Those baggy pants suits aren't the only thing sullying Hillary Clinton's image these days. A string of embarrassing revelations about the double-dealing Clinton Foundation has tarnished whatever sheen remained of the Clinton mystique. Now she faces the reality that party liberals are feeding the frenzy.
After Hillary dodged the email scandal, most Democrats' faith was restored in the Clinton game plan of bullying the media into submission. The scalding news coverage of the deleted emails quickly evaporated under a barrage of Clinton denials. But this latest imbroglio is a political game changer.
The difference is that the liberal media, led by ultra-left The New York Times, has decided that Hillary's candidacy will end in failure next November. Many left-leaning groups, like Common Cause, agree. They are secretly campaigning for a more liberal Democrat in the Obama-mold to carry the banner.
How else can you explain the media's sudden about-face from Clinton clones to Hillary hyper critics?
The New York Times revealed how the tax-exempt Clinton Foundation hauled in cash from foreign governments and their surrogates while Hillary as Secretary of State dealt with issues these donors had vested interests in pursuing with the United States.
That liberal bastion The Washington Post followed the sleazy trail of money from the governments of Oman, Qatar, Kuwait and Algeria that flooded into the Clinton Foundation. Hillary huddled with the Algerian prime minister after her foundation cashed a $500,000 check from Algeria, the paper reported.
The stench was so malodorous that liberal Common Cause demanded an independent audit of donations to the Clinton Foundation. Their plea came on the heels of an investigation by Reuters news service that uncovered numerous errors in the foundation's IRS reports about foreign donations.
Under pressure, the foundation on Sunday admitted it "made mistakes" and promised to refile reports to correct the inaccuracies. Even before that admission of guilt, Hillary stepped down from the foundation and claimed her charity would no longer accept money from countries that discriminate against women.
Despite her transparent efforts to save face, Hillary's critics on the left are having none of it. They recognize a wounded candidate when they see one. And they understand these latest disclosures are only the tip of what is a large iceberg looming beneath the murky Clinton surface.
For example, the media still hasn't gotten its claws into the Clinton Foundation records on expenses. Between 2009 and 2012, the foundation shelled out $110 million in salaries and benefits, $25 million in travel on private jets, and $290 million in other expenses, including such items as housing.
In 2013, Hillary, Bill and daughter Chelsea racked up $8.448 million in travel costs on behalf of the foundation. That kind of lavish spending will soon catch the interest of the media. That same year, 2013, the foundation raised an astounding $144.4 million for its coffers.
If that doesn't set off alarms, consider that a measly 15 percent of the $500 million raised by the Clinton Foundation from 2009-2012 went to grants. The rest was gobbled up by expenses. That is 85 percent of the money that poured into the Clinton money machine.
Liberal Democrats can read the handwriting. Hillary and her vapor trail of skunk-smelling scandals will doom Democrats next November. They want someone with less baggage and an individual that doesn't just lean left, but teeters on the liberal ledge. Someone to carry on the Obama legacy.
Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, a darling of the uber left, remains adamant she will not seek the Democrat presidential nomination. But the media is doing all it can to deep-six Hillary to pave the way for a draft-Warren effort.
Perhaps, Hillary will somehow resurrect her campaign from her stinking garbage pile. But as she herself once said, "At this point, what difference does it make?"
For once, Hillary Clinton is right. Only her abrupt departure from the presidential race will erase the scent of a certain Democrat defeat.
Monday, April 27, 2015
Monday, April 20, 2015
Evil Rich People Rip Off the Middle Class
The mainstream media and President Obama are on a propaganda mission to brainwash Americans into believing that Republicans are to blame for the shrinking middle class and income inequality. Their deliberate disinformation campaign is designed to set the agenda for the 2016 presidential election.
Their messaging, buttressed by government data, dredges up all the old canards about how the hard-working middle class has been swindled out of income while the top five percent of rich Americans are wallowing in ill-gotten cash. Their arguments are dripping with envy, deceit and prejudice.
If America was blessed with real journalists, Obama's indoctrination would be exposed as political claptrap rather than a factual representation. But the media has invested six years in propping up President Obama and it has no intention of abandoning their oracle.
In this debate, numbers can be used to prove almost anything, but the difference is deciphering the data to clarify the meaning. A number without an explanation is just a figure. To bring some transparency to the issue, here are some indisputable facts being ignored by the media:
There is no universally recognized definition of middle class. In fact, surveys find the majority of Americans believe they are middle class. One reason for the confusion is there are a myriad of ways to define lower, middle and upper class. Just to mention a few: household income, total wealth, median income, pre-tax and after-tax incomes and real income including federal benefits. Using any one of these methodologies to compute income will produce either lower or higher dollar amounts for each household. That's why politicians prefer using the term "middle class" because it is elusive to define. Middle class is more perception than reality for average Americans.
The middle class has lost ground under President Obama. By any measurement, the so-called middle class is worse off under the president who claims he is fighting for them. Take median household income. When Obama was anointed president, the median income was $56,290. In 2013, the last year for which figures are available, that number had shrunk to $52,250. Another popular measure is per capita income, which includes the earnings of all Americans. The nation's per capita income was $29,849 when Obama become the commander-in-chief, but by 2013 it had dipped to $28,184. There is not a single measurement that shows the plight of the middle class has improved under the president's policies.
The middle class has not suffered the most in the recession. The Congressional Budget Office earlier this year published new findings about income levels for Americans. Their conclusion: Since 2000, pre-tax and after-tax incomes among Americans in the bottom 90 percent of income distribution have improved, while the top one percent of earners' real incomes have fallen. The data shows the after-tax income of those in the bottom fifth have increased 20 percent while the top one-percent have dipped four percent, according to CBO calculations. That may seem like nonsense to those who consume news from the mainstream media. However, the top one percent saw the biggest percentage shrinkage of their income during the recession. On average, their before-and-after tax incomes slid more than one-third. It is easy to understand why. Just 10 percent of American households own 80 percent of the stocks. They lost millions in wealth when the markets cratered. With the rebound in the stock market, they have recorded hefty gains.
Those evil rich people are not awash in money. President Obama has made it his mission in life to paint rich people as billionaires with lavish lifestyles, complete with personal chefs and sleek jets. It plays well to those with low education and the simpleminded. But using Bureau of Census figures, the top five percent of earners in the U.S. are those with incomes starting at $196,000. Many of them are small business people. There are only 513 people in the U.S. with a billion dollars or more in wealth, according to the latest Forbes Magazine rankings. Most of those in the top five percent earn far less than $1 million. Even if the top five percent of earners paid every single dime they earned in taxes, it would still not enable the U.S. government to balance the budget.
The irony of the president's carping about middle class distress and burgeoning income inequality should not be lost on Americans. The middle class has done worse under the current administration than any in history. The income gap has widened with Obama at the helm.
His policies are squarely to blame. More families are dropping from the ranks of the middle class into poverty. The biggest factors are the loss of jobs and long-term unemployment. Extending unemployment insurance, an Obama imperative, has led to the growing numbers of long term unemployed.
Obama's signature health care reform has caused many businesses, especially those with less than 50 employees, to slash hours and lay off workers. Nearly 300 large business have reduced hours for employees to get below the 32-hour threshold mandated in Obamacare.
As already illustrated, the wealthiest Americans have benefited from a sustained stock market rise, fueled by the Federal Reserve's easy money policies. Obama has appointed members to the Fed board who are determined to keep interest rates unnaturally low, which drives more investment in stocks.
Yet somehow Obama fails to grasp how his policies have helped to create the very situation he finds so detestable. The president could learn from Reaganomics. Under Ronald Reagan, middle class families saw their real incomes grow by an average of 12.6 percent during the boom that lasted from 1982 until 1989.
The media may believe President Obama is the smartest man in the room. But if he was, he would know how dumb it is to double-down on failed policies and expect a different result.
The irony of the president's carping about middle class distress and burgeoning income inequality should not be lost on Americans. The middle class has done worse under the current administration than any in history. The income gap has widened with Obama at the helm.
His policies are squarely to blame. More families are dropping from the ranks of the middle class into poverty. The biggest factors are the loss of jobs and long-term unemployment. Extending unemployment insurance, an Obama imperative, has led to the growing numbers of long term unemployed.
Obama's signature health care reform has caused many businesses, especially those with less than 50 employees, to slash hours and lay off workers. Nearly 300 large business have reduced hours for employees to get below the 32-hour threshold mandated in Obamacare.
As already illustrated, the wealthiest Americans have benefited from a sustained stock market rise, fueled by the Federal Reserve's easy money policies. Obama has appointed members to the Fed board who are determined to keep interest rates unnaturally low, which drives more investment in stocks.
Yet somehow Obama fails to grasp how his policies have helped to create the very situation he finds so detestable. The president could learn from Reaganomics. Under Ronald Reagan, middle class families saw their real incomes grow by an average of 12.6 percent during the boom that lasted from 1982 until 1989.
The media may believe President Obama is the smartest man in the room. But if he was, he would know how dumb it is to double-down on failed policies and expect a different result.
Monday, April 13, 2015
Income Taxes: Millions of Americans Pay Zero
As the April 15 tax filing deadline looms, each year the media cranks out stories about the certainty of death and taxes. No one can yet escape death, but it is getting easier for many Americans to avoid paying taxes. In fact, an estimated 70 millions households will pay no federal income taxes this year.
Despite the tax burden falling on fewer and fewer Americans, the Democrat Party and their spiritual leader President Obama continue to preach that the wealthy are not ponying up their "fair share" of federal income taxes. This lie exists only because the media allows it to fester unchallenged.
The top one percent of income earners, those with an adjusted gross income of $434,000 or more, shelled out more than 38 percent of all the federal income taxes paid into the Treasury. These figures are courtesy of the Internal Revenue Service based on 2012 tax data, the latest numbers available.
IRS data shows that the top five percent of wage earners, those with incomes over $175,817, anted up 59 percent of the income taxes paid. Another way to look at the statistic is to realize that five percent of Americans account for nearly six of every ten dollars confiscated by the IRS.
The bottom 50 percent of earners, those with incomes under $36,000, contributed 2.8 percent of all the federal income taxes amassed by the federal government. That fact belies the Democrat lie that the so-called poor and middle class are shouldering the nation's income tax burden.
The National Tax Limitation Foundation (NTLF), using Congressional Budget Office (CBO) data, calculated that the bottom 90 percent of earners, who took home 52 percent of all income, paid less than 30 percent of the federal income taxes.
The non-partisan Tax Policy Center has issued studies showing that deductions, exemptions and credits allow millions of Americans to zero out their tax bill. Nearly 67 percent of those who owe no taxes fall into the bottom 50 percent of wage earners.
"Many people who pay no income tax simply have too little income to owe tax," explains Roberton Williams of the Tax Policy Center. "The rest benefit from the tax code's many preferences." Those include deductions for earned income, childcare and educational expenses.
The center forecasts that slightly more than 43 percent of U.S. households will pay no federal income tax. That number was 46 percent in 2011. The center estimates that the number will continue to decline as the economy improves. But there are no guarantees that will happen.
Income tax deniers are quick to point out that many households that pay no tax contribute to the federal government with paycheck deductions for Social Security and Medicare taxes. But there are still 14 percent of households that pay none of those taxes. Zero.
In fact, an analysis of CBO data shows the bottom 20 percent of earners actually have a negative tax rate of 7.5 percent, meaning they are net takers when it comes to federal income taxes. The next 20 percent pay a negative tax rate of 1.3 percent, reports the NTLF.
By way of explanation, the CBO points out that a negative income tax rate means an individual has refundable tax credits that exceed the income tax liability owed to the government. These households often receive money from government programs, such as food stamps and rent assistance.
Individual tax payers contribute most of the trillions of dollars spent by the federal government. In 2014, individuals accounted for 51.8 percent of the federal taxes collected by the IRS. Businesses' share of the tax burden was 9.7 percent. Social Security taxes made up the balance.
With the battle over the 2015 budget on the horizon, Americans who still pay taxes would be well advised to get involved in the debate. Once Congress approves the budget, the certainty remains that individuals will be on the hook for paying the lion's share of the government's spending tab.
Despite the tax burden falling on fewer and fewer Americans, the Democrat Party and their spiritual leader President Obama continue to preach that the wealthy are not ponying up their "fair share" of federal income taxes. This lie exists only because the media allows it to fester unchallenged.
The top one percent of income earners, those with an adjusted gross income of $434,000 or more, shelled out more than 38 percent of all the federal income taxes paid into the Treasury. These figures are courtesy of the Internal Revenue Service based on 2012 tax data, the latest numbers available.
IRS data shows that the top five percent of wage earners, those with incomes over $175,817, anted up 59 percent of the income taxes paid. Another way to look at the statistic is to realize that five percent of Americans account for nearly six of every ten dollars confiscated by the IRS.
The bottom 50 percent of earners, those with incomes under $36,000, contributed 2.8 percent of all the federal income taxes amassed by the federal government. That fact belies the Democrat lie that the so-called poor and middle class are shouldering the nation's income tax burden.
The National Tax Limitation Foundation (NTLF), using Congressional Budget Office (CBO) data, calculated that the bottom 90 percent of earners, who took home 52 percent of all income, paid less than 30 percent of the federal income taxes.
The non-partisan Tax Policy Center has issued studies showing that deductions, exemptions and credits allow millions of Americans to zero out their tax bill. Nearly 67 percent of those who owe no taxes fall into the bottom 50 percent of wage earners.
"Many people who pay no income tax simply have too little income to owe tax," explains Roberton Williams of the Tax Policy Center. "The rest benefit from the tax code's many preferences." Those include deductions for earned income, childcare and educational expenses.
The center forecasts that slightly more than 43 percent of U.S. households will pay no federal income tax. That number was 46 percent in 2011. The center estimates that the number will continue to decline as the economy improves. But there are no guarantees that will happen.
Income tax deniers are quick to point out that many households that pay no tax contribute to the federal government with paycheck deductions for Social Security and Medicare taxes. But there are still 14 percent of households that pay none of those taxes. Zero.
In fact, an analysis of CBO data shows the bottom 20 percent of earners actually have a negative tax rate of 7.5 percent, meaning they are net takers when it comes to federal income taxes. The next 20 percent pay a negative tax rate of 1.3 percent, reports the NTLF.
By way of explanation, the CBO points out that a negative income tax rate means an individual has refundable tax credits that exceed the income tax liability owed to the government. These households often receive money from government programs, such as food stamps and rent assistance.
Individual tax payers contribute most of the trillions of dollars spent by the federal government. In 2014, individuals accounted for 51.8 percent of the federal taxes collected by the IRS. Businesses' share of the tax burden was 9.7 percent. Social Security taxes made up the balance.
With the battle over the 2015 budget on the horizon, Americans who still pay taxes would be well advised to get involved in the debate. Once Congress approves the budget, the certainty remains that individuals will be on the hook for paying the lion's share of the government's spending tab.
Monday, April 6, 2015
Minority Rule: The Defeat of Traditional Marriage
Traditional marriage no longer exists exclusively as a union between one man and one woman in this nation. Once a hallmark of American life, the religious doctrine of marriage has been swept aside by courts in defiance of the expressed will of the majority.
The destruction of the marriage dogma didn't happen overnight. It was waged initially by a tiny minority. (The largest federally funded study in history conducted last year found 2.3 percent of adults self-identified as gays, lesbians or bisexual.) But this group enlisted some heavy hitters.
Big Media, Big Business and Anti-Religious zealots linked hands with those same-sex couples who wanted the right to marry. This cabal bullied those who opposed their agenda, labeling them bigots, homophobes and intolerant. Firms that stood for traditional marriage were boycotted and smeared.
Despite the mushrooming protests, voters in 31 states overwhelmingly approved constitutional amendments supporting traditional marriage during a turbulent decade. There was not a single defeat until 2012, when Maryland and Maine voters approved same-sex marriage.
After early ballot defeats, the gay alliance decided to switch tactics and use the courts to frustrate the majority. Courts obliged, overturning traditional marriage laws in 26 states, paving the way for same-sex marriage. Pro-marriage laws remaining in eight states are now under legal challenge.
In the midst of the judicial struggle, the Supreme Court weighed in on the issue in 2013. The justices struck down a key provision of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), declaring that gay couples married in states where it was legal could receive federal health, tax and other benefits.
DOMA, signed by President Clinton in 1996, defined a legal union between one man and one woman. It passed in the House 342-67 and was approved in the Senate by an 85-14 margin. Today the same-sex crowd likes to rewrite history, claiming DOMA was the handiwork of sex-obsessed Republicans.
In 2008, even President Obama declared that he was "not in favor of gay marriage." He maintained that stance until the 2012 presidential election, when he flip flopped and announced that he thought it was a good idea that "same sex couples should be able to get married."
Taking their cue from Obama, the Democrat Party weaponized same-sex marriage. It became a campaign punchline for slandering Republicans for not being inclusive and haranguing Christians and Jews for clinging to judgmental ideas about marriage. The nastiness was pervasive.
Insult and intimidation carried the argument over those who wanted to maintain the historic meaning of marriage. Most supporters of traditional marriage held no animosity toward same-sex couples. In fact, many were willing to allow civil unions between same sex adults. But compromise was a dirty word.
To solidify their position, same-sex marriage proponents co-opted the media into blind loyalty to their agenda. Pew Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism scrutinized nearly 500 news stories on same-sex marriage in 2013 and found statements supporting LGBT's position outweighed traditional marriage arguments by a margin of five to one.
The entertainment industry never made any bones about its support. Movies, music and television celebrated the so-called diversity of lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender adults with fare that flatteringly portrayed their sexual orientation and pitched the moral argument for gay marriage.
The weight of the propaganda has shifted public opinion. Recent polling shows that a majority of Americans now support same sex marriage. The changing tide raises the question of whether churches may be coerced into performing same-sex marriages in violation of their religious beliefs.
Eric Johnston, president of the Southeast Law Institute and a legal adviser to churches, thinks it is inevitable there will be legal challenges. "There will be a lot of lawsuits over whether ministers have to do it," he predicts. The result will be a clash between personal and religious freedoms.
The federal government likely would side with plaintiffs who lodge suits against churches. More than religious freedom would be at stake. The government decides if churches qualify for tax-exempt status. The outcome of a case could potentially mean religious groups would be forced to pay taxes.
With the stakes so high, it helps explain the vociferous reaction from the LGBT community over recently approved religious freedom laws. They are clearly worried these statutes will be used to justify allowing churches and synagogues to reject same-sex marriages on religious grounds.
Thus the stage has been set for the next battleground in the cultural and social war. If history is any guide, the opinions of a few people in judicial robes will be the only ones that matter. Most Americans and their elected representatives will be relegated to footnotes in this epic struggle.
If traditional marriage, a bedrock of American life, can be changed forever, then every social and cultural norm faces the same fate. The problem is whatever the majority wants no longer carries the same weight it once did. Minority rule by those with shrill voices has become the new normal.
The destruction of the marriage dogma didn't happen overnight. It was waged initially by a tiny minority. (The largest federally funded study in history conducted last year found 2.3 percent of adults self-identified as gays, lesbians or bisexual.) But this group enlisted some heavy hitters.
Big Media, Big Business and Anti-Religious zealots linked hands with those same-sex couples who wanted the right to marry. This cabal bullied those who opposed their agenda, labeling them bigots, homophobes and intolerant. Firms that stood for traditional marriage were boycotted and smeared.
Despite the mushrooming protests, voters in 31 states overwhelmingly approved constitutional amendments supporting traditional marriage during a turbulent decade. There was not a single defeat until 2012, when Maryland and Maine voters approved same-sex marriage.
After early ballot defeats, the gay alliance decided to switch tactics and use the courts to frustrate the majority. Courts obliged, overturning traditional marriage laws in 26 states, paving the way for same-sex marriage. Pro-marriage laws remaining in eight states are now under legal challenge.
In the midst of the judicial struggle, the Supreme Court weighed in on the issue in 2013. The justices struck down a key provision of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), declaring that gay couples married in states where it was legal could receive federal health, tax and other benefits.
DOMA, signed by President Clinton in 1996, defined a legal union between one man and one woman. It passed in the House 342-67 and was approved in the Senate by an 85-14 margin. Today the same-sex crowd likes to rewrite history, claiming DOMA was the handiwork of sex-obsessed Republicans.
In 2008, even President Obama declared that he was "not in favor of gay marriage." He maintained that stance until the 2012 presidential election, when he flip flopped and announced that he thought it was a good idea that "same sex couples should be able to get married."
Taking their cue from Obama, the Democrat Party weaponized same-sex marriage. It became a campaign punchline for slandering Republicans for not being inclusive and haranguing Christians and Jews for clinging to judgmental ideas about marriage. The nastiness was pervasive.
Insult and intimidation carried the argument over those who wanted to maintain the historic meaning of marriage. Most supporters of traditional marriage held no animosity toward same-sex couples. In fact, many were willing to allow civil unions between same sex adults. But compromise was a dirty word.
To solidify their position, same-sex marriage proponents co-opted the media into blind loyalty to their agenda. Pew Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism scrutinized nearly 500 news stories on same-sex marriage in 2013 and found statements supporting LGBT's position outweighed traditional marriage arguments by a margin of five to one.
The entertainment industry never made any bones about its support. Movies, music and television celebrated the so-called diversity of lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender adults with fare that flatteringly portrayed their sexual orientation and pitched the moral argument for gay marriage.
The weight of the propaganda has shifted public opinion. Recent polling shows that a majority of Americans now support same sex marriage. The changing tide raises the question of whether churches may be coerced into performing same-sex marriages in violation of their religious beliefs.
Eric Johnston, president of the Southeast Law Institute and a legal adviser to churches, thinks it is inevitable there will be legal challenges. "There will be a lot of lawsuits over whether ministers have to do it," he predicts. The result will be a clash between personal and religious freedoms.
The federal government likely would side with plaintiffs who lodge suits against churches. More than religious freedom would be at stake. The government decides if churches qualify for tax-exempt status. The outcome of a case could potentially mean religious groups would be forced to pay taxes.
With the stakes so high, it helps explain the vociferous reaction from the LGBT community over recently approved religious freedom laws. They are clearly worried these statutes will be used to justify allowing churches and synagogues to reject same-sex marriages on religious grounds.
Thus the stage has been set for the next battleground in the cultural and social war. If history is any guide, the opinions of a few people in judicial robes will be the only ones that matter. Most Americans and their elected representatives will be relegated to footnotes in this epic struggle.
If traditional marriage, a bedrock of American life, can be changed forever, then every social and cultural norm faces the same fate. The problem is whatever the majority wants no longer carries the same weight it once did. Minority rule by those with shrill voices has become the new normal.