Obamacare, the president's signature health initiative, still has a pulse but its vital signs are unstable. The patient suffers from hemorrhaging costs, feverish premium increases and chilling enrollment numbers. Despite the critical condition, the media and the president claim the scheme is healthy.
Every enrollment period, President Obama and his media sycophants cheer the rising numbers. They flog data showing the percentage of the population with no insurance is declining. They boast about the plethora of choices consumers have for insurance.
Long ago buried are the promises the president made before Obamacare was signed into law in 2010. Remember, he guaranteed consumers could keep their doctor. A steely-eyed Mr. Obama assured Americans they would experience a $2,500 drop in their insurance premiums.
And, not least of all, the president pounded his bully pulpit and wagged his finger, committing to a price tag of less than $1 trillion for a decade of improved care that would forever change America, leaving no one without health insurance.
As usual, the facts on the ground have a way of unraveling the narrative ginned up by Mr. Obama and his willing accomplices in the media. Things are so bad that even Democrats are not running around bragging about how good Obamacare has been for Americans.
Here is a report on the annual physical for Obamacare:
The number of enrollees has failed to meet projections. At the beginning of 2015, there were 11.7 million Americans enrolled in Obamacare. After the enrollment period was completed, the number of insured started shrinking. Nearly two million people stopped paying premiums or lost their coverage. By June of last year, only 9.9 million people had insurance under the government plan, according to figures on the Obamacare website. When the enrollment period ended for 2016, there were 11.3 million people signed up, reported Health and Human Services (HHS). Each month more people drop out. You never see news coverage of that figure. In addition, Obamacare enrollment has never met the goals. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicted there would be 24 million enrollees by 2016, which means the government failed to even reach half that number.
The cost of insurance is rising. Premiums for the three levels of insurance coverage under Obamacare have increased every year. The nationwide average hike last year was 2 percent, a misleading figure. In many cities, the costs spiked by double-digits. In Portland, rates for the silver plan (the mid-range coverage) skyrocketed 16.2 percent. In Albuquerque, the price tag leaped 11 percent. In Virginia, costs zoomed up 10.8 percent. Things are not looking any better for the future. Rates are projected to soar 17 percent in 2017 in California, according to the Los Angeles Times. The CBO figured the costs of Obamacare insurance premiums will climb six percent every year over the next decade.
The numbers of uninsured remain high. The Obama Administration likes to champion the idea that the number of uninsured are only 9.1 percent of the population under the age of 65. However, there are a number of independent sources with contradictory data. For example, Gallup polling organization found 11.9 percent of the population under 65 had no insurance. In 2008, the percentage of uninsured was 14.6 percent of the population. That means the number of uninsured has dropped by 3.5 percentage points in five years. Tax returns for the year 2014 show that 7.5 million Americans paid fines to the Internal Revenue Service rather than purchase insurance.
Consumers' health insurance choices are dwindling. Three of the largest insurance companies--Aetna, Humana and United Healthcare--have announced plans to exit the business in 2017. A number of insurance cooperatives have also pulled the plug on Obamacare plans. Avalere, a health care consulting firm, projects that more than one-third of the exchange market regions in the country will be stuck with just one health carrier next year. About 55 percent of the regions will have two. Unsustainable financial losses are driving health insurance providers to dump Obamacare. Industry experts maintain the dreary finances are a toxic mix of lower than expected enrollment and higher than anticipated claims.
Obamacare's costs have far exceeded estimates. The CBO's latest figure pegs the cost of Obamacare over the next decade at $1.34 trillion. This is an increase of $136 billion over the budget agency's predictions issued in 2015. In 2016, the total cost of Obamacare is estimated at $110 billion. One reason for the escalating costs is that 87 percent of those enrolled in one of the three Obamacare plans received some form of financial assistance from the federal government to help pay for coverage. As the cost of coverage climbs, so does the subsidy needed to help people buy insurance. Last year the government paid $38 billion in subsidies, a $23 billion increase from 2014.
By any measurement, Obamacare is sick. Americans were sold a bill of goods by Democrats, the president and the apparatchik media. Obamacare deserves an early death. However, don't expect it to succumb, despite all its ills.
President Ronald Reagan once famously said that a government program "is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth." As usual, Mr. Reagan was right. Obamacare will have a lasting existence, no matter what you read and hear from do-nothing Republicans.
Monday, August 29, 2016
Monday, August 22, 2016
Immigration Reform Based on Facts Not Politics
A majority of Americans agree sweeping changes are needed in the current immigration system. However, there is no consensus on what steps need to be taken to fix the flawed process. A major reason for the discord is that too many Americans have little knowledge of immigration facts.
The state-controlled media and politicians have spread so much false information about immigration that a majority of Americans are ill-informed. Unless everyone can agree on the facts, there will never be a sensible solution on immigration reform which placates most Americans.
An exhaustive study by Pew Research Center's American Trends Panel conducted last year found more than one-half of Americans could not correctly estimate the number of immigrants living in the country nor could they accurately guesstimate the percentage of illegals.
There should be no dispute about immigration numbers. Plenty of research exists from credible sources. Despite that fact, politicians of both parties and the media continue to paint a far different picture of immigration than the reality.
Here are facts that no reasonable person can contest:
There are more immigrants living in America today than at any time in our history. The Center for Immigration Studies, a non-partisan, non-profit research group, used Census Bureau data to calculate there are 42.1 immigrants residing in the U.S. That represents 13.3 percent of the total population, the highest share in more than 105 years. (Current data goes back to 1850.) But even that figure does not tell the whole story. Immigrants and their U.S. born children now number 81 million, reports the Migration Policy Institute. That is 28 percent of the population. Between 2013 and 2014, the foreign-born population in the nation jumped by 1 million people or 2.5 percent. In 2014, 1.3 million foreign-born individuals moved to the U.S. During the last five years, America has taken in more immigrants than any similar period in the country's history.
The real problem in America is illegal immigration. Several immigration reform and research organizations have pegged the number of illegals living in the U.S. at between 11.0 million and 11.4 million. By most estimates, about 49 percent of illegals were born in Mexico. After America's economic crisis in 2008, Mexican immigration slowed dramatically. However, it has sharply risen again. From 2014 to 2015, more than 740,000 Mexican immigrants (both legal and illegal) flooded into the the United States, according to the Center for Immigration Studies. No doubt the influx can be at least partly attributed to President Obama's 2014 executive order directing federal agencies to refrain from deporting some four million adult immigrants living illegally in the U.S. While the media and politicians claim that most illegal immigrants only want work, the facts tell a different story. While illegal immigrants account for 3.5 percent of the population, they represent 36.7 percent of people convicted of crimes in 2014, according to U.S. Sentencing Commission data. More than six in ten illegal immigrants use one or more of the state or federal welfare programs, including food stamps, Medicaid and school lunch programs. The non-partisan Federation of Immigration Reform estimated assistance to illegal immigrants costs federal, state and local governments about $113 billion annually.
If Congress could agree on these facts, then the solution would seem rather straightforward: The number of immigrants in the country has reached record levels, indicating there is no issue with the current process for obtaining legal status. However, illegal immigrants are continuing to flow into the country, creating problems which are costing taxpayers billions of dollars.
Here is a common-sense approach to solving America's legal and illegal immigration problems:
1. There is no need to build a fence along the southern border. There are better ways to spend the billions of dollars it would cost. The Border Patrol needs to be beefed up with additional staff and armed with sophisticated technology to guard against illegal entry into the U.S. Under the Obama Administration, the Border Patrol currently serves as little more than babysitters for those who enter the country illegally.
2. Anyone caught illegally entering the country should be immediately deported. Those aliens who attempt a second border crossing should be jailed and returned to their country of origin after serving time. Any American company employing an illegal immigrant would be subject to heavy fines. Sanctuary cities would be outlawed.
3. Persons living illegally in the U.S. would be allowed to apply for work visas. However, as a condition to obtaining a visa, the immigrant must begin the process of becoming a legal citizen. If the immigrant fails to make progress toward citizenship, he or she will face immediate deportation. Adult illegal immigrants would be denied welfare benefits unless they could prove they are looking for work.
4. Current immigration criteria would be changed to put those with special skills (scientific, doctoral degrees, software engineers, doctors, etc.) at the head of the line. They would have their applications for a temporary work visa and citizenship expedited.
America has a more than two-hundred year history of welcoming immigrants. Foreign born people built this country and shaped its destiny. Not one of the proposals listed above will interfere with America's tradition of accepting millions of new citizens.
Americans must demand sensible immigration reform and hold their elected representative along with the president responsible for delivering on their broken promises to pass a bill to remedy the problem.
The state-controlled media and politicians have spread so much false information about immigration that a majority of Americans are ill-informed. Unless everyone can agree on the facts, there will never be a sensible solution on immigration reform which placates most Americans.
An exhaustive study by Pew Research Center's American Trends Panel conducted last year found more than one-half of Americans could not correctly estimate the number of immigrants living in the country nor could they accurately guesstimate the percentage of illegals.
There should be no dispute about immigration numbers. Plenty of research exists from credible sources. Despite that fact, politicians of both parties and the media continue to paint a far different picture of immigration than the reality.
Here are facts that no reasonable person can contest:
There are more immigrants living in America today than at any time in our history. The Center for Immigration Studies, a non-partisan, non-profit research group, used Census Bureau data to calculate there are 42.1 immigrants residing in the U.S. That represents 13.3 percent of the total population, the highest share in more than 105 years. (Current data goes back to 1850.) But even that figure does not tell the whole story. Immigrants and their U.S. born children now number 81 million, reports the Migration Policy Institute. That is 28 percent of the population. Between 2013 and 2014, the foreign-born population in the nation jumped by 1 million people or 2.5 percent. In 2014, 1.3 million foreign-born individuals moved to the U.S. During the last five years, America has taken in more immigrants than any similar period in the country's history.
The real problem in America is illegal immigration. Several immigration reform and research organizations have pegged the number of illegals living in the U.S. at between 11.0 million and 11.4 million. By most estimates, about 49 percent of illegals were born in Mexico. After America's economic crisis in 2008, Mexican immigration slowed dramatically. However, it has sharply risen again. From 2014 to 2015, more than 740,000 Mexican immigrants (both legal and illegal) flooded into the the United States, according to the Center for Immigration Studies. No doubt the influx can be at least partly attributed to President Obama's 2014 executive order directing federal agencies to refrain from deporting some four million adult immigrants living illegally in the U.S. While the media and politicians claim that most illegal immigrants only want work, the facts tell a different story. While illegal immigrants account for 3.5 percent of the population, they represent 36.7 percent of people convicted of crimes in 2014, according to U.S. Sentencing Commission data. More than six in ten illegal immigrants use one or more of the state or federal welfare programs, including food stamps, Medicaid and school lunch programs. The non-partisan Federation of Immigration Reform estimated assistance to illegal immigrants costs federal, state and local governments about $113 billion annually.
If Congress could agree on these facts, then the solution would seem rather straightforward: The number of immigrants in the country has reached record levels, indicating there is no issue with the current process for obtaining legal status. However, illegal immigrants are continuing to flow into the country, creating problems which are costing taxpayers billions of dollars.
Here is a common-sense approach to solving America's legal and illegal immigration problems:
1. There is no need to build a fence along the southern border. There are better ways to spend the billions of dollars it would cost. The Border Patrol needs to be beefed up with additional staff and armed with sophisticated technology to guard against illegal entry into the U.S. Under the Obama Administration, the Border Patrol currently serves as little more than babysitters for those who enter the country illegally.
2. Anyone caught illegally entering the country should be immediately deported. Those aliens who attempt a second border crossing should be jailed and returned to their country of origin after serving time. Any American company employing an illegal immigrant would be subject to heavy fines. Sanctuary cities would be outlawed.
3. Persons living illegally in the U.S. would be allowed to apply for work visas. However, as a condition to obtaining a visa, the immigrant must begin the process of becoming a legal citizen. If the immigrant fails to make progress toward citizenship, he or she will face immediate deportation. Adult illegal immigrants would be denied welfare benefits unless they could prove they are looking for work.
4. Current immigration criteria would be changed to put those with special skills (scientific, doctoral degrees, software engineers, doctors, etc.) at the head of the line. They would have their applications for a temporary work visa and citizenship expedited.
America has a more than two-hundred year history of welcoming immigrants. Foreign born people built this country and shaped its destiny. Not one of the proposals listed above will interfere with America's tradition of accepting millions of new citizens.
Americans must demand sensible immigration reform and hold their elected representative along with the president responsible for delivering on their broken promises to pass a bill to remedy the problem.
Monday, August 15, 2016
Political Divide: Why Can't We Just Get Along?
This political season has ignited a burning animosity that threatens to irreparably scorch the nation. Voters are angry, frightened, shocked and depressed. Partisanship among both Democrats and Republicans has made it nearly impossible for the next president to heal the divisions.
The divide is so bitter that some are calling it the most negative inflection point in nearly a quarter of a century of American politics. Whatever your political affiliation, the fact is you most likely are of the mind that the opposing party is vulgar, immoral, hateful and imbecilic.
These are not generalities. The opinions have been culled from the latest Pew Research poll on U.S. Politics and Policy taken in June. The research exposes the ugly side of American politics where neighbors and friends are reticent to discuss the election out of angst and loathing.
"...Today, sizable shares of both Democrats and Republicans say the other party stirs feelings of not just frustration, but fear and anger," Pew researchers noted in the summary of the nationwide survey. Both Republicans and Democrats say the opposition party makes them "afraid."
Negative voter opinions of political parties are not a new phenomena. What makes this year different is the harsh language party voters use in their descriptions of fellow Americans who view the world differently than they do.
Majorities of voters in both parties told researchers it is "stressful and frustrating" to have conversations about their differences. As a result, neighbor is turning against neighbor. Four in ten Republicans and Democrats say it would be easier to get along with a neighbor from the same party.
A closer examination of the data helps explain the antagonism. Republicans view Democrats as lazier than most Americans and generally immoral. On the other hand, Democrats think of Republicans as close minded and dishonest.
These partisan stereotypes appear to be ingrained in members of the two parties. However, this does not mean there are not genuine differences on policy.
Among Republicans, about 68 percent claim the Democratic Party's policies are harmful to the country. Not surprisingly, 62 percent of Democrats feel the same way about Republican programs. Majorities on both sides contend their party's plans are the main attraction for their affiliation.
But nearly as many Republicans and Democrats also make their choice of party association because of their disdain for policies of the opposition. In other words, their party identity hinges more on their impressions of the other party than it does of their own party.
The good news is that Pew's survey found that most Republicans and Democrats want compromise. The bad news: only on their terms. That helps explain why politicians are not the only ones to blame when issues are not resolved in Washington. The voters shoulder equal responsibility.
How do we break down the barriers of political partisanship?
One way is to have a friendship with someone from the other party. Researchers discovered that having a friend from the opposition party tended to soften a person's image of the competition. Associating with only your "kind" hardens your views against those who belong to the other party.
It also is more difficult to dehumanize a Republican or Democrat if you actually are friends with one.
Perhaps, it may be time to dissolve both political parties. Party affiliation carries with it certain expectations of beliefs and opinions that places limits on Americans' ability to objectively view issues. That makes it almost impossible to agree on even the most basic concepts.
Party labels are dividing America. The country needs unity more than it does political associations. In the name of harmony, there should be only one party with a myriad of factions, views and candidates. Call it the American Party.
That's something we should all be able to agree upon.
The divide is so bitter that some are calling it the most negative inflection point in nearly a quarter of a century of American politics. Whatever your political affiliation, the fact is you most likely are of the mind that the opposing party is vulgar, immoral, hateful and imbecilic.
These are not generalities. The opinions have been culled from the latest Pew Research poll on U.S. Politics and Policy taken in June. The research exposes the ugly side of American politics where neighbors and friends are reticent to discuss the election out of angst and loathing.
"...Today, sizable shares of both Democrats and Republicans say the other party stirs feelings of not just frustration, but fear and anger," Pew researchers noted in the summary of the nationwide survey. Both Republicans and Democrats say the opposition party makes them "afraid."
Negative voter opinions of political parties are not a new phenomena. What makes this year different is the harsh language party voters use in their descriptions of fellow Americans who view the world differently than they do.
Majorities of voters in both parties told researchers it is "stressful and frustrating" to have conversations about their differences. As a result, neighbor is turning against neighbor. Four in ten Republicans and Democrats say it would be easier to get along with a neighbor from the same party.
A closer examination of the data helps explain the antagonism. Republicans view Democrats as lazier than most Americans and generally immoral. On the other hand, Democrats think of Republicans as close minded and dishonest.
These partisan stereotypes appear to be ingrained in members of the two parties. However, this does not mean there are not genuine differences on policy.
Among Republicans, about 68 percent claim the Democratic Party's policies are harmful to the country. Not surprisingly, 62 percent of Democrats feel the same way about Republican programs. Majorities on both sides contend their party's plans are the main attraction for their affiliation.
But nearly as many Republicans and Democrats also make their choice of party association because of their disdain for policies of the opposition. In other words, their party identity hinges more on their impressions of the other party than it does of their own party.
The good news is that Pew's survey found that most Republicans and Democrats want compromise. The bad news: only on their terms. That helps explain why politicians are not the only ones to blame when issues are not resolved in Washington. The voters shoulder equal responsibility.
How do we break down the barriers of political partisanship?
One way is to have a friendship with someone from the other party. Researchers discovered that having a friend from the opposition party tended to soften a person's image of the competition. Associating with only your "kind" hardens your views against those who belong to the other party.
It also is more difficult to dehumanize a Republican or Democrat if you actually are friends with one.
Perhaps, it may be time to dissolve both political parties. Party affiliation carries with it certain expectations of beliefs and opinions that places limits on Americans' ability to objectively view issues. That makes it almost impossible to agree on even the most basic concepts.
Party labels are dividing America. The country needs unity more than it does political associations. In the name of harmony, there should be only one party with a myriad of factions, views and candidates. Call it the American Party.
That's something we should all be able to agree upon.
Monday, August 8, 2016
Media Coverup: Giving Hillary A Pass
Ever utterance of Donald Trump has become fodder for a media thrashing. To be fair, the Republican presidential candidate often has no one to blame but himself. At the same time, his opponent Democrat Hillary Clinton may be the least scrutinized candidate since Barrack Obama in 2008.
While Mr. Trump mixes it up almost daily with an unfriendly press, the heavily scripted Ms. Clinton shuns the media. She has not held a news conference in nearly 250 days. Halley's Comet appears in the sky more often than Ms. Clinton takes questions from a gaggle of news reporters.
The liberal media has dug into Mr. Trump's business and personal life with a vengeance. Unflattering stories have appeared in the usual Democrat-controlled media, including The New York Times and The Washington Post. Meanwhile, there seems to be no journalistic interest in Ms. Clinton's past.
Certainly, there are a bushel of scandals for an enterprising media to investigate about Ms. Clinton. However, the mainstream moguls have sold their journalistic souls to the Democrat cause. Big media has made no pretense about its support for Ms. Clinton and animosity toward Mr. Trump.
As a service to the faux journalists who populate today's media, here are five stories that are tailor made for an investigative team of reporters to examine:
Clinton Foundation
Three of the largest donations to the Clinton Foundation originated from Saudi Arabia, a country with some of the world's most repressive laws against women. The Kingdom of Saudi Foundation has handed over $10-$20 million in cash. Two of the wealthiest Saudi businessmen, Mohammed H. Al-Amoudi and Nasser Ibrahim Al-Rashid, have each contributed $1-$5 million. This data comes from the Clinton Foundation, which only lists ranges of donations instead of the actual dollar amount. Why does Ms. Clinton's foundation accept millions from countries which oppress women?
Clinton Speeches
Ms. Clinton gave three speeches during a four month period to Goldman Sachs, the leading global investment, banking, securities and investment management firm. She earned a staggering $675,000 for the private chats with Wall Street's elite bankers. Other banking giants also paid to hear Ms. Clinton, including UBS, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America and Deutsche Bank. Since 2013, Ms.Clinton has raked in $21 million in speaking fees. Shouldn't Ms. Clinton be pressed by the media on her cozy relationship with the world's largest banks, especially since she has pledged to be tough on Wall Street's misdeeds?
State Department Email Probe
Mere days after the FBI and Justice Department whitewashed the investigation of Ms. Clinton's handling of classified material, the State Department announced it would resume its own probe of the same issue. The department had shelved its investigation after the FBI announced it was conducting its examination. State has promised to delve into whether Ms. Clinton and her staffers violated the department's rules for securing secret communications. If the department finds sufficient evidence of violations, it has the authority to revoke Ms. Clinton's security clearance. A vigilant media would be dogging the State Department for information about the investigation's progress because the president of the country must have access to classified information. The outcome matters.
Tax Issue
When the Clinton Foundation was caught fiddling with its books, it was forced to admit last year that it needed to amend its tax filings for the years 2010 through 2013. One of the egregious errors was the foundation's accounting of revenue for speeches given by Bill and Hillary Clinton. The money paid to the Clinton's was reported as charitable contributions. The fees should have been recognized as payments for services. While the foundation was forced to restate its tax filings, Ms. Clinton should have been required to amend her own tax documents. Did Ms. Clinton also reconcile her tax filings for the years 2010-2013 to include the earnings from speeches previously unreported and has she paid additional taxes?
Clinton Connections to LaFarge
Most Americans have never heard of the French company LaFarge for good reasons. The media has covered up allegations that Hillary Clinton's former employer LaFarge faces claims it channeled funds to ISIS. Ms. Clinton once served as a director of Lafarge and has done legal work for the firm. LaFarge is an annual donor to the Clinton Foundation. During Ms. Clinton's service on the board, LaFarge was fined by the Environmental Protection Agency for pollution violations in Alabama and was embroiled in a flap over its us of hazard waste to fuel cement plants in the U.S. Recently, LaFarge was implicated in negotiations with ISIS to allow the company to continue its operations in Syria. Why would Ms. Clinton associate with a company with such a dubious environmental record? Did her foundation accept donations from LaFarge even after it became public the French firm was funneling cash to terrorists?
Of course, the media cabal will not even taken a whiff of these potential scandals. Unfortunately, these are serious issues that matter about the integrity, honesty and qualifications of the nation's top officeholder. But a spat between Donald Trump and his latest victim is much more entertaining.
Hillary Clinton has already given the media its marching orders. They are to destroy Mr. Trump's character and portray him as unfit for the office. Don't expect the nation's press to deviate one iota from the Democrat candidate's script.
While Mr. Trump mixes it up almost daily with an unfriendly press, the heavily scripted Ms. Clinton shuns the media. She has not held a news conference in nearly 250 days. Halley's Comet appears in the sky more often than Ms. Clinton takes questions from a gaggle of news reporters.
The liberal media has dug into Mr. Trump's business and personal life with a vengeance. Unflattering stories have appeared in the usual Democrat-controlled media, including The New York Times and The Washington Post. Meanwhile, there seems to be no journalistic interest in Ms. Clinton's past.
Certainly, there are a bushel of scandals for an enterprising media to investigate about Ms. Clinton. However, the mainstream moguls have sold their journalistic souls to the Democrat cause. Big media has made no pretense about its support for Ms. Clinton and animosity toward Mr. Trump.
As a service to the faux journalists who populate today's media, here are five stories that are tailor made for an investigative team of reporters to examine:
Clinton Foundation
Three of the largest donations to the Clinton Foundation originated from Saudi Arabia, a country with some of the world's most repressive laws against women. The Kingdom of Saudi Foundation has handed over $10-$20 million in cash. Two of the wealthiest Saudi businessmen, Mohammed H. Al-Amoudi and Nasser Ibrahim Al-Rashid, have each contributed $1-$5 million. This data comes from the Clinton Foundation, which only lists ranges of donations instead of the actual dollar amount. Why does Ms. Clinton's foundation accept millions from countries which oppress women?
Clinton Speeches
Ms. Clinton gave three speeches during a four month period to Goldman Sachs, the leading global investment, banking, securities and investment management firm. She earned a staggering $675,000 for the private chats with Wall Street's elite bankers. Other banking giants also paid to hear Ms. Clinton, including UBS, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America and Deutsche Bank. Since 2013, Ms.Clinton has raked in $21 million in speaking fees. Shouldn't Ms. Clinton be pressed by the media on her cozy relationship with the world's largest banks, especially since she has pledged to be tough on Wall Street's misdeeds?
State Department Email Probe
Mere days after the FBI and Justice Department whitewashed the investigation of Ms. Clinton's handling of classified material, the State Department announced it would resume its own probe of the same issue. The department had shelved its investigation after the FBI announced it was conducting its examination. State has promised to delve into whether Ms. Clinton and her staffers violated the department's rules for securing secret communications. If the department finds sufficient evidence of violations, it has the authority to revoke Ms. Clinton's security clearance. A vigilant media would be dogging the State Department for information about the investigation's progress because the president of the country must have access to classified information. The outcome matters.
Tax Issue
When the Clinton Foundation was caught fiddling with its books, it was forced to admit last year that it needed to amend its tax filings for the years 2010 through 2013. One of the egregious errors was the foundation's accounting of revenue for speeches given by Bill and Hillary Clinton. The money paid to the Clinton's was reported as charitable contributions. The fees should have been recognized as payments for services. While the foundation was forced to restate its tax filings, Ms. Clinton should have been required to amend her own tax documents. Did Ms. Clinton also reconcile her tax filings for the years 2010-2013 to include the earnings from speeches previously unreported and has she paid additional taxes?
Clinton Connections to LaFarge
Most Americans have never heard of the French company LaFarge for good reasons. The media has covered up allegations that Hillary Clinton's former employer LaFarge faces claims it channeled funds to ISIS. Ms. Clinton once served as a director of Lafarge and has done legal work for the firm. LaFarge is an annual donor to the Clinton Foundation. During Ms. Clinton's service on the board, LaFarge was fined by the Environmental Protection Agency for pollution violations in Alabama and was embroiled in a flap over its us of hazard waste to fuel cement plants in the U.S. Recently, LaFarge was implicated in negotiations with ISIS to allow the company to continue its operations in Syria. Why would Ms. Clinton associate with a company with such a dubious environmental record? Did her foundation accept donations from LaFarge even after it became public the French firm was funneling cash to terrorists?
Of course, the media cabal will not even taken a whiff of these potential scandals. Unfortunately, these are serious issues that matter about the integrity, honesty and qualifications of the nation's top officeholder. But a spat between Donald Trump and his latest victim is much more entertaining.
Hillary Clinton has already given the media its marching orders. They are to destroy Mr. Trump's character and portray him as unfit for the office. Don't expect the nation's press to deviate one iota from the Democrat candidate's script.
Monday, August 1, 2016
Presidential Race: Predictably Unpredictable
Both parties have officially crowned their presidential nominees, signaling the lift-off of their campaigns for the White House. Most political polls are predicting the race between Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump will be a nail-biter.
Real Clear Politics, which takes the average of seven national polls, has Mr. Trump with a slight edge nationally over Ms. Clinton. Mr. Trump's support stands at 45.6 percent compared to Mrs. Clinton's 44.7 percent. Since polls have a four percent margin of error, the race is considered a dead heat.
Although national polls are an indicator of voters' sentiment, winning the popular vote does not automatically guarantee a ticket to the White House. Unlike any other American election, presidential contests are decided by delegates chosen in each state to vote in the Electoral College.
In the presidential race of 2000, Democrat Al Gore won the popular contest by 540,000 votes. However, his opponent Republican George W. Bush squeaked out victory in the Electoral College by a 271-266 margin. That was the last time a candidate lost the popular vote, but won the presidency.
A state-by-state analysis of the last 10 presidential elections reveals trends that will shape this election. Unless there are shifts in voting patterns, the Democratic candidate starts with a decided advantage in reaching the magic total of 270 electoral votes.
Based on the past paradigm, the Democrat presidential candidate is nearly assured of carrying states with 207 votes. That's 76 percent of the votes needed to earn victory in the Electoral College. By comparison, Republicans enjoy a historical advantage in states with 137 electoral votes.
Those states which consistently fall in the (blue) Democratic column in the last ten presidential elections are California, New York, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Washington, Illinois and Oregon.
Meanwhile, the Republicans have dominated in the same number of states (12), but with 70 fewer electoral voters. Reliably red (GOP) states have included Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Missouri, Texas, South Carolina, Georgia, Indiana, Arkansas and Arizona.
The key swing states this election are the usual suspects: Florida, Virginia, Ohio and North Carolina. Together the states account for 75 electoral votes. If Ms. Clinton sweeps those four states and hangs on to the 12 true blue states listed above, she will become the first female to occupy the Oval Office.
Consider this: Mr. Trump could win a clear majority of states (34) and be soundly thumped in the Electoral College. Mr. Trump's only chance to turn the tide is to steal a blue state or two. The good news is early polls show Pennsylvania looks like a toss-up.
Mr. Trump has to hold his own in the swing states, too. That may be difficult because the Democratic vice presidential nominee is a popular senator from Virginia and Ohio Governor John Kasich has made no secret of his disdain for Trump. That leaves Florida and North Carolina up for grabs.
Voter turnout is the one variable that could upset the red-blue balance. Both candidates have sky-scrapper-sized unfavorable ratings, topping negatives for any other presidential hopefuls in history. There are large swaths of voters who have sworn to Never Vote Trump or to Never Vote Hillary.
Those cynical convictions are hardly a rallying cry for generating voter enthusiasm. Democrats do best when turnout is above average and struggle in years when voters are passive. The last two elections bagged by Barrack Obama marked the two highest voter-turnout cycles since 1968.
A Rasmussen Poll conducted in April found that nearly one-in-four voters said they would skip the election if Ms. Clinton and Mr. Trump were the party nominees. Sixteen percent of those surveyed insisted they would vote for a third-party candidate. Only two percent were undecided.
What this means is this election could breed one of the lowest turnouts in years. The winner may end up with the fewest popular votes garnered in decades. If that happens, the nation will remain hopelessly divided, a bleak prospect after eight years of Mr. Obama's strident leadership.
Sharp ruptures also exist in both parties. Significant pockets of Democrats and Republicans remain in a snit over the snubbing of their candidates. Party unity, usually taken for granted in national elections, likely will be will be an unattainable objective for either Ms. Clinton or Mr. Trump.
Therefore, let the pundits beware. The traditional rules do not apply to this election. Mix two flawed candidates, an angry electorate, the prospect of a mud-slinging campaign, a Democrat Party partisan media and a gusher of political cash and these ingredients may prove a combustible concoction.
This inevitable volatility may produce an explosive ending no one can predict.
Real Clear Politics, which takes the average of seven national polls, has Mr. Trump with a slight edge nationally over Ms. Clinton. Mr. Trump's support stands at 45.6 percent compared to Mrs. Clinton's 44.7 percent. Since polls have a four percent margin of error, the race is considered a dead heat.
Although national polls are an indicator of voters' sentiment, winning the popular vote does not automatically guarantee a ticket to the White House. Unlike any other American election, presidential contests are decided by delegates chosen in each state to vote in the Electoral College.
In the presidential race of 2000, Democrat Al Gore won the popular contest by 540,000 votes. However, his opponent Republican George W. Bush squeaked out victory in the Electoral College by a 271-266 margin. That was the last time a candidate lost the popular vote, but won the presidency.
A state-by-state analysis of the last 10 presidential elections reveals trends that will shape this election. Unless there are shifts in voting patterns, the Democratic candidate starts with a decided advantage in reaching the magic total of 270 electoral votes.
Based on the past paradigm, the Democrat presidential candidate is nearly assured of carrying states with 207 votes. That's 76 percent of the votes needed to earn victory in the Electoral College. By comparison, Republicans enjoy a historical advantage in states with 137 electoral votes.
Those states which consistently fall in the (blue) Democratic column in the last ten presidential elections are California, New York, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Washington, Illinois and Oregon.
Meanwhile, the Republicans have dominated in the same number of states (12), but with 70 fewer electoral voters. Reliably red (GOP) states have included Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Missouri, Texas, South Carolina, Georgia, Indiana, Arkansas and Arizona.
The key swing states this election are the usual suspects: Florida, Virginia, Ohio and North Carolina. Together the states account for 75 electoral votes. If Ms. Clinton sweeps those four states and hangs on to the 12 true blue states listed above, she will become the first female to occupy the Oval Office.
Consider this: Mr. Trump could win a clear majority of states (34) and be soundly thumped in the Electoral College. Mr. Trump's only chance to turn the tide is to steal a blue state or two. The good news is early polls show Pennsylvania looks like a toss-up.
Mr. Trump has to hold his own in the swing states, too. That may be difficult because the Democratic vice presidential nominee is a popular senator from Virginia and Ohio Governor John Kasich has made no secret of his disdain for Trump. That leaves Florida and North Carolina up for grabs.
Voter turnout is the one variable that could upset the red-blue balance. Both candidates have sky-scrapper-sized unfavorable ratings, topping negatives for any other presidential hopefuls in history. There are large swaths of voters who have sworn to Never Vote Trump or to Never Vote Hillary.
Those cynical convictions are hardly a rallying cry for generating voter enthusiasm. Democrats do best when turnout is above average and struggle in years when voters are passive. The last two elections bagged by Barrack Obama marked the two highest voter-turnout cycles since 1968.
A Rasmussen Poll conducted in April found that nearly one-in-four voters said they would skip the election if Ms. Clinton and Mr. Trump were the party nominees. Sixteen percent of those surveyed insisted they would vote for a third-party candidate. Only two percent were undecided.
What this means is this election could breed one of the lowest turnouts in years. The winner may end up with the fewest popular votes garnered in decades. If that happens, the nation will remain hopelessly divided, a bleak prospect after eight years of Mr. Obama's strident leadership.
Sharp ruptures also exist in both parties. Significant pockets of Democrats and Republicans remain in a snit over the snubbing of their candidates. Party unity, usually taken for granted in national elections, likely will be will be an unattainable objective for either Ms. Clinton or Mr. Trump.
Therefore, let the pundits beware. The traditional rules do not apply to this election. Mix two flawed candidates, an angry electorate, the prospect of a mud-slinging campaign, a Democrat Party partisan media and a gusher of political cash and these ingredients may prove a combustible concoction.
This inevitable volatility may produce an explosive ending no one can predict.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)