abroad.
That's why it was startling to read your lecture on democracy. To quote your letter: "Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy, but as relying solely on brute force..." The residents of Chechnya must have got a chuckle out of that line.
But the worse offense was thumbing your nose at the notion of "American exceptionalism." I know President Obama used that phrase in his address to the nation, but he doesn't really believe in the concept. It was a throwaway line recited from a teleprompter, not some expression of personal belief.
However, I can tell you Americans do not believe they are exceptional. But they hold dear the idea that our democratic system of government, born out of a devotion to individual liberty, is something that makes the United States unique among all nations.
In fact, they believe it is an idea worth fighting for. It is the reason Americans fought and died in World War II to save the world from Nazi Germany. You may remember it because the world, including Russia, could not have stopped Hitler and his hordes from overrunning Europe without the United States military.
Mr. Putin, my advice is for you not to mistake America's current weakness as a sign things will be this way forever. Leaders change in our country, unlike in Syria. But the American people are not like their present government. They cherish freedom and detest tyranny.
You have built an authoritarian wall to suppress freedom in your own country. It says more about your idea of democracy than a letter ghost-written by some public relations firm. Mr. Putin, tear down that wall before you lecture the world about the United States.
Thank you and God bless America!
Ronald Reagan
Monday, September 9, 2013
Obama's Milestones Are Nation's Misfortune
Most presidents spend their second terms burnishing their legacy. President Obama can stow the political polish. He already has tallied a number of achievements that no other American president will likely ever match. At least, not on purpose.
These accomplishments won't be ballyhooed in the president's memoirs. The achievements aren't likely to be enshrined in his presidential library in Chicago either. A fawning media won't be reciting these exploits when Obama evacuates the White House in 2017.
The reason is the president's historic firsts are dubious at best. Here is just a partial list of President Obama's groundbreaking feats:
1. Obama oversaw the first downgrade of U.S. debt in history. Standard and Poor's lowered the nation's credit rating in 2011. The administration has failed to convince the rating agency to raise the nation's credit score.
2. The nation's federal debt reached 67 percent of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the highest since World War II. This year's fiscal deficit is estimated at $642 billion, the first time since Obama assumed office that the annual figure has dipped below record-levels of $1 trillion.
3. Long-term unemployment has risen to the highest levels since the Great Depression. During Obama's first term, 45.9 percent of people unemployed had not worked in at least 27 weeks. The number of long-term unemployed has skyrocketed 257 percent since 2007. The portion of Americans working or looking for a job fell to its lowest level in 35 years in August.
4. The number of Americans dependent on the government has spiked to historic levels. Nearly one-half (47%) of the population is receiving aid or federal benefit payments. About one-third of the entire population (101 million) currently participates in at least one government food program.
5. The percentage of Americans paying federal income tax is the lowest in the modern era. Fewer than one-half (49%) are footing the bill for the unbridled growth of the federal government. A total of 46.4 percent of households paid no federal income tax in 2011.
6. Federal government spending as a percent of GDP is the highest since World War II. The government accounts for 25 percent of the nation's economy. To pay for the burgeoning expenditures, federal debt has swollen to $16.7 trillion, the highest in the nation's history as a percent of GDP. Government spending has exploded 40 percent since 2002, even adjusted for inflation.
These statistics were gleaned from the Office of Management and Budget, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Census Bureau, Standard And Poor's, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Department of Agriculture and the Internal Revenue Service.
The numbers paint a morose picture of a president who has dragged the nation to a tipping point in its history. Unless steps are taken to curb federal spending, curtail the debt and cultivate the economy, the United States will cease to be the world's economic leader and will face an uncertain future.
However, there is one certainty Obama's gleaming library will be built. His memoirs will be penned. His legacy will glitter with imagined strokes of genius. But Americans won't be better off after eight years littered with excuses, ineptness and wooden speeches recited from a teleprompter.
These accomplishments won't be ballyhooed in the president's memoirs. The achievements aren't likely to be enshrined in his presidential library in Chicago either. A fawning media won't be reciting these exploits when Obama evacuates the White House in 2017.
The reason is the president's historic firsts are dubious at best. Here is just a partial list of President Obama's groundbreaking feats:
1. Obama oversaw the first downgrade of U.S. debt in history. Standard and Poor's lowered the nation's credit rating in 2011. The administration has failed to convince the rating agency to raise the nation's credit score.
2. The nation's federal debt reached 67 percent of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the highest since World War II. This year's fiscal deficit is estimated at $642 billion, the first time since Obama assumed office that the annual figure has dipped below record-levels of $1 trillion.
3. Long-term unemployment has risen to the highest levels since the Great Depression. During Obama's first term, 45.9 percent of people unemployed had not worked in at least 27 weeks. The number of long-term unemployed has skyrocketed 257 percent since 2007. The portion of Americans working or looking for a job fell to its lowest level in 35 years in August.
4. The number of Americans dependent on the government has spiked to historic levels. Nearly one-half (47%) of the population is receiving aid or federal benefit payments. About one-third of the entire population (101 million) currently participates in at least one government food program.
5. The percentage of Americans paying federal income tax is the lowest in the modern era. Fewer than one-half (49%) are footing the bill for the unbridled growth of the federal government. A total of 46.4 percent of households paid no federal income tax in 2011.
6. Federal government spending as a percent of GDP is the highest since World War II. The government accounts for 25 percent of the nation's economy. To pay for the burgeoning expenditures, federal debt has swollen to $16.7 trillion, the highest in the nation's history as a percent of GDP. Government spending has exploded 40 percent since 2002, even adjusted for inflation.
These statistics were gleaned from the Office of Management and Budget, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Census Bureau, Standard And Poor's, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Department of Agriculture and the Internal Revenue Service.
The numbers paint a morose picture of a president who has dragged the nation to a tipping point in its history. Unless steps are taken to curb federal spending, curtail the debt and cultivate the economy, the United States will cease to be the world's economic leader and will face an uncertain future.
However, there is one certainty Obama's gleaming library will be built. His memoirs will be penned. His legacy will glitter with imagined strokes of genius. But Americans won't be better off after eight years littered with excuses, ineptness and wooden speeches recited from a teleprompter.
Monday, September 2, 2013
Obama Humiliates U.S. Over Syrian Debacle
A unrepentant President Obama trotted out Secretary of State John Kerry over the weekend to make the case for a military strike against the Syrian regime in a desperate attempt to save face after weeks of saber rattling failed to gain domestic or international support.
Obama miscalculated Americans' unrest over involvement in another war, misunderstood the reluctance of allies to support the U.S. attack on Syria and misread the reaction of even those in his party for a "go it alone" approach without congressional approval.
The president's grand strategy for a missile strike on Syria as punishment for President Bashar al-Assad's use of chemical weapons against his own people began to unravel after the British Parliament bucked the UK's prime minister and voted against intervention.
Parliament's decision not only robbed Obama of a staunch ally but it precluded the use of NATO forces because the United Kingdom is a member. The United Nations was not an option either because Russia would veto any resolution on the use of force.
That left Obama dangling in the political winds, especially after polls revealed only nine percent of Americans favored military intervention in Syria. Public opinion research also showed 80 percent of Americans wanted Obama to receive congressional approval before moving on Syria.
Surely, the politically savvy Obama must have known beforehand that Americans were dead set against interference in Syria? Perhaps, but the narcissistic Obama believed his own hype. He thought his soaring rhetoric and international standing would ensure smooth sailing.
When his effort fizzled, Obama panicked. And for good reason. He had already ordered the armed forces to prepare for a limited missile launch and maneuvered ships into position. He had used the world stage to announce an attack was imminent, only the date and time were to be determined.
With American prestige in tatters, the president suffered another embarrassment. He was reminded by Republicans and dovish Democrats that candidate Obama in 2007 had railed that the "president does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize" a military response. Whoops!
So after arguing he clearly had the authority to order a strike, Obama flip-flopped. At the eleventh hour, he decided he wanted the Congress to weigh-in on the issue. It is clear his motivation is to help shield himself from political backlash by getting Republicans to support the strike.
The whole episode exposes Obama's naiveté when it comes to foreign affairs. The president should have secured firm allied support before announcing to the world that America would use military force. Now he realizes too late that he waded in over his head and blundered badly in diplomacy.
That's why Obama has lobbed the political hot potato to Congress. On principle, the Congress should reject Obama's request because he waited until the dye was cast to seek approval. Obama hatched this plan and he owns it. America's image cannot be repaired with the bandaid of Congressional support.
Obama miscalculated Americans' unrest over involvement in another war, misunderstood the reluctance of allies to support the U.S. attack on Syria and misread the reaction of even those in his party for a "go it alone" approach without congressional approval.
The president's grand strategy for a missile strike on Syria as punishment for President Bashar al-Assad's use of chemical weapons against his own people began to unravel after the British Parliament bucked the UK's prime minister and voted against intervention.
Parliament's decision not only robbed Obama of a staunch ally but it precluded the use of NATO forces because the United Kingdom is a member. The United Nations was not an option either because Russia would veto any resolution on the use of force.
That left Obama dangling in the political winds, especially after polls revealed only nine percent of Americans favored military intervention in Syria. Public opinion research also showed 80 percent of Americans wanted Obama to receive congressional approval before moving on Syria.
Surely, the politically savvy Obama must have known beforehand that Americans were dead set against interference in Syria? Perhaps, but the narcissistic Obama believed his own hype. He thought his soaring rhetoric and international standing would ensure smooth sailing.
When his effort fizzled, Obama panicked. And for good reason. He had already ordered the armed forces to prepare for a limited missile launch and maneuvered ships into position. He had used the world stage to announce an attack was imminent, only the date and time were to be determined.
With American prestige in tatters, the president suffered another embarrassment. He was reminded by Republicans and dovish Democrats that candidate Obama in 2007 had railed that the "president does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize" a military response. Whoops!
So after arguing he clearly had the authority to order a strike, Obama flip-flopped. At the eleventh hour, he decided he wanted the Congress to weigh-in on the issue. It is clear his motivation is to help shield himself from political backlash by getting Republicans to support the strike.
The whole episode exposes Obama's naiveté when it comes to foreign affairs. The president should have secured firm allied support before announcing to the world that America would use military force. Now he realizes too late that he waded in over his head and blundered badly in diplomacy.
That's why Obama has lobbed the political hot potato to Congress. On principle, the Congress should reject Obama's request because he waited until the dye was cast to seek approval. Obama hatched this plan and he owns it. America's image cannot be repaired with the bandaid of Congressional support.
Monday, August 26, 2013
GOP: A Party Searching For A Strategy
President Obama's approval ratings are sagging. Most Americans believe the economy stinks. Consumer confidence is flagging. The stock of Republicans should be rising, right? Instead the GOP brand has lost some of its sheen because of a void of ideas and leadership.
The party's lowpoint may have been the Republican National Committee's chief squawking about plans by two networks to air fawning series on presumptive Democrat presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. Who cares about a Hillary tube love fest? Further proof the party has lost its way.
The most critical issue facing Republicans is a leadership vacuum. House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell are mealy-mouthed, boring and bereft of bold ideas. While colleagues may hold them in high esteem, the duo has been the perfect antidote for voters' insomnia.
A few well-meaning Republicans have tiptoed into the chasm, including Senators Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. But they speak for themselves, not for the entire party. And that has been the problem because voters are getting mixed signals from a chorus of Republican voices.
During the current Congressional recess, Republicans need to reassess their strategy, create a cogent message and reshape their agenda to address a few key issues that resonate with voters. They must silence the cacophony of competing messages and unify behind themes that ignite voter enthusiasm. Right now the GOP is chasing issues like a Kardashian panting after a wealthy bachelor.
Based on past performance, a new direction may be too much to expect of this crop of Republicans. The blame lies entirely with Boehner and McConnell. Republicans must start by designating someone else in the House and Senate to speak for the party. Egos will be shattered, but victory often demands sacrifices.
Once the titular leaders are in place, the party must reclaim the higher ground by focusing its message and actions on three issues:
The party's lowpoint may have been the Republican National Committee's chief squawking about plans by two networks to air fawning series on presumptive Democrat presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. Who cares about a Hillary tube love fest? Further proof the party has lost its way.
The most critical issue facing Republicans is a leadership vacuum. House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell are mealy-mouthed, boring and bereft of bold ideas. While colleagues may hold them in high esteem, the duo has been the perfect antidote for voters' insomnia.
A few well-meaning Republicans have tiptoed into the chasm, including Senators Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. But they speak for themselves, not for the entire party. And that has been the problem because voters are getting mixed signals from a chorus of Republican voices.
During the current Congressional recess, Republicans need to reassess their strategy, create a cogent message and reshape their agenda to address a few key issues that resonate with voters. They must silence the cacophony of competing messages and unify behind themes that ignite voter enthusiasm. Right now the GOP is chasing issues like a Kardashian panting after a wealthy bachelor.
Based on past performance, a new direction may be too much to expect of this crop of Republicans. The blame lies entirely with Boehner and McConnell. Republicans must start by designating someone else in the House and Senate to speak for the party. Egos will be shattered, but victory often demands sacrifices.
Once the titular leaders are in place, the party must reclaim the higher ground by focusing its message and actions on three issues:
- OBAMA CARE: The new health law is overwhelmingly unpopular with voters. Rasmussen pollsters found 54 percent of likely voters view the healthcare reform unfavorably. However, defunding Obama Care is a dumb idea because Democrats hold the advantage by virture of their control of the Senate and of the White House. Instead, the GOP should force Democrats to defend a law that has been poorly implemented, ineffectively communicated and grossly more expensive than original estimates. The more voters experience the law, the more they will dislike the quality of care. The GOP needs to hammer Democrats on healthcare while offering an alternative plan that is simple, cost-effective and patient-friendly to replace the flawed reform. Voters want answers not just objections to current law.
- ECONOMY: A stunning 54 percent of Americans believe the U.S. economy remains in a recession, according to a Marist Poll. Only 29 percent think they will be better off next year. Yet Republicans have quit talking about the economy, although it remains the top issue with voters according to the Gallup Poll. The GOP needs to develop an economic plan that creates incentives for businesses to invest and rewards small firms that create jobs. Nothing more complicated.
- NATIONAL DEBT: Congressional battles over government funding leave most Americans confused and angry. However, there is universal sentiment that the country's debt has grown too big at $16.9 trillion and mounting. That's why the deficit matters. Talk of a government shutdown only strengthens Obama's hand because the president has the opportunity to cherry pick the programs slated for the budget axe. What's needed is a coherent plan to reduce the deficit. Fortunately, one already exists. It is called the One Percent Spending Reduction Act, a bill to shave one penny out of every dollar of federal government expenditures. It can be easily explained and understood by voters.
If Republicans slither back into the cesspool of Washington politics with the same disjointed messages, the same worn-out ideas and the same tired leadership faces, then the party deserves to be soundly rejected by voters. Without change, they will fumble a golden opportunity to recapture the upper hand now enjoyed by President Obama.
Brash ideas not parsed language are needed. Dynamic leadership not weak-kneed posturing is required. Unity not mutiny is necessary. Wake up Republicans before the dinosaur replaces the elephant as the party symbol. Time to be relevant again.
Monday, August 19, 2013
Obamacare: Why AARP $old Out Seniors
The American Association for Retired Persons (AARP), an organization that represents seniors, owes its members an explanation of why it lobbied for healthcare reform that will strip billions of dollars from Medicare, threatening the solvency of the entitlement program.
Under Obamacare, the federal government will siphon an estimated $575 billion from Medicare to fund other parts of the healthcare law. The shearing will weaken Medicare, already burdened with an unfunded liability of $38 trillion.
AARP, with a membership of 35 million, used its financial and political muscle to help shove through Obamacare in 2010. At the time, independent polling showed a majority of seniors did not support government takeover of the healthcare industry.
In exchange for its backing, the interest group obtained a sweetheart financial deal in the new healthcare law. Under Obamacare, AARP will have a competitive advantage in peddling what's called Medigap insurance, which covers services and treatments Medicare doesn't.
That's no small matter because one-fourth of all seniors are currently covered by Medicare Advantage plans offered by private insurers. These firms are AARP's largest competitors in the field of Medigap insurance. Changes inserted into Obamacare gifted AARP with a financial windfall.
But the Obama Administration's political favors didn't end there. The Health and Human Services Department has granted AARP a waiver, exempting the group from government oversight of the price it charges seniors for Medigap coverage. Private insurers have no such arrangement.
If there appears to be a disconnect, that's because AARP leads a schizophrenic existence. On one hand, it professes to be a non-profit, supposedly non-partisan, organization. But it also has a marketing arm that sells for-profit services, including insurance, investments and retirement planning.
Although AARP rakes in millions of dollars from its members, the organization feeds at the government trough. Last year, taxpayers forked over $585 million to AARP in federal grants and Medicare payments. Without taxpayer assistance, AARP would scramble to break-even.
With a hand-picked Obama donor in charge at AARP, the group scooped up an $18 million grant as part of the economic stimulus package in 2009. It needed the money because the organization spends lavishly, including frittering away $80 million annually for lobbying activities.
Most AARP members are clueless about the organization's advocacy campaigns. Membership mostly views AARP as a source for discounts at hotels, restaurants, pharmacies and other firms. They are in for a rude awakening once they discover the impact Obamacare will have on their health care.
As a result of Medicare reductions and new requirements imposed on physicians, seniors' access to health care services will be effected. Many physicians are already posting signs in their waiting rooms warning they will no longer accept new Medicare patients.
To make matters worse, Obamacare will trim the reimbursements physicians receive for treatment and services. Medicare currently pays less than private insurers for the same treatment and services. Obamacare will exacerbate the difference, forcing doctors to shun Medicare patients.
There are countless other adverse changes, including rationing of cancer treatment based on a patient's age. Another revision puts new restrictions on emergency room admissions paid for by Medicare. Unless a patient's primary physician orders emergency care, the government will not pay.
As a result, seniors best days for health care are behind them. Beginning in 2014, they will bear the burden of President Obama's costly $2 trillion experiment in government health care. Seniors have suffered a cold calculated betrayal at the hands of profit-hungry AARP and the president.
Under Obamacare, the federal government will siphon an estimated $575 billion from Medicare to fund other parts of the healthcare law. The shearing will weaken Medicare, already burdened with an unfunded liability of $38 trillion.
AARP, with a membership of 35 million, used its financial and political muscle to help shove through Obamacare in 2010. At the time, independent polling showed a majority of seniors did not support government takeover of the healthcare industry.
In exchange for its backing, the interest group obtained a sweetheart financial deal in the new healthcare law. Under Obamacare, AARP will have a competitive advantage in peddling what's called Medigap insurance, which covers services and treatments Medicare doesn't.
That's no small matter because one-fourth of all seniors are currently covered by Medicare Advantage plans offered by private insurers. These firms are AARP's largest competitors in the field of Medigap insurance. Changes inserted into Obamacare gifted AARP with a financial windfall.
But the Obama Administration's political favors didn't end there. The Health and Human Services Department has granted AARP a waiver, exempting the group from government oversight of the price it charges seniors for Medigap coverage. Private insurers have no such arrangement.
If there appears to be a disconnect, that's because AARP leads a schizophrenic existence. On one hand, it professes to be a non-profit, supposedly non-partisan, organization. But it also has a marketing arm that sells for-profit services, including insurance, investments and retirement planning.
Although AARP rakes in millions of dollars from its members, the organization feeds at the government trough. Last year, taxpayers forked over $585 million to AARP in federal grants and Medicare payments. Without taxpayer assistance, AARP would scramble to break-even.
With a hand-picked Obama donor in charge at AARP, the group scooped up an $18 million grant as part of the economic stimulus package in 2009. It needed the money because the organization spends lavishly, including frittering away $80 million annually for lobbying activities.
Most AARP members are clueless about the organization's advocacy campaigns. Membership mostly views AARP as a source for discounts at hotels, restaurants, pharmacies and other firms. They are in for a rude awakening once they discover the impact Obamacare will have on their health care.
As a result of Medicare reductions and new requirements imposed on physicians, seniors' access to health care services will be effected. Many physicians are already posting signs in their waiting rooms warning they will no longer accept new Medicare patients.
To make matters worse, Obamacare will trim the reimbursements physicians receive for treatment and services. Medicare currently pays less than private insurers for the same treatment and services. Obamacare will exacerbate the difference, forcing doctors to shun Medicare patients.
There are countless other adverse changes, including rationing of cancer treatment based on a patient's age. Another revision puts new restrictions on emergency room admissions paid for by Medicare. Unless a patient's primary physician orders emergency care, the government will not pay.
As a result, seniors best days for health care are behind them. Beginning in 2014, they will bear the burden of President Obama's costly $2 trillion experiment in government health care. Seniors have suffered a cold calculated betrayal at the hands of profit-hungry AARP and the president.
Monday, August 12, 2013
Al and Jesse: Fixated On Race Not Solutions
Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. They preened before television cameras after the high-profile trial of George Zimmerman, acquitted of murder charges in the shooting death of a 17-year old black teenager. But the self-anointed civil rights leaders are invisible in the battle to save black communities.
The two race agitators have failed the many African-Americans they profess to represent by turning a blind eye to the problems obstructing progress within the black community. They have remained silent as black crime soared, children grew up fatherless and school graduation rates slumped.
Instead the faux leaders have moralized that African-Americans are victims of inherent racism that exists throughout society. They have sermonized about the need for more government intervention and assistance to lift their people out of the depths of poverty and dependence.
Their grandstanding has done nothing to improve black communities.
Statistics offer a graphic but grim snapshot of what really plagues the black community. These numbers were culled from published reports by the NAACP, Bureau of Justice, Census Bureau, the U.S. Department of Education and the National Center for Health.
To put the figures in perspective, African-Americans make up 14 percent of the U.S. population, according to the latest census.
The two race agitators have failed the many African-Americans they profess to represent by turning a blind eye to the problems obstructing progress within the black community. They have remained silent as black crime soared, children grew up fatherless and school graduation rates slumped.
Instead the faux leaders have moralized that African-Americans are victims of inherent racism that exists throughout society. They have sermonized about the need for more government intervention and assistance to lift their people out of the depths of poverty and dependence.
Their grandstanding has done nothing to improve black communities.
Statistics offer a graphic but grim snapshot of what really plagues the black community. These numbers were culled from published reports by the NAACP, Bureau of Justice, Census Bureau, the U.S. Department of Education and the National Center for Health.
To put the figures in perspective, African-Americans make up 14 percent of the U.S. population, according to the latest census.
- More than 72 percent of births to black women are out of wedlock. Poverty rates for unmarried women are 70.8 percent compared to 29.2 percent for married households.
- A full 67 percent of black children under the age of 18 live in a household with a single parent, compared to 25 percent for whites. Black women are more often head of these households.
- Of all the women living with HIV in the country, approximately 66 percent are African-American women. Most of the women (87 percent) contracted HIV by having unprotected sex.
- Only 61 percent of black students graduate from high school, compared to 82 percent for white and 91 percent of Asians. Education has the strongest influence on income and hiring.
- About 35 percent of black youths in grades seven through twelve are suspended or expelled at some point in their school career. That compares to 16 percent for all other students.
- One in 15 black men are imprisoned at some time in their lives, compared to one in every 106 white males. The racial composition of U.S. prisons and jails is 60.2 percent African-American.
- Forty-three percent of all murder victims are African-American. An overwhelming number (93.1 percent) were killed by blacks.
With issues like these in the African-American community, it is not surprising that unemployment in July among blacks was 12.6 percent, compared to 7.4 percent overall. Twenty-eight percent of all African-Americans live in poverty, an increase since 2005.
But Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are not the only ones who have been derelict. The nation's first African-American president hasn't done much to raise the standard of living for blacks. President Obama can only claim to have expanded food stamp benefits to more Americans than ever.
But handouts are not the catalyst needed to snap the cycle of poverty, crime and joblessness in the black community. Fearless leadership is required to address the issues facing African-Americans, instead of allowing cowardly apostles of race to preach the gospel of victimhood.
In the meantime, don't look to Al, Jesse or Obama for forthright leadership.
Monday, August 5, 2013
Obama's Secret War To Turn Texas Blue
Attorney General Eric Holder recently lobbed a political grenade into Texas as the Obama Administration stepped up his battle to break the Republican stranglehold on the Lone Star State. The vengeful Holder wants Texas to seek Justice Department approval for any changes in election laws.
Holder claims to be upset over Texas' voter ID law, despite a Supreme Court decision upholding the right of states to protect the integrity of elections through such means. But Holder's maneuver is nothing more than a smokescreen for the administration's covert effort to turn Texas blue (Democrat).
The attorney general is angling to stick his nose into the state's redistricting plans so his department can manipulate the drawing of House districts to favor Democrats. His legal posturing leaves no doubt this is about partisan politics, not the protection of voting rights.
What rankles Holder and his boss is this: Republicans control both Texas Senate seats and have a lopsided majority in the House, claiming 24 of the 36 slots. To make matters worse, some of the most vocal criticism of Obama's liberal agenda has been aired by Texas senators and representatives.
Obama and Holder are eyeing the 2014 mid-term elections, when they hope to reclaim the House of Representatives. Republicans hold a 234-200 advantage in House seats. With half of the House seats up for grabs next year, a Democrat victory would erase all opposition to Obama's radical agenda.
Obama political operatives have created a front organization, called "Battleground Texas," to raise funds, recruit volunteers and register voters in Texas. Massive amounts of data have been collected by the group to zero in on Hispanics and women, traditional Democrat leaning groups.
Heading the organization are Jeane Brown and Jeremy Bird, the Obama campaign's former national field director. Major fundraising efforts are already underway, including a March event held in Washington, D.C. headlined by San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro, a Democrat frequently mentioned as a future gubernatorial candidate.
The effort obviously has the president's support. Obama made ten trips to Texas, not including fundraisers, from 2009 to the end of last year, according to White House records. He has already parachuted into the state twice this year to preach the Democrat campaign message.
What makes Obama and Democrats salivate is the decline of the white population in Texas and the growth of the Hispanic demographic. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Hispanics now comprise 38.1 percent of the Texas population, an increase from 32 percent in the 2000 census.
A Democrat demographer has forecast Hispanics will become a plurality in Texas as soon 2025. The prediction, based on census data and birth rate statistics, puts the Hispanic share of the population at 44 percent in 12 years. Whites are estimated to be 38 percent.
However, Hispanic voter turnout in Texas has been traditionally low. In the last presidential election, only 38 percent of Hispanics turned up at the polls. That compares to 48 percent of Hispanics nationwide.
That explains why Democrats are targeting Hispanics. The Obama brigade wants to increase registration and voter turnout among this key demographic.
Republicans are advised not to underestimate the Obama offensive. The president's agents used the same tactic in Colorado to turn the former red state into a deep blue pocket of liberalism. In 2007, Democrats took control of the state for the first time in more than 40 years.
The usual suspects have shown up to back the Democrat blitzkrieg in Texas. Planned Parenthood officials have attended fundraisers. Clinton adviser Paul Begala was a featured speaker at one event. Hispanic community activists are also prominent in the camouflaged operation.
However, whispers of the Democrat cloak-and-dagger operation have reached Texas Republicans.
A conservative organization, FreedomWorks, has announced plans to lead the fight to mobilize volunteers and activists to counter the Democrat chicanery. Conservatives had better rally to defeat the president's political machine if they hope to keep taxes low, government small and freedom flourishing in Texas.
If Obama's surrogates succeed, there will be a lot of blue Texans.
Holder claims to be upset over Texas' voter ID law, despite a Supreme Court decision upholding the right of states to protect the integrity of elections through such means. But Holder's maneuver is nothing more than a smokescreen for the administration's covert effort to turn Texas blue (Democrat).
The attorney general is angling to stick his nose into the state's redistricting plans so his department can manipulate the drawing of House districts to favor Democrats. His legal posturing leaves no doubt this is about partisan politics, not the protection of voting rights.
What rankles Holder and his boss is this: Republicans control both Texas Senate seats and have a lopsided majority in the House, claiming 24 of the 36 slots. To make matters worse, some of the most vocal criticism of Obama's liberal agenda has been aired by Texas senators and representatives.
Obama and Holder are eyeing the 2014 mid-term elections, when they hope to reclaim the House of Representatives. Republicans hold a 234-200 advantage in House seats. With half of the House seats up for grabs next year, a Democrat victory would erase all opposition to Obama's radical agenda.
Obama political operatives have created a front organization, called "Battleground Texas," to raise funds, recruit volunteers and register voters in Texas. Massive amounts of data have been collected by the group to zero in on Hispanics and women, traditional Democrat leaning groups.
Heading the organization are Jeane Brown and Jeremy Bird, the Obama campaign's former national field director. Major fundraising efforts are already underway, including a March event held in Washington, D.C. headlined by San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro, a Democrat frequently mentioned as a future gubernatorial candidate.
The effort obviously has the president's support. Obama made ten trips to Texas, not including fundraisers, from 2009 to the end of last year, according to White House records. He has already parachuted into the state twice this year to preach the Democrat campaign message.
What makes Obama and Democrats salivate is the decline of the white population in Texas and the growth of the Hispanic demographic. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Hispanics now comprise 38.1 percent of the Texas population, an increase from 32 percent in the 2000 census.
A Democrat demographer has forecast Hispanics will become a plurality in Texas as soon 2025. The prediction, based on census data and birth rate statistics, puts the Hispanic share of the population at 44 percent in 12 years. Whites are estimated to be 38 percent.
However, Hispanic voter turnout in Texas has been traditionally low. In the last presidential election, only 38 percent of Hispanics turned up at the polls. That compares to 48 percent of Hispanics nationwide.
That explains why Democrats are targeting Hispanics. The Obama brigade wants to increase registration and voter turnout among this key demographic.
Republicans are advised not to underestimate the Obama offensive. The president's agents used the same tactic in Colorado to turn the former red state into a deep blue pocket of liberalism. In 2007, Democrats took control of the state for the first time in more than 40 years.
The usual suspects have shown up to back the Democrat blitzkrieg in Texas. Planned Parenthood officials have attended fundraisers. Clinton adviser Paul Begala was a featured speaker at one event. Hispanic community activists are also prominent in the camouflaged operation.
However, whispers of the Democrat cloak-and-dagger operation have reached Texas Republicans.
A conservative organization, FreedomWorks, has announced plans to lead the fight to mobilize volunteers and activists to counter the Democrat chicanery. Conservatives had better rally to defeat the president's political machine if they hope to keep taxes low, government small and freedom flourishing in Texas.
If Obama's surrogates succeed, there will be a lot of blue Texans.
Monday, July 29, 2013
Lessons From A Bankrupt City
Detroit's bankruptcy filing spotlights the power of public sector unions to bully elected officials into voting for lavish retiree pension plans that saddle cities with crushing financial debt. While Detroit has been the center of media attention, the city's problems are hardly unique.
In a recent report, economists from Rochester University and Stanford estimated that unfunded pension liabilities of cities and state governments are approaching $3 trillion nationwide. With the economic downturn, more cities and states are hiking taxes in a desperate attempt to play catch-up.
In what has become an all too familiar scenario, public sector unions in the country have browbeat and threatened strikes unless city leaders rubber-stamp retiree pension and health benefit plans that no private business could afford. Elected officials are often beholden to the unions because they supply bushels of cash and thousands of foot soldiers for their political campaigns.
That certainly was the case in Detroit, a city dogged by a corrupt political culture controlled by Democrat Party chieftains and greedy unions, most notoriously the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (SFSCME).
Even before the recession, money problems stalked Detroit. The city was unable to dig itself out of its financial hole as thousands fled the inner city to escape soaring crime and spiraling taxes. The tax base eroded as the population dwindled from 1.8 million in 1950 to its current 701,475.
City tax revenues shriveled, shrinking 30 percent in the last decade. Property taxes have dipped 20 percent since 2008. As a result, 99,000 housing units stand vacant in the city. About 40 percent of the streetlights don't work. Two-thirds of city parks are closed. Detroit was forced to shutter half of its 142 schools two years ago to ease a $327 million deficit.
Last year, Detroit had the highest rate of violent crime of any city with a population of 200,000 or more, according to statistics contained in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports. There were 411 homicides, the most in nearly two decades. Unemployment languished at 16.3 percent.
As decay worsened, the city went on a borrowing binge. Unable to service the debt, Detroit leaders finally threw up their hands in surrender when they realized they could not pay $18 billion to more than 100,000 creditors. The lion's share of that money is owed to the city's retired union workers.
The cash needed to fund the pensions and health benefits for 30,000 retired Detroit workers amounts to $9.2 billion. City employees were guaranteed lifetime pensions and health benefits by elected officials. Workers have now discovered those are nothing but empty promises.
Michigan's state constitution protects public sector pensions, a concession wrangled by power-hungry union bosses who bulldozed voters into approving the change. However, federal bankruptcy rules allow pension changes, setting up a court battle over the issue of state's rights versus federal law.
The case will have far reaching impact on cities teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. Chicago recently was slapped with a downgrade in its credit rating because the city has a $19 billion unfunded pension liability. Los Angeles may be facing a pension liability of $30 billion, according to some estimates.
While Detroit is the largest city to file for bankruptcy, it is not the first. Seven other municipalities have been forced to seek court protection from creditors since 2010. Not surprisingly, three are California cities (San Bernardino, Mammoth Lakes and Stockton). State and city governments in California have unfunded pension liabilities totaling $329 billion.
Unless elected officials stand up to public sector unions, the problem will worsen.
Don't expect the unions to come to their senses. In Detroit, the head of the big public sector union (AFSCME) refused to concede an inch. He balked at pension concessions and accused officials of wanting city employees "to have to work until they die."
That kind of union intransigence led to the current state of affairs. The answer is to reduce city and state governments by shaving the public workforce. It will save not only pensions costs, but trim the city governments bills for health benefits and wages.
Meanwhile, the Obama Administration continues to "monitor" the situation in Detroit. The bet here is that the president will step into the bankruptcy breech to bail out the union. It would not be far fetched for the president to provide federal loan guarantees or some other scheme to fund the union pensions.
As you recall, Obama did the same thing when he allowed Detroit-headquartered General Motors to bellyflop into bankruptcy, but he confiscated taxpayer dollars to rescue union pensions and benefits. And look how well that turned out for Detroit.
In a recent report, economists from Rochester University and Stanford estimated that unfunded pension liabilities of cities and state governments are approaching $3 trillion nationwide. With the economic downturn, more cities and states are hiking taxes in a desperate attempt to play catch-up.
In what has become an all too familiar scenario, public sector unions in the country have browbeat and threatened strikes unless city leaders rubber-stamp retiree pension and health benefit plans that no private business could afford. Elected officials are often beholden to the unions because they supply bushels of cash and thousands of foot soldiers for their political campaigns.
That certainly was the case in Detroit, a city dogged by a corrupt political culture controlled by Democrat Party chieftains and greedy unions, most notoriously the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (SFSCME).
Even before the recession, money problems stalked Detroit. The city was unable to dig itself out of its financial hole as thousands fled the inner city to escape soaring crime and spiraling taxes. The tax base eroded as the population dwindled from 1.8 million in 1950 to its current 701,475.
City tax revenues shriveled, shrinking 30 percent in the last decade. Property taxes have dipped 20 percent since 2008. As a result, 99,000 housing units stand vacant in the city. About 40 percent of the streetlights don't work. Two-thirds of city parks are closed. Detroit was forced to shutter half of its 142 schools two years ago to ease a $327 million deficit.
Last year, Detroit had the highest rate of violent crime of any city with a population of 200,000 or more, according to statistics contained in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports. There were 411 homicides, the most in nearly two decades. Unemployment languished at 16.3 percent.
As decay worsened, the city went on a borrowing binge. Unable to service the debt, Detroit leaders finally threw up their hands in surrender when they realized they could not pay $18 billion to more than 100,000 creditors. The lion's share of that money is owed to the city's retired union workers.
The cash needed to fund the pensions and health benefits for 30,000 retired Detroit workers amounts to $9.2 billion. City employees were guaranteed lifetime pensions and health benefits by elected officials. Workers have now discovered those are nothing but empty promises.
Michigan's state constitution protects public sector pensions, a concession wrangled by power-hungry union bosses who bulldozed voters into approving the change. However, federal bankruptcy rules allow pension changes, setting up a court battle over the issue of state's rights versus federal law.
The case will have far reaching impact on cities teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. Chicago recently was slapped with a downgrade in its credit rating because the city has a $19 billion unfunded pension liability. Los Angeles may be facing a pension liability of $30 billion, according to some estimates.
While Detroit is the largest city to file for bankruptcy, it is not the first. Seven other municipalities have been forced to seek court protection from creditors since 2010. Not surprisingly, three are California cities (San Bernardino, Mammoth Lakes and Stockton). State and city governments in California have unfunded pension liabilities totaling $329 billion.
Unless elected officials stand up to public sector unions, the problem will worsen.
Don't expect the unions to come to their senses. In Detroit, the head of the big public sector union (AFSCME) refused to concede an inch. He balked at pension concessions and accused officials of wanting city employees "to have to work until they die."
That kind of union intransigence led to the current state of affairs. The answer is to reduce city and state governments by shaving the public workforce. It will save not only pensions costs, but trim the city governments bills for health benefits and wages.
Meanwhile, the Obama Administration continues to "monitor" the situation in Detroit. The bet here is that the president will step into the bankruptcy breech to bail out the union. It would not be far fetched for the president to provide federal loan guarantees or some other scheme to fund the union pensions.
As you recall, Obama did the same thing when he allowed Detroit-headquartered General Motors to bellyflop into bankruptcy, but he confiscated taxpayer dollars to rescue union pensions and benefits. And look how well that turned out for Detroit.
Monday, July 22, 2013
Job Reports: Distortion, Deception and Duplicity
Forget the IRS scandal, the Benghazi betrayal and the NSA spy hijinks. The Obama Administration has taken government skulduggery to a new level with the promulgation of dubious data and reports that conceal the depth of the nation's economic woes.
This month the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) issued figures and reports that strained the credibility of the government. In both cases, a sympathetic media failed in its obligation to do more than simply regurgitate the administration's talking-points.
Print outlets festooned their newspapers with headlines about the creation of 195,000 jobs in June when the BLS published its monthly employment figures. Hand-picked economic experts hailed the growth as affirmation of the nation's continuing rebound from the recession.
However, with just a modicum of journalistic enterprise, the media could have discovered that part time hiring was the major contributor to the increase in jobs. Temporary workers, primarily employed at contract firms, now account for 12 percent of the labor force.
The number of temps has skyrocketed by more than 50 percent since President Obama declared the recession ended four years ago. On a net basis, the nation's economy lost a stunning 326,000 full time jobs in June. Part-time workers now number a record 28 million.
Growth in part-time employment can be attributed to Obamacare, which requires firms with at least 50 workers to offer health insurance or pay a $2,000 fine per employee. Although the mandate has been delayed for a year, small businesses are holding payrolls to 49 workers or less while farming out work to part-time employees.
Included in the BLS report was the news that unemployment remained steady at 7.6 percent. However, this figure does not count so-called discouraged workers who have given up their search for a job. They are ignored in the government's official unemployment numbers spoon-fed to the lapdog media.
Excluding these "discouraged" workers makes a significant difference. As of June, that category accounted for 1 million people. It represents a 20 percent increase from last June and indicates the growing dissatisfaction of people over the lack of job opportunities.
It takes some digging, but the real unemployment figure is buried in the BLS data tables. Including the "discouraged," unemployment in June was 14.3 percent of the workforce. That represents a significant spike from May's figure of 13.8 percent.
But the award for government obfuscation goes to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The BEA released this month what it called a revised estimate of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), a measure of the country's economic output.
Their figures showed that the economy expanded at a feeble 1.8 percent in the first quarter. The original estimate, delivered with much fanfare last month, fixed the number at 2.5 percent. Later the same month the bureau shaved it to 2.4 percent. The third revision received scant media notice.
A "revision" of this magnitude--from 2.5 percent to 1.8 percent--is unprecedented. It merited serious news coverage because it signals a frail, unhealthy economy. Normal GDP growth for the U.S. has historically been about 3.0 percent.
On the heels of these reports, the Commerce Department this month released figures showing retail spending climbed a paltry 0.4 percent in June. It is the weakest rise since January. Consumer spending accounts for about 70 percent of the nation's economy.
What the Obama regime doesn't want you to know is this: the economic rally has fizzled. Job growth has stalled, except for part-time employment. Real unemployment remains stubbornly high. Obamacare is negatively impacting hiring and reducing the number of hours worked by employees.
Despite the ominous signs, Obama appears supremely content to allow the economic decline of the country. His answer to the crisis is to grow government assistance, adding millions of Americans on the federal rolls for food, disability, unemployment benefits, Medicaid and housing.
None of this is good news for most Americans. But they deserve an honest appraisal of the nation's economy, not some embellished version adorned with government distortion, deception and duplicity.
This month the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) issued figures and reports that strained the credibility of the government. In both cases, a sympathetic media failed in its obligation to do more than simply regurgitate the administration's talking-points.
Print outlets festooned their newspapers with headlines about the creation of 195,000 jobs in June when the BLS published its monthly employment figures. Hand-picked economic experts hailed the growth as affirmation of the nation's continuing rebound from the recession.
However, with just a modicum of journalistic enterprise, the media could have discovered that part time hiring was the major contributor to the increase in jobs. Temporary workers, primarily employed at contract firms, now account for 12 percent of the labor force.
The number of temps has skyrocketed by more than 50 percent since President Obama declared the recession ended four years ago. On a net basis, the nation's economy lost a stunning 326,000 full time jobs in June. Part-time workers now number a record 28 million.
Growth in part-time employment can be attributed to Obamacare, which requires firms with at least 50 workers to offer health insurance or pay a $2,000 fine per employee. Although the mandate has been delayed for a year, small businesses are holding payrolls to 49 workers or less while farming out work to part-time employees.
Included in the BLS report was the news that unemployment remained steady at 7.6 percent. However, this figure does not count so-called discouraged workers who have given up their search for a job. They are ignored in the government's official unemployment numbers spoon-fed to the lapdog media.
Excluding these "discouraged" workers makes a significant difference. As of June, that category accounted for 1 million people. It represents a 20 percent increase from last June and indicates the growing dissatisfaction of people over the lack of job opportunities.
It takes some digging, but the real unemployment figure is buried in the BLS data tables. Including the "discouraged," unemployment in June was 14.3 percent of the workforce. That represents a significant spike from May's figure of 13.8 percent.
But the award for government obfuscation goes to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The BEA released this month what it called a revised estimate of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), a measure of the country's economic output.
Their figures showed that the economy expanded at a feeble 1.8 percent in the first quarter. The original estimate, delivered with much fanfare last month, fixed the number at 2.5 percent. Later the same month the bureau shaved it to 2.4 percent. The third revision received scant media notice.
A "revision" of this magnitude--from 2.5 percent to 1.8 percent--is unprecedented. It merited serious news coverage because it signals a frail, unhealthy economy. Normal GDP growth for the U.S. has historically been about 3.0 percent.
On the heels of these reports, the Commerce Department this month released figures showing retail spending climbed a paltry 0.4 percent in June. It is the weakest rise since January. Consumer spending accounts for about 70 percent of the nation's economy.
What the Obama regime doesn't want you to know is this: the economic rally has fizzled. Job growth has stalled, except for part-time employment. Real unemployment remains stubbornly high. Obamacare is negatively impacting hiring and reducing the number of hours worked by employees.
Despite the ominous signs, Obama appears supremely content to allow the economic decline of the country. His answer to the crisis is to grow government assistance, adding millions of Americans on the federal rolls for food, disability, unemployment benefits, Medicaid and housing.
None of this is good news for most Americans. But they deserve an honest appraisal of the nation's economy, not some embellished version adorned with government distortion, deception and duplicity.
Monday, July 15, 2013
How Team Obama Tried To Corrupt Justice
Even before George Zimmerman was saddled with a murder charge, President Obama and his co-conspirators in the media summoned the dark clouds of injustice to construct a narrative to stoke racial anger in an effort to influence the outcome of the investigation.
As the whole world knows by now, a Florida jury found Zimmerman innocent of second degree murder and manslaughter in the shooting of death of 17-year old Trayvon Martin, an African-American. The outcome was greeted with shrill protests by the usual suspects, including the NAACP.
The chain of events that preceded the trial are without precedent. From the time of his arrest, Zimmerman was mercilessly libeled and savagely slandered by a media intent on making the shooting all about race, despite no evidence to support their wretched thesis.
In the frenetic race to promote racial bias, the news media ignored the fact that the FBI interviewed three dozen people in the murder case. It concluded its investigation by announcing it found "no evidence" of a racial motive in the shooting.
That didn't stop the The New York Times from raising the specter of white-on-black crime. To make its case, The Times referred to Zimmerman as "white," although his mother is Hispanic.
President Obama practiced his own brand of racial prejudice with a mischievous reference designed to place the weight of his office behind the victim. He infamously proclaimed that if he had a son, he would probably look like Trayvon Martin.
Imagine if George Bush had been president and made the same analogy, but inserted the name George Zimmerman. Indignation from the media and legal community would have boiled over with frothy derision.
Obama's intent was clear. The president telegraphed prosecutors, judges, the police and potential jurors that he would be looking over their shoulders. The message was received and the criminal justice system became convinced its mission was to convict Zimmerman at all costs.
The behavior by the prosecutors in the case was so wantonly unethical that even liberals couldn't remain silent. Harvard Law professor and famed attorney Alan Dershowitz called for the prosecutors to be "disbarred" for misconduct.
In his assessment, Dershowitz was adamant that Zimmerman should not have been charged with second-degree murder because the evidence did not support it. He pointed out that the prosecutors' attempts to layer on additional charges in the trial's waning stages were "utterly irresponsible."
The incorrigible media also looked the other way while Obama's Department of Justice deployed a secretive group to Florida to help drum up support to prosecute Zimmerman. The justice agents worked in the shadows to assist in organizing rallies, marches and demonstrations for the victim.
The facts were obtained by Judicial Watch through a Freedom of Information Act request to Justice. The department supplied 347 pages of documents, which detail the extraordinary intervention in the run up to the filing of charges against Zimmerman.
The department and its Community Relations Service spent $5,230.88 of taxpayer money to sway public opinion and to build support for prosecution. To date, Attorney General Eric Holder has stonewalled requests to account for his department's shabby scheme to rig the investigation.
After the jury returned the verdict, the NAACP rushed online with a petition calling for federal prosecution of Zimmerman after the organization expressed "outrage" at the jury's decision. The group wants the Justice Department to file civil rights charges against Zimmerman.
It seems Messrs. Obama and Holder and the NAACP believe justice only works when the system does their bidding. If it doesn't, then it is a travesty. Their presumption stems from a bias against the courts, judges and police built on stereotypes held by the race-obsessed in our society.
Barrack Obama was once hailed as the president whose election signaled the end of racism. The opposite has happened as the president has informed his decision-making by judging America and Americans through a black-and-white lens.
The once anointed unifier is now the divider.
As the whole world knows by now, a Florida jury found Zimmerman innocent of second degree murder and manslaughter in the shooting of death of 17-year old Trayvon Martin, an African-American. The outcome was greeted with shrill protests by the usual suspects, including the NAACP.
The chain of events that preceded the trial are without precedent. From the time of his arrest, Zimmerman was mercilessly libeled and savagely slandered by a media intent on making the shooting all about race, despite no evidence to support their wretched thesis.
In the frenetic race to promote racial bias, the news media ignored the fact that the FBI interviewed three dozen people in the murder case. It concluded its investigation by announcing it found "no evidence" of a racial motive in the shooting.
That didn't stop the The New York Times from raising the specter of white-on-black crime. To make its case, The Times referred to Zimmerman as "white," although his mother is Hispanic.
President Obama practiced his own brand of racial prejudice with a mischievous reference designed to place the weight of his office behind the victim. He infamously proclaimed that if he had a son, he would probably look like Trayvon Martin.
Imagine if George Bush had been president and made the same analogy, but inserted the name George Zimmerman. Indignation from the media and legal community would have boiled over with frothy derision.
Obama's intent was clear. The president telegraphed prosecutors, judges, the police and potential jurors that he would be looking over their shoulders. The message was received and the criminal justice system became convinced its mission was to convict Zimmerman at all costs.
The behavior by the prosecutors in the case was so wantonly unethical that even liberals couldn't remain silent. Harvard Law professor and famed attorney Alan Dershowitz called for the prosecutors to be "disbarred" for misconduct.
In his assessment, Dershowitz was adamant that Zimmerman should not have been charged with second-degree murder because the evidence did not support it. He pointed out that the prosecutors' attempts to layer on additional charges in the trial's waning stages were "utterly irresponsible."
The incorrigible media also looked the other way while Obama's Department of Justice deployed a secretive group to Florida to help drum up support to prosecute Zimmerman. The justice agents worked in the shadows to assist in organizing rallies, marches and demonstrations for the victim.
The facts were obtained by Judicial Watch through a Freedom of Information Act request to Justice. The department supplied 347 pages of documents, which detail the extraordinary intervention in the run up to the filing of charges against Zimmerman.
The department and its Community Relations Service spent $5,230.88 of taxpayer money to sway public opinion and to build support for prosecution. To date, Attorney General Eric Holder has stonewalled requests to account for his department's shabby scheme to rig the investigation.
After the jury returned the verdict, the NAACP rushed online with a petition calling for federal prosecution of Zimmerman after the organization expressed "outrage" at the jury's decision. The group wants the Justice Department to file civil rights charges against Zimmerman.
It seems Messrs. Obama and Holder and the NAACP believe justice only works when the system does their bidding. If it doesn't, then it is a travesty. Their presumption stems from a bias against the courts, judges and police built on stereotypes held by the race-obsessed in our society.
Barrack Obama was once hailed as the president whose election signaled the end of racism. The opposite has happened as the president has informed his decision-making by judging America and Americans through a black-and-white lens.
The once anointed unifier is now the divider.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)