The white-bearded guy with the ill-fitting red suit and the ample belly has officially joined the social media craze. The North Pole's most famous resident Santa Claus has his own Twitter account and he has been busy, unleashing a snowstorm of tweets that have raised a few bushy eyebrows.
In an exclusive interview with Drew's Diatribe, Mr. Claus revealed he turned to social media after Fake News outlets skewered him for not releasing his federal tax return. "The Washington Post claimed I paid no taxes despite my yuge income from licensing my image," Mr. Claus said.
Dressed in his familiar lumpy red suit, Mr. Claus said he had no income in 2016 because a couple of his newly opened North Pole golf courses went belly up. "As a result of the losses, my deductions offset my income. So my tax bill was zero. Get over it Jeff Bezos," Mr. Claus harrumphed.
Bezos is the billionaire owner of The Washington Post and is the chief executive at online retailer giant Amazon, which has refused to use reindeer to deliver its packages.
"I knew if I wanted the real story to get out, I had to bypass the news media and talk directly to the little people and I'm not just talking about my elves," Mr. Claus said.
Here are some of the tweets Mr. Claus posted during the most recent 11 months:
@realSantaClaus 26 December 2016
The establishment is going crazy because some nosy reporter discovered that I left Presidential Inauguration mugs under a few million trees on Christmas. MY BAD! I didn't have time to remove Hillary Clinton's image. It was NOT deliberately mean-spirited. WHO KNEW?
@realSantaClaus 14 February 2017
Happy Valentine's Day to Harvey Weinstein, who visited the North Pole today handing out candy to all the little girls. A few of the lucky ones got invitations for a screen test in Harry's office in Hollywood. WHAT A GUY!
@realSantaClaus 29 June 2017
The FBI arrived at the North Pole today to question me about the email server stowed in the basement of the toy workshop. I didn't know I had a server. WHO put that in there? I suspect Rudolf because he started a blog this year called, "Red Nose This You Giant Tool." He needed a big server to handle all the emailed comments.
@realSantaClaus 22 July 2017
Some of you SNOWFLAKES have taken to social media to demand I rip down the North Pole statue of St. Nicholas, who inspired the legend of Santa Claus. You claim he was a product of white privilege. Some of you even blame him for the Civil War in America. We don't have a Democratic Party mayor in North Pole. I'm the mayor. The statue STAYS.
@realSantaClaus 13 August 2017
Some guy named Putin from Russia showed up unannounced today. He practically swooned when Mrs. Claus opened the front door. (She looks pretty hot in red, if I may say so myself.) This big shot tried to get me to vote twice in the American presidential election to help his candidate win. ILLEGAL! Except in Illinois, where even out-of-state reindeer can vote twice.
@realSantaClaus 9 September 2017
During a trial run for Christmas, my sleigh almost was destroyed by a North Korean ballistic missile as we flew over Japan. It splashed harmlessly in the ocean but it caused a couple of reindeer to lose their racks. A lump of coal for the LITTLE ROCKET MAN this year. And for his barber.
@realSantaClaus 8 October 2017
Have you seen the stock market? The Dow is going crazy. North Pole Railroad is up nearly 150 percent. I am having to remake the Monopoly Game this Christmas because real estate value is skyrocketing. We also will need to print more play money, just like the Federal Reserve.
@realSantaClaus 30 October 2017
Dancer and Blizten were both accused of sexual assault today by Prancer. They immediately resigned from the reindeer team. That makes four reindeer I have lost. At this rate, poor old Rudolf will be pulling my giant sleigh by himself. Good thing he settled the harassment suit with Vixen by tapping the North Pole hush fund.
@realSantaClaus 11 November 2017
Working on my Naughty List for this Christmas. Some of the folks who are sure to make it include Al Franken, Andrea Ramsey, John Conyers, Joe Barton, Gloria Allred, Jim Comey and Robert Mueller. Permanent names on the list every year are Scourge and everyone who works at FAKE NEWS outlet CNN.
@realSantaClaus 22 November 2017
Lots of you have pleaded with me to stop tweeting. You think it tarnishes my image because you consider it un-Santa like. But presidents do it. Pro athletes do it. Actors do it. Heck, even the talentless Kardashians do it. Before Twitter, I was just some fat guy who hung out with stinky reindeer. Now LOOK at me!
@realSantaClaus 24 December 2017
It's snowing and the reindeer are eager to show off their perfect landings on the rooftops of homes all over the world. MERRY CHRISTMAS everyone. And if you don't believe in me, Santa Claus, then I feel sorry for you. Even grownups could use a little Christmas magic.
Sunday, December 24, 2017
Monday, December 18, 2017
CBO: Too Often The Numbers Do Lie
Your local weather forecaster has better odds of being right than the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Despite its lousy prediction record, the media continues to tout the CBO's estimates as unimpeachable numbers not subject to skepticism. Even a meterologist knows better.
The budget office issues an annual deficit prediction 12-months ahead of the fiscal year, yet it errs by billions of dollars. Its yearly economic growth models are just as inaccurate. CBO predicted 3.2 percent GDP from 2010-2016. Actual GDP performance was 2.1 percent, a yawning disparity.
Notwithstanding its slipshod record, the CBO claims to be "strictly objective and impartial" in its role of producing 'independent' analysis of issues to support the Congressional budget process. Lawmakers are supposed to look to the CBO to provide the cost to taxpayers of proposed legislation.
From its beginning in 1975, the CBO has clung to antiquated scoring methodologies that skew the results and raise questions about the accuracy of its forecasts. Like many government agencies, the CBO has resisted calls to change its calculus to fit today's economic realities.
Many of the CBO's problems can be traced to its founding. The creation of the CBO was a Democratic political ploy to wrest control of the budget process from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) which reported to President Nixon at the time.
With lopsided majorities in the House and Senate, Democrats passed the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 birthing its own budget agency to weaken the OMB and to jigger cost estimates to fit its agenda. Democrats named a director, who built a team of party loyalists.
Since its infancy, the CBO has been the epitome of the Deep State, a reference to government employees who influence federal agency policies to reflect their own political views. Even if the media uses the words "non-partisan" to describe the CBO, it serves its masters in Congress.
By its own admission, the CBO "consults" with members of Congress before it produces its estimates. Lawmakers can and do manipulate assumptions that the CBO bakes into its projections and forecasts on legislation. So much for an unbiased, nonpartisan estimate.
Take the CBO's infamous forecast of the 10-year price tag of Obamacare. Shilling for the proposal, President Obama vowed the legislation's price tag would be $940 billion. Magically, the CBO crunched the numbers and guesstimated the cost would be $938 billion.
That was in 2010. Two years later the CBO did a "whoops" and restated its estimate. In 2012, the ten-year cost had escalated to $1.76 trillion. It turned out many of the original assumptions in the formal estimate were provided by one of Obamacare's architects, Jonathon Gruber.
When Republicans launched a legislative battle to repeal Obamacare this year, the CBO stepped in and effectively handed the Democrats a sledgehammer to smash the effort. The CBO calculated 23 million people would lose health coverage in the insurance exchanges under the GOP plan.
The media used the figures to tar Republicans and scare Americans. No journalists bothered to look at the CBO assumptions. Agency bean-counters inflated the forecast for enrollment in Obamacare exchanges to make the losses appear larger than realistically expected over a 10-year horizon.
With tax reform blinking on Washington's legislative radar, the CBO has dredged up findings that match the Democrat narrative of exploding deficits. After examining the House and Senate tax plans, the CBO has projected 10-year deficits totalling $1.4 trillion and $1.7 trillion, respectively.
The same Democrats who applauded President Obama's $1 trillion budget deficit in a single year, are appalled and shocked at the estimated shortfall caused by tax reform. However, the CBO's flawed analysis does not assume the reforms will fuel economic growth that will increase tax revenues.
The charade has lasted too long.
Virginia Representative Morgan Griffith and two of his colleagues recently offered legislation to abolish the Budget Analysis Division at the CBO. "Too often predictions made by the CBO turn out to be far off the mark," Griffith told the House in pleading his case.
Hidebound members of the House rebuffed the measure. The swamp takes comfort in sustaining bureaucracies, particularly those that serve its purposes at the expense of taxpayers.
The CBO and its 250 analysts, economists and budget specialists have failed to publish accurate forecasts Congress can rely on in making decisions. Axing the CBO will remove an obstacle to Washington reform. And it will have the added benefit of lowering the water level in the swamp.
The budget office issues an annual deficit prediction 12-months ahead of the fiscal year, yet it errs by billions of dollars. Its yearly economic growth models are just as inaccurate. CBO predicted 3.2 percent GDP from 2010-2016. Actual GDP performance was 2.1 percent, a yawning disparity.
Notwithstanding its slipshod record, the CBO claims to be "strictly objective and impartial" in its role of producing 'independent' analysis of issues to support the Congressional budget process. Lawmakers are supposed to look to the CBO to provide the cost to taxpayers of proposed legislation.
From its beginning in 1975, the CBO has clung to antiquated scoring methodologies that skew the results and raise questions about the accuracy of its forecasts. Like many government agencies, the CBO has resisted calls to change its calculus to fit today's economic realities.
Many of the CBO's problems can be traced to its founding. The creation of the CBO was a Democratic political ploy to wrest control of the budget process from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) which reported to President Nixon at the time.
With lopsided majorities in the House and Senate, Democrats passed the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 birthing its own budget agency to weaken the OMB and to jigger cost estimates to fit its agenda. Democrats named a director, who built a team of party loyalists.
Since its infancy, the CBO has been the epitome of the Deep State, a reference to government employees who influence federal agency policies to reflect their own political views. Even if the media uses the words "non-partisan" to describe the CBO, it serves its masters in Congress.
By its own admission, the CBO "consults" with members of Congress before it produces its estimates. Lawmakers can and do manipulate assumptions that the CBO bakes into its projections and forecasts on legislation. So much for an unbiased, nonpartisan estimate.
Take the CBO's infamous forecast of the 10-year price tag of Obamacare. Shilling for the proposal, President Obama vowed the legislation's price tag would be $940 billion. Magically, the CBO crunched the numbers and guesstimated the cost would be $938 billion.
That was in 2010. Two years later the CBO did a "whoops" and restated its estimate. In 2012, the ten-year cost had escalated to $1.76 trillion. It turned out many of the original assumptions in the formal estimate were provided by one of Obamacare's architects, Jonathon Gruber.
When Republicans launched a legislative battle to repeal Obamacare this year, the CBO stepped in and effectively handed the Democrats a sledgehammer to smash the effort. The CBO calculated 23 million people would lose health coverage in the insurance exchanges under the GOP plan.
The media used the figures to tar Republicans and scare Americans. No journalists bothered to look at the CBO assumptions. Agency bean-counters inflated the forecast for enrollment in Obamacare exchanges to make the losses appear larger than realistically expected over a 10-year horizon.
With tax reform blinking on Washington's legislative radar, the CBO has dredged up findings that match the Democrat narrative of exploding deficits. After examining the House and Senate tax plans, the CBO has projected 10-year deficits totalling $1.4 trillion and $1.7 trillion, respectively.
The same Democrats who applauded President Obama's $1 trillion budget deficit in a single year, are appalled and shocked at the estimated shortfall caused by tax reform. However, the CBO's flawed analysis does not assume the reforms will fuel economic growth that will increase tax revenues.
The charade has lasted too long.
Virginia Representative Morgan Griffith and two of his colleagues recently offered legislation to abolish the Budget Analysis Division at the CBO. "Too often predictions made by the CBO turn out to be far off the mark," Griffith told the House in pleading his case.
Hidebound members of the House rebuffed the measure. The swamp takes comfort in sustaining bureaucracies, particularly those that serve its purposes at the expense of taxpayers.
The CBO and its 250 analysts, economists and budget specialists have failed to publish accurate forecasts Congress can rely on in making decisions. Axing the CBO will remove an obstacle to Washington reform. And it will have the added benefit of lowering the water level in the swamp.
Monday, December 11, 2017
Russian Collusion: A Big Fat Nothing Burger
Since November of last year, Democrats and Washington insiders have thirsted for revenge against voters who dared to elect outsider Donald Trump the President of the United States. Their mission, aided by news media saboteurs, is to oust Mr. Trump from office and overturn the election results.
The instrument they have chosen for this subterfuge is Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller, who is leading a fishing expedition to uncover evidence the Trump campaign colluded with Russians to influence the election outcome. The usurpers hope the witch hunt will trigger an impeachment.
Mueller, who was anointed on May 17, and his army of 16 lawyers and dozens of FBI agents have produced zero proof of any collusion. The FBI along with House and Senate Committees have reviewed the allegations and have not a shred of evidence that Russia altered the election result.
After spending millions of dollars in taxpayer funds, Mueller's minions have charged a couple of former Trump campaign officials with lying to the FBI. The indictments have nothing to do with Russian collusion, but the coup masters claim the president is in mortal danger of being toppled.
There is no denying the Mueller investigation has strayed far from its original mandate, an indication the empty suits are desperate to justify their jobs. It also is clear Democrats concocted a Russia boogieman as an excuse for Hillary Clinton's defeat and as a way to delegitimatize President Trump.
Ironically, Mr. Obama knew in 2016 that the Russians were planning to interfere in the election. However, he did nothing. Why? The answer is he believed Ms. Clinton would win and thought Russian intervention would have no material impact. The tune changed after Mr. Trump's victory.
The impetus Democrats needed to launch the investigation came after Mr. Trump fired bungling FBI Director James Comey. In retaliation, Comey engineered a behind-the-scenes plot to appoint a special prosecutor. His choice was Robert Mueller, who has close professional ties with Comey
Mueller stacked his "independent" team with many attorneys with professional conflicts because of their ties to Democrats. (One conflict that has never been mentioned is that Mueller's former legal firm also employed lawyers for both Jared Kushner and ex-campaign chair Paul Manafort.)
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mueller, looked the other way as the special counsel built a jaundiced gang of prosecutors and lawyers. His hit squad included members of the FBI and Justice Department who had worked on the Hillary Clinton email probe.
Constitutional legal scholar and Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz remains appalled. "In a partisan atmosphere like this, you have to be so careful not to give the other side the ability to claim prejudice. And I think they have given the other side the ability to claim prejudice."
As if to underscore Dershowitz's point, Mueller had to part ways with a member of his team who once oversaw the FBI probe of the Clinton email scandal. Peter Strzok, formerly the FBI chief of Counterespionage, was caught texting thousands of anti-Trump rants to his FBI paramour.
Although he knew about the texts in June, Mueller waited months before he jettisoned Strzok. He hid the existence of the obvious bias from Congress, including the House Intelligence Committee. The Justice Department also failed to disclose the information. Doesn't that smell like collusion?
On the heels of that disclosure, it was learned that one of the attorneys on Team Mueller was a personal lawyer for a top Obama official and also represented the Clinton Foundation. The attorney, Jeannie Rhee, like others was recruited for her Democratic Party loyalty, not legal credentials.
Despite rules that require the special counsel to operate in secrecy, Mueller and his legal squad have leaked stories about progress of the probe to the news media. Rep. Trey Gowdy, a former prosecutor, has scolded Mueller for acting unethically by disclosing confidential information.
With the clock ticking on his probe, a vindictive Mueller has let it be known that his lawyerly mob is now trying to pin a charge of obstruction of justice on the president. When Dershowitz heard about that strategy, he had some choice words of warning for Mueller.
"If Congress were ever to charge him (Mr. Trump) with obstruction of justice for exercising his constitutional authority under Article II, we'd have a constitutional crisis," Dershowitz opined. He added that an obstruction case against Mr. Trump was a matter of "hope over reality."
According to Dershowitz, as president Mr. Trump had the constitutional authority to fire Comey and was within the law to ask the FBI director to refrain from investigating members of his own campaign. There is nothing illegal about either action, Dershowitz points out.
Mueller was given the specific mandate to investigate Russian collusion. Unless he can present evidence to substantiate the Democrats' homegrown conspiracy theory, then Rosenstein needs to pull the plug by February. An endless inquiry will produce nothing but more media hysterics.
America's constitution does not sanction a coup d'etat. Democrats had their opportunity to win the White House and failed miserably. They should stop acting like spoiled children while endangering the world's oldest democracy.
There is no denying the Mueller investigation has strayed far from its original mandate, an indication the empty suits are desperate to justify their jobs. It also is clear Democrats concocted a Russia boogieman as an excuse for Hillary Clinton's defeat and as a way to delegitimatize President Trump.
Ironically, Mr. Obama knew in 2016 that the Russians were planning to interfere in the election. However, he did nothing. Why? The answer is he believed Ms. Clinton would win and thought Russian intervention would have no material impact. The tune changed after Mr. Trump's victory.
The impetus Democrats needed to launch the investigation came after Mr. Trump fired bungling FBI Director James Comey. In retaliation, Comey engineered a behind-the-scenes plot to appoint a special prosecutor. His choice was Robert Mueller, who has close professional ties with Comey
Mueller stacked his "independent" team with many attorneys with professional conflicts because of their ties to Democrats. (One conflict that has never been mentioned is that Mueller's former legal firm also employed lawyers for both Jared Kushner and ex-campaign chair Paul Manafort.)
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mueller, looked the other way as the special counsel built a jaundiced gang of prosecutors and lawyers. His hit squad included members of the FBI and Justice Department who had worked on the Hillary Clinton email probe.
Constitutional legal scholar and Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz remains appalled. "In a partisan atmosphere like this, you have to be so careful not to give the other side the ability to claim prejudice. And I think they have given the other side the ability to claim prejudice."
As if to underscore Dershowitz's point, Mueller had to part ways with a member of his team who once oversaw the FBI probe of the Clinton email scandal. Peter Strzok, formerly the FBI chief of Counterespionage, was caught texting thousands of anti-Trump rants to his FBI paramour.
Although he knew about the texts in June, Mueller waited months before he jettisoned Strzok. He hid the existence of the obvious bias from Congress, including the House Intelligence Committee. The Justice Department also failed to disclose the information. Doesn't that smell like collusion?
On the heels of that disclosure, it was learned that one of the attorneys on Team Mueller was a personal lawyer for a top Obama official and also represented the Clinton Foundation. The attorney, Jeannie Rhee, like others was recruited for her Democratic Party loyalty, not legal credentials.
Despite rules that require the special counsel to operate in secrecy, Mueller and his legal squad have leaked stories about progress of the probe to the news media. Rep. Trey Gowdy, a former prosecutor, has scolded Mueller for acting unethically by disclosing confidential information.
With the clock ticking on his probe, a vindictive Mueller has let it be known that his lawyerly mob is now trying to pin a charge of obstruction of justice on the president. When Dershowitz heard about that strategy, he had some choice words of warning for Mueller.
"If Congress were ever to charge him (Mr. Trump) with obstruction of justice for exercising his constitutional authority under Article II, we'd have a constitutional crisis," Dershowitz opined. He added that an obstruction case against Mr. Trump was a matter of "hope over reality."
According to Dershowitz, as president Mr. Trump had the constitutional authority to fire Comey and was within the law to ask the FBI director to refrain from investigating members of his own campaign. There is nothing illegal about either action, Dershowitz points out.
Mueller was given the specific mandate to investigate Russian collusion. Unless he can present evidence to substantiate the Democrats' homegrown conspiracy theory, then Rosenstein needs to pull the plug by February. An endless inquiry will produce nothing but more media hysterics.
America's constitution does not sanction a coup d'etat. Democrats had their opportunity to win the White House and failed miserably. They should stop acting like spoiled children while endangering the world's oldest democracy.
Monday, December 4, 2017
America's North Korean Conundrum
North Korea and its narcissistic dictator are on a collision course with the United States. The rogue regime continues to lob missiles over Japan in defiance of America's protests. Its hermit leader has conducted nuclear tests flouting past treaties. There is a gnawing fear of a nuclear holocaust.
Despite the burning North Korean crisis, the liberal media and many Democrats naively continue to preach patience. They appear to take comfort in the fact lunatic leader Kim Jong Un has not yet leveled a country with a nuclear-tipped missile. They dismiss his provocations as bluffs.
However, there are lessons to be learned from the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. When the Soviets installed a missile base 90-miles off the coast of Florida, President John F. Kennedy acted decisively to head off the prospect of a nuclear Cuba threatening American security.
JFK ordered a naval blockade around Cuba to prevent the Soviets from sending more missiles and arms to Communist dictator Fidel Castro. In response, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev dispatched a naval armada to Cuba. The decision nudged America to the brink of war.
Most military experts warned that an armed conflict was inevitable. After a tense 13-day standoff Khrushchev blinked, offering to remove the missiles from Cuba in exchange for JFK's promise not to invade the Soviet-backed state. A bargain was struck averting war.
It will require that same kind of steely resolve for America to deal with North Korea. Current political leaders are swayed by public opinion polls that clearly show Americans are not interested in a conflict on the Korean peninsula. But Kennedy's calculated risk was unpopular too.
America needs a strategy that will force Kim to give up his missiles and nuclear weapons. Appeasement has not worked despite treaties and gobs of foreign aid by the administrations of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barrack Obama. Agreements and money won't purchase peace.
Efforts to convince China to intervene on America's behalf are fantasies. The U.S. will never be able to force China to abandon its support for North Korea unless it cuts off all trade with the Communist superpower. That won't happen because there is too much at stake for American businesses.
U.S. goods and services trade with China was $648.2 billion in 2016, according to the Department of Commerce. China is currently America's leading trading partner. China holds the leverage in this arena, not the U.S. It is folly to suggest that America can bring China to its knees over trade.
China has the upper hand in another area. The Chinese currently own more than $1.24 trillion in bonds, notes and bills issued by the American government. That figure represents 30 percent of all the debt held by foreign governments. It gives China unparalleled bargaining power.
But that doesn't mean's America's hands are shackled. The U.S. should begin laying the groundwork to kick North Korea out of the United Nations. No member state has ever been expelled from the organization, but there is no better first candidate than North Korea.
The U.N. charter allows for the eviction of members who have "persistently violated" the organization's charter. Tossing out North Korea would rob Kim of the perk of having the U.S. pay for its diplomats (aka spies) to occupy posh quarters in New York, Rome and Vienna.
The expulsion would require a vote from the Security Council, a group of nations that include China and Russia. But it is still worth the effort, if only to send a signal to North Korea that it will be cut off from the rest of the civilized world if it continues its adversarial behavior.
Next the U.S. and its allies should institute a naval blockade around North Korea to prevent any weapons or nuclear materials from reaching the failed state. By targeting military shipments, the move could dent the thriving arms export business that is one of the few sources of state income.
According to military analysts with knowledge of the regime's shadowy arms deals, the Asian nation trades with Africa and Middle Eastern countries, including Syria. Those shipments are launched from ports off the coast of North Korea, most notably Pyongyang.
Although North Korea has a military of 6.4 million men that dwarfs America's force of 2.3 million, it is no match for U.S. naval firepower. North Korea has no aircraft carriers and only a small fleet of frigates and submarines. American naval forces would overpower any threat to the blockade.
On top of these moves, America should tighten the screws of economic sanctions, clamping down on the financial dealings of regime leaders and challenging China to follow suit. If the past is any indication of the future, Kim will thumb his nose at the U.S. and its allies.
The world can no longer allow a madman to willy-nilly launch missiles over soverign countries. One day Kim will fire a rocket at the U.S. When that moment arrives, public opinion about North Korean intervention will quickly reverse. By then will it be too late to save America?
Despite the burning North Korean crisis, the liberal media and many Democrats naively continue to preach patience. They appear to take comfort in the fact lunatic leader Kim Jong Un has not yet leveled a country with a nuclear-tipped missile. They dismiss his provocations as bluffs.
However, there are lessons to be learned from the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. When the Soviets installed a missile base 90-miles off the coast of Florida, President John F. Kennedy acted decisively to head off the prospect of a nuclear Cuba threatening American security.
JFK ordered a naval blockade around Cuba to prevent the Soviets from sending more missiles and arms to Communist dictator Fidel Castro. In response, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev dispatched a naval armada to Cuba. The decision nudged America to the brink of war.
Most military experts warned that an armed conflict was inevitable. After a tense 13-day standoff Khrushchev blinked, offering to remove the missiles from Cuba in exchange for JFK's promise not to invade the Soviet-backed state. A bargain was struck averting war.
It will require that same kind of steely resolve for America to deal with North Korea. Current political leaders are swayed by public opinion polls that clearly show Americans are not interested in a conflict on the Korean peninsula. But Kennedy's calculated risk was unpopular too.
America needs a strategy that will force Kim to give up his missiles and nuclear weapons. Appeasement has not worked despite treaties and gobs of foreign aid by the administrations of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barrack Obama. Agreements and money won't purchase peace.
Efforts to convince China to intervene on America's behalf are fantasies. The U.S. will never be able to force China to abandon its support for North Korea unless it cuts off all trade with the Communist superpower. That won't happen because there is too much at stake for American businesses.
U.S. goods and services trade with China was $648.2 billion in 2016, according to the Department of Commerce. China is currently America's leading trading partner. China holds the leverage in this arena, not the U.S. It is folly to suggest that America can bring China to its knees over trade.
China has the upper hand in another area. The Chinese currently own more than $1.24 trillion in bonds, notes and bills issued by the American government. That figure represents 30 percent of all the debt held by foreign governments. It gives China unparalleled bargaining power.
But that doesn't mean's America's hands are shackled. The U.S. should begin laying the groundwork to kick North Korea out of the United Nations. No member state has ever been expelled from the organization, but there is no better first candidate than North Korea.
The U.N. charter allows for the eviction of members who have "persistently violated" the organization's charter. Tossing out North Korea would rob Kim of the perk of having the U.S. pay for its diplomats (aka spies) to occupy posh quarters in New York, Rome and Vienna.
The expulsion would require a vote from the Security Council, a group of nations that include China and Russia. But it is still worth the effort, if only to send a signal to North Korea that it will be cut off from the rest of the civilized world if it continues its adversarial behavior.
Next the U.S. and its allies should institute a naval blockade around North Korea to prevent any weapons or nuclear materials from reaching the failed state. By targeting military shipments, the move could dent the thriving arms export business that is one of the few sources of state income.
According to military analysts with knowledge of the regime's shadowy arms deals, the Asian nation trades with Africa and Middle Eastern countries, including Syria. Those shipments are launched from ports off the coast of North Korea, most notably Pyongyang.
Although North Korea has a military of 6.4 million men that dwarfs America's force of 2.3 million, it is no match for U.S. naval firepower. North Korea has no aircraft carriers and only a small fleet of frigates and submarines. American naval forces would overpower any threat to the blockade.
On top of these moves, America should tighten the screws of economic sanctions, clamping down on the financial dealings of regime leaders and challenging China to follow suit. If the past is any indication of the future, Kim will thumb his nose at the U.S. and its allies.
The world can no longer allow a madman to willy-nilly launch missiles over soverign countries. One day Kim will fire a rocket at the U.S. When that moment arrives, public opinion about North Korean intervention will quickly reverse. By then will it be too late to save America?
Monday, November 27, 2017
Sexual Misconduct: Washington's Dirty Secret
After months of lurid coverage of sexual misconduct in Hollywood, the news media is training its sights on allegations involving politicians. With each new revelation, Washington's political class has harrumphed in outrage at the media's reports about scandalous behavior in the swamp.
A cynic would call the politicians' moral indignation hypocrisy. While many in Congress condemn those accused of sexual misbehavior, they secretly participate in a sham that shields Washington's lawmakers from accountability.
In the days since the The Washington Post's politically-charged recounting of sexual allegations against senate candidate Roy Moore, a troubling disclosure has oozed from the halls of Congress. There exists a hush-hush slush fund to settle sexual violations against Washington lawmakers.
When the story broke, legislators scrambled for cover. Everyone in Washington developed amnesia. Current House Speaker Paul Ryan could not remember any details of sexual harassment settlements. Nancy Pelosi was dumbfounded, unfortunately a permanent condition for the former speaker.
Perhaps, their memories could use refreshing. In 1995, the House and Senate near unanimously approved The Congressional Accountability Act. It passed 429-0 in the House and the Senate voted 98-1 with one member not present. It was subsequently signed into law by President Bill Clinton.
The legislation was designed to exempt Congress from some laws. For instance, the House and Senate may consider party affiliation and political compatibility when hiring. Your elected representatives decided they weren't going to follow some rules forced on American businesses.
Under the legislation, there was a special Treasury fund established to pay for settlements against legislators, including those involving sexual misconduct. Guess who funds the kitty? The legislators certainly weren't going to dip into their own pockets. Taxpayers pick up the scummy tab.
A few weeks ago the once-obscure Congressional Office of Compliance (OCC) was embarrassed into issuing a report showing it has shelled out more than $17 million from the hush-slush fund since 1997. According to the OCC, the payments covered an unspecified 264 settlements.
The OCC, governed by a five-member board of directors, is nothing more than an extension of Congress. Its directors are appointed by the leadership of the House and Senate. Current board members include five private attorneys with experience in labor law.
The board appoints a four-member executive staff served by 13 professionals on the government payroll. There is one vacancy at this time if you are inclined to land a job in Washington covering up for lawmakers.
On its website, the OCC states its purpose is "advancing workplace rights, safety and health, and accessibility in the legislative branch." How does paying a settlement advance anything? A few in Congress are now chiding the office for inadequately protecting victims who filed complaints.
When something stinks in Washington, it usually means political skunks are hiding something. There should be a bipartisan clamor for the OCC to release all documents and relevant details about payments, including those for sexual misconduct. The public has a right to know.
However, the OCC's charter provides all settlements must remain confidential. That cloaks the nature of the violation in secrecy and conceals the name of the member of the House or Senate who violated the rules established under the Congressional Accountability Act.
California Democrat Rep. Jackie Speier introduced a bill last week that would overhaul sexual harassment policies on Capitol Hill. According to the House member, the legislation would require more transparency and additional support for victims. That would be a good start.
But more needs to be done. Congress should adopt a new accountability act that mandates that every lawmaker must abide by federal laws involving hiring, sexual misconduct, discrimination and other rules. The accused lawmaker not taxpayers should be forced to pay for any settlement.
In addition, the new law should require complete transparency, mandating that a report be issued annually listing those on the Congressional payroll who were found guilty of any transgression that resulted in a settlement.
Don't hold your breadth waiting for that to happen. Rumors are rampant about female lawmakers revealing more allegations against sitting members of Congress. Those same pious politicians wagging their fingers in disgust at current allegations may have the finger pointed in their direction.
The Congressional Accountability Law is a fraud. Everyone in Congress knows it. Now that it has been exposed as a hoax, voters should demand that it be replaced with legislation that restores the rule of law for all citizens, including those slimy parasites who swim in the swamp.
A cynic would call the politicians' moral indignation hypocrisy. While many in Congress condemn those accused of sexual misbehavior, they secretly participate in a sham that shields Washington's lawmakers from accountability.
In the days since the The Washington Post's politically-charged recounting of sexual allegations against senate candidate Roy Moore, a troubling disclosure has oozed from the halls of Congress. There exists a hush-hush slush fund to settle sexual violations against Washington lawmakers.
When the story broke, legislators scrambled for cover. Everyone in Washington developed amnesia. Current House Speaker Paul Ryan could not remember any details of sexual harassment settlements. Nancy Pelosi was dumbfounded, unfortunately a permanent condition for the former speaker.
Perhaps, their memories could use refreshing. In 1995, the House and Senate near unanimously approved The Congressional Accountability Act. It passed 429-0 in the House and the Senate voted 98-1 with one member not present. It was subsequently signed into law by President Bill Clinton.
The legislation was designed to exempt Congress from some laws. For instance, the House and Senate may consider party affiliation and political compatibility when hiring. Your elected representatives decided they weren't going to follow some rules forced on American businesses.
Under the legislation, there was a special Treasury fund established to pay for settlements against legislators, including those involving sexual misconduct. Guess who funds the kitty? The legislators certainly weren't going to dip into their own pockets. Taxpayers pick up the scummy tab.
A few weeks ago the once-obscure Congressional Office of Compliance (OCC) was embarrassed into issuing a report showing it has shelled out more than $17 million from the hush-slush fund since 1997. According to the OCC, the payments covered an unspecified 264 settlements.
The OCC, governed by a five-member board of directors, is nothing more than an extension of Congress. Its directors are appointed by the leadership of the House and Senate. Current board members include five private attorneys with experience in labor law.
The board appoints a four-member executive staff served by 13 professionals on the government payroll. There is one vacancy at this time if you are inclined to land a job in Washington covering up for lawmakers.
On its website, the OCC states its purpose is "advancing workplace rights, safety and health, and accessibility in the legislative branch." How does paying a settlement advance anything? A few in Congress are now chiding the office for inadequately protecting victims who filed complaints.
When something stinks in Washington, it usually means political skunks are hiding something. There should be a bipartisan clamor for the OCC to release all documents and relevant details about payments, including those for sexual misconduct. The public has a right to know.
However, the OCC's charter provides all settlements must remain confidential. That cloaks the nature of the violation in secrecy and conceals the name of the member of the House or Senate who violated the rules established under the Congressional Accountability Act.
California Democrat Rep. Jackie Speier introduced a bill last week that would overhaul sexual harassment policies on Capitol Hill. According to the House member, the legislation would require more transparency and additional support for victims. That would be a good start.
But more needs to be done. Congress should adopt a new accountability act that mandates that every lawmaker must abide by federal laws involving hiring, sexual misconduct, discrimination and other rules. The accused lawmaker not taxpayers should be forced to pay for any settlement.
In addition, the new law should require complete transparency, mandating that a report be issued annually listing those on the Congressional payroll who were found guilty of any transgression that resulted in a settlement.
Don't hold your breadth waiting for that to happen. Rumors are rampant about female lawmakers revealing more allegations against sitting members of Congress. Those same pious politicians wagging their fingers in disgust at current allegations may have the finger pointed in their direction.
The Congressional Accountability Law is a fraud. Everyone in Congress knows it. Now that it has been exposed as a hoax, voters should demand that it be replaced with legislation that restores the rule of law for all citizens, including those slimy parasites who swim in the swamp.
Monday, November 20, 2017
In Times of Tumult, Be Thankful For Friends
Americans may be watching the news and scratching their heads, wondering why they should be giving thanks this holiday. A murderous rampage at a place of worship in Texas. Sexual scandals in Hollywood and everywhere. A rogue regime threatening to unleash a nuclear holocaust.
The headlines are frightening, disheartening, unnerving. It makes you wonder: What kind of a world do we live in? The answer is this planet is inhabited by flawed people. Some with more serious demons than others. In times of chaos like these, our outlook turns bleak and our souls are shaken.
In the midst of tumult, there is no better antidote than a good friend. Or, if you are blessed, a whole bunch of friends. They can be a spouse, a sibling, a new or old neighbor, a co-worker or a former classmate. Friends are out ultimate support system. Our cure for depression. Our candle of hope.
Friends comfort us when we need to be uplifted. They are there with an encouraging word, a kind jesture or a soft pat on the shoulder. Friends are present even when we don't realize we need them. That's why there is no greater treasure in life than a friend.
When we confront tough decisions, it is consoling to have a friend to consult. They listen patiently even as we prattle on with a long-winded explanation of the choices we face. Friends nod and remind us that we have make difficult judgements in the past. We'll rise above this trauma too.
When we are in a medical crisis, friends visit us in the hospital or after surgery. They hug us and make us feel cared for. Friends don't leave us to brave the unknown by ourselves. They hold our hands, look into our sad eyes and lend a sympathetic ear to our complaints about pain and suffering.
Friends are there when we lose a loved one to death. They stand by our side, prop us up emotionally and share our grief at the funeral. They may be lost for words but they never leave us to handle the sorrow alone. Even when we have exhausted every emotion, friends help us rediscover strength.
When we are in need, friends answer the call. It could be the use of a car because our clunker is at the dealership. Or a picking up a restaurant tab because we have forgotten our credit card at home. Or taking our kids trick-or-treating because we are out of town on business.
In dire circumstance, friends soar to the occasion. Our home is lost in a flood or a rampaging fire. Friends open their homes and hearts to us. They take us in and treat us as family. They expect nothing in return for their generosity. Friends desire only our continued friendship.
Friends accompany us on our faith journey. They encourage us when even when we behave badly or fall short of expectations. They never judge. They never rebuke. They never say "I told you so." They are there to remind us that God loves us even in our weakness. Our walk resumes in earnest.
Friends often know us better than anyone else. They have seen us in the best of times and the worst. They understand our flaws, our imperfections and our peccadillos. Despite that, friends love us for the person we are, not the version we are striving to become. They prize the good we fail to see.
Friends keep our secrets, even the ones we fear most of being exposed. We can share anything with friends knowing the information will be held in confidence. They are discrete even when others cajole them for details about what's bugging us. Friends draw closer when we share inner thoughts.
Perhaps, what friends do best is keep us grounded. When our egos are inflated or our pride engulfs us, friends know just what to say to bring us floating back to Earth. It may be a joke, a subtle jab or just a gentle comment, but it restores our humility. And we are grateful for their chiding.
This Thanksgiving, take time to be grateful for your friends. Remember new and old friends. Recall the forgotten ones. Make a new friend. Friends are the better part of our lives. We should cherish every friend. Not just during this holiday but every day of the year.
The headlines are frightening, disheartening, unnerving. It makes you wonder: What kind of a world do we live in? The answer is this planet is inhabited by flawed people. Some with more serious demons than others. In times of chaos like these, our outlook turns bleak and our souls are shaken.
In the midst of tumult, there is no better antidote than a good friend. Or, if you are blessed, a whole bunch of friends. They can be a spouse, a sibling, a new or old neighbor, a co-worker or a former classmate. Friends are out ultimate support system. Our cure for depression. Our candle of hope.
Friends comfort us when we need to be uplifted. They are there with an encouraging word, a kind jesture or a soft pat on the shoulder. Friends are present even when we don't realize we need them. That's why there is no greater treasure in life than a friend.
When we confront tough decisions, it is consoling to have a friend to consult. They listen patiently even as we prattle on with a long-winded explanation of the choices we face. Friends nod and remind us that we have make difficult judgements in the past. We'll rise above this trauma too.
When we are in a medical crisis, friends visit us in the hospital or after surgery. They hug us and make us feel cared for. Friends don't leave us to brave the unknown by ourselves. They hold our hands, look into our sad eyes and lend a sympathetic ear to our complaints about pain and suffering.
Friends are there when we lose a loved one to death. They stand by our side, prop us up emotionally and share our grief at the funeral. They may be lost for words but they never leave us to handle the sorrow alone. Even when we have exhausted every emotion, friends help us rediscover strength.
When we are in need, friends answer the call. It could be the use of a car because our clunker is at the dealership. Or a picking up a restaurant tab because we have forgotten our credit card at home. Or taking our kids trick-or-treating because we are out of town on business.
In dire circumstance, friends soar to the occasion. Our home is lost in a flood or a rampaging fire. Friends open their homes and hearts to us. They take us in and treat us as family. They expect nothing in return for their generosity. Friends desire only our continued friendship.
Friends accompany us on our faith journey. They encourage us when even when we behave badly or fall short of expectations. They never judge. They never rebuke. They never say "I told you so." They are there to remind us that God loves us even in our weakness. Our walk resumes in earnest.
Friends often know us better than anyone else. They have seen us in the best of times and the worst. They understand our flaws, our imperfections and our peccadillos. Despite that, friends love us for the person we are, not the version we are striving to become. They prize the good we fail to see.
Friends keep our secrets, even the ones we fear most of being exposed. We can share anything with friends knowing the information will be held in confidence. They are discrete even when others cajole them for details about what's bugging us. Friends draw closer when we share inner thoughts.
Perhaps, what friends do best is keep us grounded. When our egos are inflated or our pride engulfs us, friends know just what to say to bring us floating back to Earth. It may be a joke, a subtle jab or just a gentle comment, but it restores our humility. And we are grateful for their chiding.
This Thanksgiving, take time to be grateful for your friends. Remember new and old friends. Recall the forgotten ones. Make a new friend. Friends are the better part of our lives. We should cherish every friend. Not just during this holiday but every day of the year.
Saturday, November 11, 2017
Tax Scam: Don't Be Fooled By Tax Cuts
Washington is buzzing about tax cuts as Congress prepares to tackle one of the president's top agenda items. As expected, both political parties have engaged in a propaganda war with little attention paid to the American taxpayer's No. 1 villain: the indecipherable federal tax code.
The tax code is a government document of more than 10 million words that details the rules individuals and businesses follow in computing their federal taxes. Over the past 60 years, the instrument has grown nearly 144,500 words annually, according to the Tax Foundation.
This complexity creates migraine headaches for taxpayers. Americans spend about 6.1 billion hours to comply with the onerous tax code. Ninety percent of taxpayers hire a professional to prepare their taxes at a cost of $233.8 billion annually.
No wonder a Pew Research poll in 2015 found that 72 percent of Americans are confounded by the incomprehensible code. Even today, as Americans grapple with the new tax plan details unveiled by the House and Senate, it's impossible to discern the dollar impact on the average household.
Even if rates of tax are lowered, it may not translate into an individual household owing less money to Uncle Sam. That's because the tax code contains guidelines for deductions and exemptions that lower the taxable income. The rate applies to adjusted taxable income not the total income.
Some deductions are well known. For example, the write-offs for interest on home mortgages, charitable donations and medical expenses. Others are not so well understood. Income may be taxed at different rates depending on the source. Some income may be excluded from taxation.
In many ways, that renders the tax rate meaningless. For instance, what if tax deductions for child care and educational expenses are abolished, but the tax rate is lowered by five percent. Depending on the dollar amount of the lost deduction, it may mean a higher tax bill for some.
If you include businesses in this discussion, the code takes on even more importance. The code includes a legion of business offsets and credits, referred to erroneously as loopholes. Although the official business tax rate is 39.1 percent, most corporations pay only to 10 to 15 percent in taxes.
Individuals also game the tax code. In theory, households earning over $200,000 are supposed to pay around 40 percent in taxes. In practice, studies show that the effective rate is 23 percent because they are armed with tax planners and lawyers paid to legally reduce their tax bill.
That's why tax rates distort tax fairness. To rectify this imbalance, Congress needs to quit fiddling at the margins on the tax issue. If lawmakers and the president are serious about tax reform, the first step should be to scrap the arcane tax code. Blow it to smithereens.
In its place, Congress should adopt a simple flat tax for all Americans, regardless of income. No individual deductions. No business loopholes. No special treatment for income based on the source. Whatever money you make, no matter how it's earned, it is taxed at the same rate. Period.
Some will scream "Unfair!" They want a regressive tax system that punishes the rich. The top 10 percent already pay two-thirds of the taxes collected from individuals. Mount Everest taxpayers--those in the 0.1 percent echelon--make up 16 percent of all household taxes.
Pandering politicians, who don't give a wit about fairness, demonize those with personal fortunes and foster class envy. That's why brainwashed Americans believe the wealthy do not pay their fair share. The bottom 50 percent of taxpayers contribute 2.8 percent of federal tax revenue. Talk about unfair.
If the object of the tax code is to inflict pain on the wealthiest Americans, then perhaps it would be better to just toss the filthy rich in jail and confiscate all their wealth. (Insert tongue in cheek here.) Under a flat tax or virtually any other system, the wealthy will always pay the largest share of taxes.
Once Congress passes a flat tax, then it must address payroll taxes. For many Americans, payroll taxes ( Medicare, Social Security, etc.) take a larger bite out of their paychecks than federal income taxes. All but the top 20 percent of Americans are in this tax pickle.
That would crack open Pandora's box because Congress would have to wrestle with fixing Medicare and Social Security. Too many seniors would howl. For similar reasons, Congress avoids dealing with the tax code. Accounts, lawyers and tax preparation firms would throw a tantrum.
Real tax reform requires political courage and a honest debate instead of political grandstanding. For that reason, it won't happen. Not in Washington. Not this year. Not ever. Swamp creatures prefer tax favoritism over fairness because that's what the lobbyists and special interests want.
And these same deep-pocketed lobbyists and special interest groups pay for the re-election campaigns of those who inhabit the swamp. They are the masters most lawmakers serve, not average American taxpayers.
In many ways, that renders the tax rate meaningless. For instance, what if tax deductions for child care and educational expenses are abolished, but the tax rate is lowered by five percent. Depending on the dollar amount of the lost deduction, it may mean a higher tax bill for some.
If you include businesses in this discussion, the code takes on even more importance. The code includes a legion of business offsets and credits, referred to erroneously as loopholes. Although the official business tax rate is 39.1 percent, most corporations pay only to 10 to 15 percent in taxes.
Individuals also game the tax code. In theory, households earning over $200,000 are supposed to pay around 40 percent in taxes. In practice, studies show that the effective rate is 23 percent because they are armed with tax planners and lawyers paid to legally reduce their tax bill.
That's why tax rates distort tax fairness. To rectify this imbalance, Congress needs to quit fiddling at the margins on the tax issue. If lawmakers and the president are serious about tax reform, the first step should be to scrap the arcane tax code. Blow it to smithereens.
In its place, Congress should adopt a simple flat tax for all Americans, regardless of income. No individual deductions. No business loopholes. No special treatment for income based on the source. Whatever money you make, no matter how it's earned, it is taxed at the same rate. Period.
Some will scream "Unfair!" They want a regressive tax system that punishes the rich. The top 10 percent already pay two-thirds of the taxes collected from individuals. Mount Everest taxpayers--those in the 0.1 percent echelon--make up 16 percent of all household taxes.
Pandering politicians, who don't give a wit about fairness, demonize those with personal fortunes and foster class envy. That's why brainwashed Americans believe the wealthy do not pay their fair share. The bottom 50 percent of taxpayers contribute 2.8 percent of federal tax revenue. Talk about unfair.
If the object of the tax code is to inflict pain on the wealthiest Americans, then perhaps it would be better to just toss the filthy rich in jail and confiscate all their wealth. (Insert tongue in cheek here.) Under a flat tax or virtually any other system, the wealthy will always pay the largest share of taxes.
Once Congress passes a flat tax, then it must address payroll taxes. For many Americans, payroll taxes ( Medicare, Social Security, etc.) take a larger bite out of their paychecks than federal income taxes. All but the top 20 percent of Americans are in this tax pickle.
That would crack open Pandora's box because Congress would have to wrestle with fixing Medicare and Social Security. Too many seniors would howl. For similar reasons, Congress avoids dealing with the tax code. Accounts, lawyers and tax preparation firms would throw a tantrum.
Real tax reform requires political courage and a honest debate instead of political grandstanding. For that reason, it won't happen. Not in Washington. Not this year. Not ever. Swamp creatures prefer tax favoritism over fairness because that's what the lobbyists and special interests want.
And these same deep-pocketed lobbyists and special interest groups pay for the re-election campaigns of those who inhabit the swamp. They are the masters most lawmakers serve, not average American taxpayers.
Monday, November 6, 2017
Robocalls: The Scourge That Won't Go Away
Every month an estimated 2.4 billion automated calls encroach wireless and land line phones of Americans. These unwanted summons often feature a recorded message promoting an assortment of fraudulent schemes and consumer scams. A few legitimate calls offer products and services.
But every single call has one thing in common. They are annoying millions of Americans. These so-called robocalls are annually the top consumer complaint filed with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which oversees the nation's telecommunications firms and services.
For the uninitiated, robocalls take advantage of technology that allows these calls to be autodialed and loaded with a prerecorded message. Some robo outfits also use text messages to wireless numbers. Others dispatch faxes to home and business machines.
FCC rules limit the type of robocalls, although some are permissible if the business receives prior consent from consumers. In addition, the agency allows schools, colleges and similar institutions to use robocalls to communicate information about closings and emergencies.
Frustrated consumers often place their cell or land line number on the National Do No Call Registry maintained by the FCC. However, the scammers ignore the list and randomly dial numbers. If you respond to the call and request not to be called, your number is transferred to another telemarketer.
Robocalls are more than just a nuisance. The Consumers Union estimates that crooks use robocalls to rip-off consumers to the tune of an estimated $350 million annually. Despite government and telecom industry efforts, the problem has not abated since the scourge began.
The robocall con artists have used virtually every subterfuge to separate consumers from their money. One of the stalwarts has been the bogus recorded call from the IRS threatening legal action if the consumer does not pay a fine immediately by providing a credit card number.
Another favorite ploy is to fool consumers into thinking their credit card company is calling. Unsuspecting consumers provide security and other credit data to allegedly prevent someone from illegally using their card. Instead the consumer's account is compromised by the robocall crook.
Robocall swindlers have managed to stay a step ahead of wary consumers. The latest trick is to employ something known as "spoofing." The rogues falsify caller identifications to appear legitimate in order to circumvent the do not call list and fool anti-robocall tools used by consumers.
More recently, these criminals are using local area codes and the first-three digits of the consumer's land line or wireless phone number to masquerade as a neighborhood call. The bandits often steal unassigned numbers from the nation's telecom operators.
The FCC and the big telecommunications firms, led by AT&T, are working feverishly on solutions. So far the outlaws have managed to stay one step ahead. The best weapon in the government arsenal may be levying massive fines against robocall violators.
Under new chairman Ajit Pai, the FCC has launched a campaign to hold the robocall industry accountable. Fines are being approved under the Truth in Caller ID Act, bi-partisan legislation signed into law in 2010, which makes it a illegal to pervert caller ID numbers to scam consumers.
In the latest suit, a Wilmington man is facing an $82 million fine for allegedly making more than 21 million illegal robocalls through a health insurance telemarketing company. The FCC contended the owner use bogus caller ID information to target consumers, including the elderly and infirm.
The commission recently levied the largest fine ever for $122 million against a Florida man who was accused of making nearly 100 million robocalls in a three-month period. The fines are a warning shot to the bad guys. But more needs to be done to keep consumers from being bilked.
To crack down on the scoundrels, the wireless and and land line operators are being encouraged to develop a call authentication framework that would blunt the malicious robocallers who attempt to hide their originating phone number.
But in the end, the industry and government can only do so much. The best protection against fraud is informed consumers.
But every single call has one thing in common. They are annoying millions of Americans. These so-called robocalls are annually the top consumer complaint filed with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which oversees the nation's telecommunications firms and services.
For the uninitiated, robocalls take advantage of technology that allows these calls to be autodialed and loaded with a prerecorded message. Some robo outfits also use text messages to wireless numbers. Others dispatch faxes to home and business machines.
FCC rules limit the type of robocalls, although some are permissible if the business receives prior consent from consumers. In addition, the agency allows schools, colleges and similar institutions to use robocalls to communicate information about closings and emergencies.
Frustrated consumers often place their cell or land line number on the National Do No Call Registry maintained by the FCC. However, the scammers ignore the list and randomly dial numbers. If you respond to the call and request not to be called, your number is transferred to another telemarketer.
Robocalls are more than just a nuisance. The Consumers Union estimates that crooks use robocalls to rip-off consumers to the tune of an estimated $350 million annually. Despite government and telecom industry efforts, the problem has not abated since the scourge began.
The robocall con artists have used virtually every subterfuge to separate consumers from their money. One of the stalwarts has been the bogus recorded call from the IRS threatening legal action if the consumer does not pay a fine immediately by providing a credit card number.
Another favorite ploy is to fool consumers into thinking their credit card company is calling. Unsuspecting consumers provide security and other credit data to allegedly prevent someone from illegally using their card. Instead the consumer's account is compromised by the robocall crook.
Robocall swindlers have managed to stay a step ahead of wary consumers. The latest trick is to employ something known as "spoofing." The rogues falsify caller identifications to appear legitimate in order to circumvent the do not call list and fool anti-robocall tools used by consumers.
More recently, these criminals are using local area codes and the first-three digits of the consumer's land line or wireless phone number to masquerade as a neighborhood call. The bandits often steal unassigned numbers from the nation's telecom operators.
The FCC and the big telecommunications firms, led by AT&T, are working feverishly on solutions. So far the outlaws have managed to stay one step ahead. The best weapon in the government arsenal may be levying massive fines against robocall violators.
Under new chairman Ajit Pai, the FCC has launched a campaign to hold the robocall industry accountable. Fines are being approved under the Truth in Caller ID Act, bi-partisan legislation signed into law in 2010, which makes it a illegal to pervert caller ID numbers to scam consumers.
In the latest suit, a Wilmington man is facing an $82 million fine for allegedly making more than 21 million illegal robocalls through a health insurance telemarketing company. The FCC contended the owner use bogus caller ID information to target consumers, including the elderly and infirm.
The commission recently levied the largest fine ever for $122 million against a Florida man who was accused of making nearly 100 million robocalls in a three-month period. The fines are a warning shot to the bad guys. But more needs to be done to keep consumers from being bilked.
To crack down on the scoundrels, the wireless and and land line operators are being encouraged to develop a call authentication framework that would blunt the malicious robocallers who attempt to hide their originating phone number.
But in the end, the industry and government can only do so much. The best protection against fraud is informed consumers.
Monday, October 30, 2017
The Golden Years Are Mostly Brown
When I was in my 40's, I first remember tales of the Golden Years. Everyone yakked about the decades turning golden once you retired from active work. It would usher in an era of lazy days, relaxation and self-indulgence. Now that I have reached that stage, the years seem brownish.
Everything I heard about the Golden Years has turned out to be wrong. Those retirement commercials on television painted such an idyllic picture. I suspect that gray-haired financial planners knew the truth, but didn't want to scare Baby Boomers into early deaths.
I pledge not to perpetuate the myth. When I hear the words "Golden Years," I unleash a stream of expletives to unsuspecting strangers. "There is nothing Golden about growing old," I bellow for all to hear. "Unless you think eating a can of prunes every day is one of life's joys."
In an effort to offer an honest appraisal of the Golden Years, I have compiled a list of myths passed down from generation to generation. If you're in your 40's, there is no better time than the present to learn the facts about aging. At least you will be prepared for the onset of wrinkles, flatulence and cranky knees.
Old People Get To Sleep Until Noon
I recall an airplane ride 30 years ago when as soon as the wheels lifted off the runway every person over the age of 60 was fast asleep. I imagined that is what the Golden Years would be like. Turns out as we age, studies show we sleep less not more. The Golden Years keep us awake at night. We toss, turn, snore and grunt. Our body temperature fluctuates between sizzling hot and icy cold. And don't even get me started about how many trips to the bathroom we make every night. Let's just say it's impossible to sleep standing upright.
Eat Whatever You Want
After my Dad retired, he decided his diet required more sugar. He polished off a Moon Pie with lunch, a piece of cake with dinner and capped the evening with a heaping bowl of ice cream. I couldn't wait to indulge my sweet teeth (Yes, plural!). But unlike my Dad and his generation, Baby Boomers are saddled with a gene that makes us fat if we even watch a TV food commercial. Most of us exercise now more than we did in our 30's, yet our pants are shrinking and we change belts more often than our underwear. No way can you eat whatever you want in those Golden Years. Medicare doesn't cover tummy tucks.
Lounge On the Couch All Day
As I approached retirement, well-meaning people would badger me about what I planned to do once I no longer worked. The inference was I could never fill up all my free time. Now I know boredom isn't the problem because your spouse has lots of ideas about how you will spend your newfound freedom. You are no longer in charge of your schedule. Your spouse is. No job also means you have lots of time to do all the things you once delegated to your spouse. Good luck with that nap on the couch. You will be fortunate if your spouse doesn't sell the couch and install a workbench in the living room.
Play Golf Every Day
During my career, I daydreamed of one day playing golf every waking moment after I retired. I would race through a three-hour round of golf, eat lunch at the golf course and hit practice balls until my hands bled. But the reality is your body wears out before your golf clubs do. Knees, shoulders, elbows and backs were never designed for golf. Every Baby Boomer I know has either quit golf or is threatening to give up the game. We once fancied shooting our age. Now we just hope that our PSA score is lower than our handicap.
Spend Money Like There's No Tomorrow
You have worked practically your whole life, now it's time to enjoy your retirement nest egg. Problem is the competition for your meager savings can be fierce. The grand kids need to be spoiled with gifts. There are expensive vacations you promised your spouse while you were working. There are cool convertible cars you lusted after in high school that now seem irresistible. Pretty soon you are standing in line at Costco on a Sunday, gobbling the free food samples. You tell friends you are out for brunch. They don't chuckle at your lie because they are in line behind you.
Don't let your children and grandchildren learn the hard way about the Golden Years. Tell them the truth so they can prepare for what's looming on the horizon. In fact, save yourself some time and just email them this column. Don't be shocked if they never talk to you again.
Everything I heard about the Golden Years has turned out to be wrong. Those retirement commercials on television painted such an idyllic picture. I suspect that gray-haired financial planners knew the truth, but didn't want to scare Baby Boomers into early deaths.
I pledge not to perpetuate the myth. When I hear the words "Golden Years," I unleash a stream of expletives to unsuspecting strangers. "There is nothing Golden about growing old," I bellow for all to hear. "Unless you think eating a can of prunes every day is one of life's joys."
In an effort to offer an honest appraisal of the Golden Years, I have compiled a list of myths passed down from generation to generation. If you're in your 40's, there is no better time than the present to learn the facts about aging. At least you will be prepared for the onset of wrinkles, flatulence and cranky knees.
Old People Get To Sleep Until Noon
I recall an airplane ride 30 years ago when as soon as the wheels lifted off the runway every person over the age of 60 was fast asleep. I imagined that is what the Golden Years would be like. Turns out as we age, studies show we sleep less not more. The Golden Years keep us awake at night. We toss, turn, snore and grunt. Our body temperature fluctuates between sizzling hot and icy cold. And don't even get me started about how many trips to the bathroom we make every night. Let's just say it's impossible to sleep standing upright.
Eat Whatever You Want
After my Dad retired, he decided his diet required more sugar. He polished off a Moon Pie with lunch, a piece of cake with dinner and capped the evening with a heaping bowl of ice cream. I couldn't wait to indulge my sweet teeth (Yes, plural!). But unlike my Dad and his generation, Baby Boomers are saddled with a gene that makes us fat if we even watch a TV food commercial. Most of us exercise now more than we did in our 30's, yet our pants are shrinking and we change belts more often than our underwear. No way can you eat whatever you want in those Golden Years. Medicare doesn't cover tummy tucks.
Lounge On the Couch All Day
As I approached retirement, well-meaning people would badger me about what I planned to do once I no longer worked. The inference was I could never fill up all my free time. Now I know boredom isn't the problem because your spouse has lots of ideas about how you will spend your newfound freedom. You are no longer in charge of your schedule. Your spouse is. No job also means you have lots of time to do all the things you once delegated to your spouse. Good luck with that nap on the couch. You will be fortunate if your spouse doesn't sell the couch and install a workbench in the living room.
Play Golf Every Day
During my career, I daydreamed of one day playing golf every waking moment after I retired. I would race through a three-hour round of golf, eat lunch at the golf course and hit practice balls until my hands bled. But the reality is your body wears out before your golf clubs do. Knees, shoulders, elbows and backs were never designed for golf. Every Baby Boomer I know has either quit golf or is threatening to give up the game. We once fancied shooting our age. Now we just hope that our PSA score is lower than our handicap.
Spend Money Like There's No Tomorrow
You have worked practically your whole life, now it's time to enjoy your retirement nest egg. Problem is the competition for your meager savings can be fierce. The grand kids need to be spoiled with gifts. There are expensive vacations you promised your spouse while you were working. There are cool convertible cars you lusted after in high school that now seem irresistible. Pretty soon you are standing in line at Costco on a Sunday, gobbling the free food samples. You tell friends you are out for brunch. They don't chuckle at your lie because they are in line behind you.
Don't let your children and grandchildren learn the hard way about the Golden Years. Tell them the truth so they can prepare for what's looming on the horizon. In fact, save yourself some time and just email them this column. Don't be shocked if they never talk to you again.
Monday, October 23, 2017
The Politicization of American Life
You can no longer attend a pro football game, a Broadway play, a grade school function or even dine at your favorite restaurant without being assaulted by politics. Television, social media and the news bombard Americans with political ideology. There is no escaping the intrusion into our lives.
This is not a new development ushered in by President Trump as liberals claim. It began decades ago and has reached a nadir in the last few years. The invasion of America's heart and soul has its genesis in the Cultural Wars. It has metastasized into a cancerous incursion that is divisive and insidious.
Here are the three dynamics that are churning the political froth that pits American-against-American:
Cultural Wars
For decades, Americans have been battling over cultural issues ranging from abortion to the sanctioning of gay marriages to transgender bathrooms. What has fueled much of the debate has been the way in which most of these factious matters have been settled. In many cases, courts comprised of a handful of judges have decided the questions instead of the people. Even when Americans have expressed their will on ballot issues, unelected judges have overruled the people. The result is many Americans feel frustrated that a minority of black robed-jurists are deciding some of the nation's most controversial and contentious topics. Most of the questions are matters of religion for a majority of Americans. But religious rights have been trampled by a judiciary which views anything Godly as inherently unconstitutional. The framers of the Constitution never intended for America to be free from religion. Their goal was freedom of religious expression. Often those with religious viewpoints on cultural issues are mocked, eroding civil discourse.
Political Consumerism
There was a time when your choice of food or restaurants was not a political statement. But that too has changed. When the head of fast-food chicken restaurant expressed his social views, all hell broke loose. Diners began boycotting the franchise. No one has yet explained what eating chicken has to do with a person's views on same sex marriage. In years past, businesses never entered the political minefield for fear of alienating some segment of its customers. Today every business seems bent on scoring a political point particularly if it agrees with the liberal dogma. It is not just Mom-and-Pop businesses either. Fortune 500 companies are engaging in very public political fights. That would have been considered corporate suicide decades ago. Beyond intramural politics, businesses are rushing to showcase their social conscience as a way of luring customers and burnishing their brand. Big firms believe if they support climate change or unisex-bathrooms or Planned Parenthood, it will translate into more profits. This has forever altered the relationship between consumers and businesses and further divides the country.
Politics as Religion
Republicans and Democrats are baptizing Americans with zealotry that rivals religion. If you doubt this, consider research that shows liberals prefer their friends to be of like mind, as do conservatives. They want their sons and daughters to marry into a political view shared by their family. Decades ago, Americans were more concerned about their offspring marrying into the same religion. For more and more Americans, politics has become their religion. They define themselves by their political causes and not by their religious beliefs. They worship celebrities, athletes and actors who share their stances on the issues of the day. They get their moral cues from social media. This secular worldview has transformed politics into a pitched battle for the soul. That accounts for much of the acrimony.
As a result of the phenomenas outlined above, America has become polarized and politicized like never before. Americans need to take stock and show the world there is something of more lasting value than politics. Inserting God back into American life will restore balance and promote unity.
This is not a new development ushered in by President Trump as liberals claim. It began decades ago and has reached a nadir in the last few years. The invasion of America's heart and soul has its genesis in the Cultural Wars. It has metastasized into a cancerous incursion that is divisive and insidious.
Here are the three dynamics that are churning the political froth that pits American-against-American:
Cultural Wars
For decades, Americans have been battling over cultural issues ranging from abortion to the sanctioning of gay marriages to transgender bathrooms. What has fueled much of the debate has been the way in which most of these factious matters have been settled. In many cases, courts comprised of a handful of judges have decided the questions instead of the people. Even when Americans have expressed their will on ballot issues, unelected judges have overruled the people. The result is many Americans feel frustrated that a minority of black robed-jurists are deciding some of the nation's most controversial and contentious topics. Most of the questions are matters of religion for a majority of Americans. But religious rights have been trampled by a judiciary which views anything Godly as inherently unconstitutional. The framers of the Constitution never intended for America to be free from religion. Their goal was freedom of religious expression. Often those with religious viewpoints on cultural issues are mocked, eroding civil discourse.
Political Consumerism
There was a time when your choice of food or restaurants was not a political statement. But that too has changed. When the head of fast-food chicken restaurant expressed his social views, all hell broke loose. Diners began boycotting the franchise. No one has yet explained what eating chicken has to do with a person's views on same sex marriage. In years past, businesses never entered the political minefield for fear of alienating some segment of its customers. Today every business seems bent on scoring a political point particularly if it agrees with the liberal dogma. It is not just Mom-and-Pop businesses either. Fortune 500 companies are engaging in very public political fights. That would have been considered corporate suicide decades ago. Beyond intramural politics, businesses are rushing to showcase their social conscience as a way of luring customers and burnishing their brand. Big firms believe if they support climate change or unisex-bathrooms or Planned Parenthood, it will translate into more profits. This has forever altered the relationship between consumers and businesses and further divides the country.
Politics as Religion
Republicans and Democrats are baptizing Americans with zealotry that rivals religion. If you doubt this, consider research that shows liberals prefer their friends to be of like mind, as do conservatives. They want their sons and daughters to marry into a political view shared by their family. Decades ago, Americans were more concerned about their offspring marrying into the same religion. For more and more Americans, politics has become their religion. They define themselves by their political causes and not by their religious beliefs. They worship celebrities, athletes and actors who share their stances on the issues of the day. They get their moral cues from social media. This secular worldview has transformed politics into a pitched battle for the soul. That accounts for much of the acrimony.
As a result of the phenomenas outlined above, America has become polarized and politicized like never before. Americans need to take stock and show the world there is something of more lasting value than politics. Inserting God back into American life will restore balance and promote unity.
Monday, October 16, 2017
Drunk Driving: Stories of Heartbreak and Tragedy
Katie Evans was returning home after visiting her eight-week-old twin baby girls in a hospital intensive care unit. Her premature daughters were getting stronger and gaining weight. Katie was happy as she drove away from the hospital. She would never make it to her California home.
Katie was killed in a head-on collision with a vehicle that hit a curb and sideswiped another car before careening into her auto. She was pronounced dead at the scene. Police ruled the death an apparent DUI (Driving Under the Influence) crash. The other driver was a 22-year old woman.
That same week a driver in Oregon was charged with DUI after his vehicle plowed into a auto carrying a 25-year old mother and her four children, ages two to eight years old. All four were killed. Police arrested a 27-year old driver whose blood alcohol level was four times the legal limit.
This was not the first time the Oregon suspect had been arrested for drunk driving. He had three previous arrests for the same misdemeanor. That is not unusual. Twenty-seven percent of those responsible for DUI crashes have been involved in collisions or have drunk driving convictions.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that the average alcohol impaired driver has driven drunk more than 80 times before his or her first arrest. That figure should be sufficient evidence that law enforcement efforts to stop drunk driving have been largely unsuccessful.
Statistics compiled by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) offer a further indictment of the nation's failure to deal with the issue. After dramatic declines in alcohol-impaired driving crashes over the last 30 years, fatalities reached a four-year plateau in 2015.
There were 10,265 fatalities involving impaired driving in 2015, the latest year for which figures are available. A total of 181 children 14-years and younger were among the victims. In addition, more than 290,000 people suffered injuries in accidents involving drunk drivers.
Not only have fatalities risen, but authorities have seen a jump in the alcohol level of drunk drivers. A blood alcohol level of .08% is considered impaired in all 50 states. In 2015, 67% of the crashes involved at least one driver with a level of .15% or higher. That's nearly twice the legal limit.
Nothing can compensate for the loss of even one life. But it is not the only cost of drunk driving. The NHTSA calculates that alcohol-related accidents result in a $44 billion annual tab in medical expenses, property damage, legal and court costs and workplace losses.
So what can be done to stop the senseless carnage?
The first order should be to get convicted drunk drivers out from behind the wheel of a car. Some states mandate ignition interlocks in cars for repeat offenders that keep the vehicle from starting if the driver's alcohol level exceeds a modest limit. However, not all states have adopted this measure.
After two convictions, courts should take away all driving privileges until the offender has successfully completed a sobriety program. Driving is not a right. People who continue to be arrested for DUI are threats to society and should be dealt with accordingly.
Some states allow the arresting officer to take away the license of a driver than tests above the legal blood alcohol limit. Those who refuse testing should be treated the same. Suspending a drunk driver's license for 90-days also has shown to reduce fatalities.
Police sobriety checkpoints are another weapon in the war against drunk driving. But these campaigns often only operate around the holidays. Most drunk driving fatalities occur at night and on the weekends. Year-round checkpoints in the evenings could prevent more fatal accidents.
Even if successful, none of these measures will totally eliminate drunk driving. Law enforcement, aided by the media, needs to put faces and personal stories with the statistics. Perhaps, that will make people pause before they drink and drive if they hear about a child's tragic death.
Like so much that's wrong in society today, unless individuals change, the government alone cannot solve the problem. If you know someone with an alcohol problem, intervene and get that individual in treatment. You may prevent a tragedy. That is the first line of defense against drunk driving.
Katie was killed in a head-on collision with a vehicle that hit a curb and sideswiped another car before careening into her auto. She was pronounced dead at the scene. Police ruled the death an apparent DUI (Driving Under the Influence) crash. The other driver was a 22-year old woman.
That same week a driver in Oregon was charged with DUI after his vehicle plowed into a auto carrying a 25-year old mother and her four children, ages two to eight years old. All four were killed. Police arrested a 27-year old driver whose blood alcohol level was four times the legal limit.
This was not the first time the Oregon suspect had been arrested for drunk driving. He had three previous arrests for the same misdemeanor. That is not unusual. Twenty-seven percent of those responsible for DUI crashes have been involved in collisions or have drunk driving convictions.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that the average alcohol impaired driver has driven drunk more than 80 times before his or her first arrest. That figure should be sufficient evidence that law enforcement efforts to stop drunk driving have been largely unsuccessful.
Statistics compiled by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) offer a further indictment of the nation's failure to deal with the issue. After dramatic declines in alcohol-impaired driving crashes over the last 30 years, fatalities reached a four-year plateau in 2015.
There were 10,265 fatalities involving impaired driving in 2015, the latest year for which figures are available. A total of 181 children 14-years and younger were among the victims. In addition, more than 290,000 people suffered injuries in accidents involving drunk drivers.
Not only have fatalities risen, but authorities have seen a jump in the alcohol level of drunk drivers. A blood alcohol level of .08% is considered impaired in all 50 states. In 2015, 67% of the crashes involved at least one driver with a level of .15% or higher. That's nearly twice the legal limit.
Nothing can compensate for the loss of even one life. But it is not the only cost of drunk driving. The NHTSA calculates that alcohol-related accidents result in a $44 billion annual tab in medical expenses, property damage, legal and court costs and workplace losses.
So what can be done to stop the senseless carnage?
The first order should be to get convicted drunk drivers out from behind the wheel of a car. Some states mandate ignition interlocks in cars for repeat offenders that keep the vehicle from starting if the driver's alcohol level exceeds a modest limit. However, not all states have adopted this measure.
After two convictions, courts should take away all driving privileges until the offender has successfully completed a sobriety program. Driving is not a right. People who continue to be arrested for DUI are threats to society and should be dealt with accordingly.
Some states allow the arresting officer to take away the license of a driver than tests above the legal blood alcohol limit. Those who refuse testing should be treated the same. Suspending a drunk driver's license for 90-days also has shown to reduce fatalities.
Police sobriety checkpoints are another weapon in the war against drunk driving. But these campaigns often only operate around the holidays. Most drunk driving fatalities occur at night and on the weekends. Year-round checkpoints in the evenings could prevent more fatal accidents.
Even if successful, none of these measures will totally eliminate drunk driving. Law enforcement, aided by the media, needs to put faces and personal stories with the statistics. Perhaps, that will make people pause before they drink and drive if they hear about a child's tragic death.
Like so much that's wrong in society today, unless individuals change, the government alone cannot solve the problem. If you know someone with an alcohol problem, intervene and get that individual in treatment. You may prevent a tragedy. That is the first line of defense against drunk driving.
Monday, October 9, 2017
An Open Letter To NFL Commissioner Goodell
Dear Mr. Roger Goodell:
As commissioner of the National Football League, you command a multi-billion dollar empire awash in money. Team owners rake in millions of dollars each season in television revenue. Your employees are some of the wealthiest Americans. Your salary places you in the top one percent.
Your league has been granted an antitrust exemption no other business enjoys. Some of the world's richest companies sponsor the NFL. Your plush stadiums are often bankrolled by municipalities. The media celebrates the NFL with fawning news coverage no other business can match.
With all these advantages, it seems odd that the NFL and its players indict America as a country plagued with inequality. Protests over unfairness have become a regular feature of league games. It is a real head scratcher for most Americans who can only dream of becoming millionaires.
For average Joe's, real inequality exists between their income and that of an NFL quarterback drawing seven-figures. The average 25-to-34 year old in America has a household income of $39,416. The minimum salary for NFL rookies fresh from college is $365,000 annually.
The league-wide annual average salary for an NFL player is $1.9 million. That does not include endorsements, appearance fees and other sources of income which can push a player's total income into the stratosphere. All that money means a lifestyle and opportunities most of us will never know.
Despite every advantage of privileged status, your ingrate employees are some of the worst behaved men in America. Since 2000, NFL players have rap sheets as long as some criminals behind bars. Take a peek at these numbers from your own league reports:
218 arrests for Driving Under the Influence (DUI)
100 arrests for Drug related crimes
98 arrests for Domestic Violence
74 arrests for Assaults
44 arrests for Disorderly Conduct
Even those appalling figures don't capture the extent of player thuggery. For example, the stats do not include charges that never result in arrests. Unlike NFL players, average Americans don't get a free pass when they break the law. Your lawyered-up players avoid jail and receive a league wrist slap.
Since your players want to address inequality, here is something that caught my eye. An army private first class is paid $22,714 annually. For that piddling amount, the solider is expected to protect and defend our country, which may require the ultimate sacrifice of life in battle.
Need more examples of inequality? Try this one. The average cost of a ticket for an NFL game is $172. That means a family of four would have to shell out $688 to see a single game. Include parking, food, drinks and a game program and that's an average family's wages for a whole week.
That is why it seems strange for your players to choose to insult the country that has afforded them such extravagance. Most are taking a knee during the playing of the National Anthem, a song that has united America's people even in the worst of times. Their action divides the country.
These protests are inflaming the passions of a nation and damaging the NFL brand you so zealously protect. Ticket sales have fallen 20% for NFL teams over the first three weeks of the season. Television ratings have declined from 6% to 31% in some markets. Merchandise sales are down.
A new poll by the Washington-based Winston Group finds that favorable ratings for the NFL have tumbled from 57% to 44% from the end of August to September 30. Under your leadership, the league now has the highest unfavorable rating of any major sport. Why the fall from grace?
Americans don't like to mix politics and sports. Sports is a welcome distraction from real life for most people. Contests, even those on the NFL's grand stage, are just games. They are not life-and-death struggles. No player has come home in a flag-draped coffin after an NFL game.
I know you have defended your employees right to free speech. I do too. But your own rules require players to stand at attention during the playing of the National Anthem. So why don't you enforce the rule? You pocket nearly $30 million in annual salary and bonuses to make these decisions.
The truth is that you and your employees have let President Trump's criticism get under your thin skins. You are acting like the coddled millionaires you are. If your players are so repulsed by our anthem, I hear there are openings in the Canadian Football League. Of course, they'll take a pay cut.
Money is the NFL's only God. Falling ratings and declining ticket sales are getting the attention of jet setting owners. However, they deserve some of the blame because these morons have allowed you to surrender your authority to employees bent on mocking America. We won't stand for it anymore.
A former fan,
Drew Roy
As commissioner of the National Football League, you command a multi-billion dollar empire awash in money. Team owners rake in millions of dollars each season in television revenue. Your employees are some of the wealthiest Americans. Your salary places you in the top one percent.
Your league has been granted an antitrust exemption no other business enjoys. Some of the world's richest companies sponsor the NFL. Your plush stadiums are often bankrolled by municipalities. The media celebrates the NFL with fawning news coverage no other business can match.
With all these advantages, it seems odd that the NFL and its players indict America as a country plagued with inequality. Protests over unfairness have become a regular feature of league games. It is a real head scratcher for most Americans who can only dream of becoming millionaires.
For average Joe's, real inequality exists between their income and that of an NFL quarterback drawing seven-figures. The average 25-to-34 year old in America has a household income of $39,416. The minimum salary for NFL rookies fresh from college is $365,000 annually.
The league-wide annual average salary for an NFL player is $1.9 million. That does not include endorsements, appearance fees and other sources of income which can push a player's total income into the stratosphere. All that money means a lifestyle and opportunities most of us will never know.
Despite every advantage of privileged status, your ingrate employees are some of the worst behaved men in America. Since 2000, NFL players have rap sheets as long as some criminals behind bars. Take a peek at these numbers from your own league reports:
218 arrests for Driving Under the Influence (DUI)
100 arrests for Drug related crimes
98 arrests for Domestic Violence
74 arrests for Assaults
44 arrests for Disorderly Conduct
Even those appalling figures don't capture the extent of player thuggery. For example, the stats do not include charges that never result in arrests. Unlike NFL players, average Americans don't get a free pass when they break the law. Your lawyered-up players avoid jail and receive a league wrist slap.
Since your players want to address inequality, here is something that caught my eye. An army private first class is paid $22,714 annually. For that piddling amount, the solider is expected to protect and defend our country, which may require the ultimate sacrifice of life in battle.
Need more examples of inequality? Try this one. The average cost of a ticket for an NFL game is $172. That means a family of four would have to shell out $688 to see a single game. Include parking, food, drinks and a game program and that's an average family's wages for a whole week.
That is why it seems strange for your players to choose to insult the country that has afforded them such extravagance. Most are taking a knee during the playing of the National Anthem, a song that has united America's people even in the worst of times. Their action divides the country.
These protests are inflaming the passions of a nation and damaging the NFL brand you so zealously protect. Ticket sales have fallen 20% for NFL teams over the first three weeks of the season. Television ratings have declined from 6% to 31% in some markets. Merchandise sales are down.
A new poll by the Washington-based Winston Group finds that favorable ratings for the NFL have tumbled from 57% to 44% from the end of August to September 30. Under your leadership, the league now has the highest unfavorable rating of any major sport. Why the fall from grace?
Americans don't like to mix politics and sports. Sports is a welcome distraction from real life for most people. Contests, even those on the NFL's grand stage, are just games. They are not life-and-death struggles. No player has come home in a flag-draped coffin after an NFL game.
I know you have defended your employees right to free speech. I do too. But your own rules require players to stand at attention during the playing of the National Anthem. So why don't you enforce the rule? You pocket nearly $30 million in annual salary and bonuses to make these decisions.
The truth is that you and your employees have let President Trump's criticism get under your thin skins. You are acting like the coddled millionaires you are. If your players are so repulsed by our anthem, I hear there are openings in the Canadian Football League. Of course, they'll take a pay cut.
Money is the NFL's only God. Falling ratings and declining ticket sales are getting the attention of jet setting owners. However, they deserve some of the blame because these morons have allowed you to surrender your authority to employees bent on mocking America. We won't stand for it anymore.
A former fan,
Drew Roy
Monday, October 2, 2017
America's Unwinnable War
More than 53 years ago President Lyndon Johnson declared unconditional war on poverty in America. He promised a full-scale government assault to give the poor a hand up, not a hand out. The president asserted his campaign would deflate welfare rolls and turn "tax eaters" into taxpayers.
Mr. Johnson's war has been a tragic, costly flop. Since LBJ's proclamation, the federal government has shelled out nearly $25 trillion of American taxpayer dollars to end poverty. By any reasonable yardstick, the gusher of spending has been a wasteful big government social experiment.
When Mr. Johnson announced his campaign, there were 36 million Americans living at or below the government poverty level. According to the latest U.S. Census, there are 46.5 million people mired in poverty. For 2017, the federal poverty guideline is an annual income of $24,600 for a family of four.
Democrats have attempted to redefine this failure as a success. They point out the poverty rate in 1964 was 19 percent of the population. The most recent census pegged the current number at 15 percent. Democrats claim the four-percentage-point reduction justifies spending trillions of dollars.
However, the poverty rate has not budged since the late 1960's. The initial spending spree lowered the poverty rate and entrenched the idea that government largess could alleviate the problem. But the reality is that percentage of people living in poverty has remained stagnant over recent decades.
Some simple math will illustrate the folly of the massive spending. The percentage of Americans living in poverty has dipped by four-percentage points since 1964. That means the government spent $7.7 trillion for each percentage point of reduction. Yet there are 10.5 million more in poverty.
Part of the problem is that federal bureaucrats keep running up the taxpayer tab. At last count, taxpayers were funding 126 different schemes aimed at helping the poor. Government aid is available for everything from cell phones to housing to utilities and food.
The price tag for all this government assistance has reached $1 trillion annually for poor and low-income Americans. That figure does not include Social Security or Medicare. In addition, state and local governments allotted $284 billion to needy Americans last year.
Clearly, the welfare system needs overhauling. The current strategy discourages work and undermines self-sufficiency. Increasing poverty expenditures will not solve the problem. Mandating work requirements for government aid is one sensible way to trim the poverty rolls.
The Kaiser Family Foundation ran the numbers and found that work-for-welfare would likely put 3.3 million people back in the labor market. Adding work rules for Food Stamp recipients could land 1.9 million people in paying jobs.
The foundation's findings are supported by real-world experience. In 1996, Democrat President Bill Clinton signed into law the so-called Welfare Reform Act, which required those who received temporary government aid to obtain a job. The welfare rolls plummeted by one-half.
However, President Obama's administration effectively gutted the reform. Bureaucrats issued guidelines without congressional approval that gave states waivers to revise or eliminate work requirements for certain kinds of aid. Many states took advantage of the loophole.
That action has fueled an uptick in the welfare rolls. More than 100 million people, about one third of America's population, now receive some form of aid from at least one of the myriad of welfare programs administered by Washington bureaucrats.
Food Stamps, now officially called SNAP, is the poster child for the out-of-control welfare growth. Under President Obama, the government added 10.7 million new Food Stamp recipients to the rolls. The tax bill was $66.6 billion last year for this single program.
President Johnson's original vision of freeing the poor from the yolk of government aid was laudatory. But as often happens with in the Washington swamp, unaccountable bureaucrats and big spending lawmakers throw money and programs at every problem regardless of results.
Using the same failed strategy to tackle poverty will not win the war. New solutions are needed. The taxpayers footing the bill and the nation's poor deserve better. Spending another $25 trillion dollars will only guarantee the same disastrous results.
Mr. Johnson's war has been a tragic, costly flop. Since LBJ's proclamation, the federal government has shelled out nearly $25 trillion of American taxpayer dollars to end poverty. By any reasonable yardstick, the gusher of spending has been a wasteful big government social experiment.
When Mr. Johnson announced his campaign, there were 36 million Americans living at or below the government poverty level. According to the latest U.S. Census, there are 46.5 million people mired in poverty. For 2017, the federal poverty guideline is an annual income of $24,600 for a family of four.
Democrats have attempted to redefine this failure as a success. They point out the poverty rate in 1964 was 19 percent of the population. The most recent census pegged the current number at 15 percent. Democrats claim the four-percentage-point reduction justifies spending trillions of dollars.
However, the poverty rate has not budged since the late 1960's. The initial spending spree lowered the poverty rate and entrenched the idea that government largess could alleviate the problem. But the reality is that percentage of people living in poverty has remained stagnant over recent decades.
Some simple math will illustrate the folly of the massive spending. The percentage of Americans living in poverty has dipped by four-percentage points since 1964. That means the government spent $7.7 trillion for each percentage point of reduction. Yet there are 10.5 million more in poverty.
Part of the problem is that federal bureaucrats keep running up the taxpayer tab. At last count, taxpayers were funding 126 different schemes aimed at helping the poor. Government aid is available for everything from cell phones to housing to utilities and food.
The price tag for all this government assistance has reached $1 trillion annually for poor and low-income Americans. That figure does not include Social Security or Medicare. In addition, state and local governments allotted $284 billion to needy Americans last year.
Clearly, the welfare system needs overhauling. The current strategy discourages work and undermines self-sufficiency. Increasing poverty expenditures will not solve the problem. Mandating work requirements for government aid is one sensible way to trim the poverty rolls.
The Kaiser Family Foundation ran the numbers and found that work-for-welfare would likely put 3.3 million people back in the labor market. Adding work rules for Food Stamp recipients could land 1.9 million people in paying jobs.
The foundation's findings are supported by real-world experience. In 1996, Democrat President Bill Clinton signed into law the so-called Welfare Reform Act, which required those who received temporary government aid to obtain a job. The welfare rolls plummeted by one-half.
However, President Obama's administration effectively gutted the reform. Bureaucrats issued guidelines without congressional approval that gave states waivers to revise or eliminate work requirements for certain kinds of aid. Many states took advantage of the loophole.
That action has fueled an uptick in the welfare rolls. More than 100 million people, about one third of America's population, now receive some form of aid from at least one of the myriad of welfare programs administered by Washington bureaucrats.
Food Stamps, now officially called SNAP, is the poster child for the out-of-control welfare growth. Under President Obama, the government added 10.7 million new Food Stamp recipients to the rolls. The tax bill was $66.6 billion last year for this single program.
President Johnson's original vision of freeing the poor from the yolk of government aid was laudatory. But as often happens with in the Washington swamp, unaccountable bureaucrats and big spending lawmakers throw money and programs at every problem regardless of results.
Using the same failed strategy to tackle poverty will not win the war. New solutions are needed. The taxpayers footing the bill and the nation's poor deserve better. Spending another $25 trillion dollars will only guarantee the same disastrous results.
Monday, September 25, 2017
Deal-Maker Trump Snubs Mitch and Ryan
A political earthquake rattled Washington recently when President Trump brokered a deal with Democrat Party leaders. Republicans in Congress shrieked in horror. "Betrayal," they brayed to the television cameras. These imposters had nothing to complain about. They are the traitors.
Since Mr. Trump's inauguration, Republican leaders Rep. Paul Ryan and Sen. Mitch McConnell have stonewalled the president's agenda at every turn. To add insult to their recalcitrance they have criticized Mr. Trump on every issue from his use of social media to his town rallies.
Their behavior underscores the difference between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats take care of their own. Party leaders marshal their soldiers to support their president. Republicans eat their own. They desert their party's occupant in the Oval Office at the first sniff of controversy.
Just ask George W. Bush. Or Ronald Reagan, who is lionized today by Republicans but was buffeted by the GOP on many issues. President Reagan quickly extended a hand to Democrats and discovered willing allies. This Republican Death Wish is hard to swallow for the party's legion of voters.
Remember when the House impeached President Clinton? Every single Democrat lined up in support of their flawed leader. On the other hand, a tweet can land President Trump in hot water with Mitch or Paul. Republicans are too eager to curry media favor and establishment fawning.
Mr. Trump schooled Republicans that ignoring his agenda comes with a price. The president will link arms with Democrats if that's what it takes to achieve legislative progress. He understands keeping his promises with his political base is more important than party fealty.
Hypocrite Republicans pilloried Mr. Trump after the Democrat-supported deal to avoid a government shutdown, raise the debt ceiling and provide emergency hurricane funding. These same detractors failed to repeal and replace Obamacare after seven years of promises. They are the turncoats.
This disgraceful performance has earned them the scorn of Republican voters. A recent Gallup Poll showed that Republican voter approval of Congress is below water at 18 percent. In the same poll, GOP voters gave Congress a thumbs up 50 percent approval in February.
All voters, both Republican and Democrat, surveyed by Gallup gave Congress a 16 percent approval rating. Despite the polling data, Republicans appear to be blissfully ignoring the rising tide of vote anger. They are wasting a golden opportunity while controlling two branches of government.
The spineless duo of Mitch and Ryan have failed to come to grips with the message of millions who cast ballots for Mr. Trump. Voters, especially Republicans and independents, want disruptive change. They are fatigued with Washington's business-as-usual political gamesmanship.
Republican voters want more than a few niggling changes to Obamacare. They want it erased from history. They want a border wall. They don't give a wit about how Congress gets the funding. They want tax reform. Lowering a few rates won't satisfy them. They are demanding sweeping change.
Mitch and Ryan are from the old school of Republican establishment politics. Nothing big ever gets done until the Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable and the big donors are in agreement. Those days are gone. Too many Republicans and Democrats haven't read the voters' memo.
Whatever his imperfections, Mr. Trump did not stroll in the Oval Office to occupy space. His passion is action, getting things done. You can disagree with his methods, his brusqueness or his non-traditional presidential style, but America has a president that wants action on important issues.
If his party's weak-kneed Republican leadership and their sycophant sheep are intent on obstruction, then they had better get used to being snubbed by the president.
Since Mr. Trump's inauguration, Republican leaders Rep. Paul Ryan and Sen. Mitch McConnell have stonewalled the president's agenda at every turn. To add insult to their recalcitrance they have criticized Mr. Trump on every issue from his use of social media to his town rallies.
Their behavior underscores the difference between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats take care of their own. Party leaders marshal their soldiers to support their president. Republicans eat their own. They desert their party's occupant in the Oval Office at the first sniff of controversy.
Just ask George W. Bush. Or Ronald Reagan, who is lionized today by Republicans but was buffeted by the GOP on many issues. President Reagan quickly extended a hand to Democrats and discovered willing allies. This Republican Death Wish is hard to swallow for the party's legion of voters.
Remember when the House impeached President Clinton? Every single Democrat lined up in support of their flawed leader. On the other hand, a tweet can land President Trump in hot water with Mitch or Paul. Republicans are too eager to curry media favor and establishment fawning.
Mr. Trump schooled Republicans that ignoring his agenda comes with a price. The president will link arms with Democrats if that's what it takes to achieve legislative progress. He understands keeping his promises with his political base is more important than party fealty.
Hypocrite Republicans pilloried Mr. Trump after the Democrat-supported deal to avoid a government shutdown, raise the debt ceiling and provide emergency hurricane funding. These same detractors failed to repeal and replace Obamacare after seven years of promises. They are the turncoats.
This disgraceful performance has earned them the scorn of Republican voters. A recent Gallup Poll showed that Republican voter approval of Congress is below water at 18 percent. In the same poll, GOP voters gave Congress a thumbs up 50 percent approval in February.
All voters, both Republican and Democrat, surveyed by Gallup gave Congress a 16 percent approval rating. Despite the polling data, Republicans appear to be blissfully ignoring the rising tide of vote anger. They are wasting a golden opportunity while controlling two branches of government.
The spineless duo of Mitch and Ryan have failed to come to grips with the message of millions who cast ballots for Mr. Trump. Voters, especially Republicans and independents, want disruptive change. They are fatigued with Washington's business-as-usual political gamesmanship.
Republican voters want more than a few niggling changes to Obamacare. They want it erased from history. They want a border wall. They don't give a wit about how Congress gets the funding. They want tax reform. Lowering a few rates won't satisfy them. They are demanding sweeping change.
Mitch and Ryan are from the old school of Republican establishment politics. Nothing big ever gets done until the Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable and the big donors are in agreement. Those days are gone. Too many Republicans and Democrats haven't read the voters' memo.
Whatever his imperfections, Mr. Trump did not stroll in the Oval Office to occupy space. His passion is action, getting things done. You can disagree with his methods, his brusqueness or his non-traditional presidential style, but America has a president that wants action on important issues.
If his party's weak-kneed Republican leadership and their sycophant sheep are intent on obstruction, then they had better get used to being snubbed by the president.
Sunday, September 17, 2017
DACA: Media Deporting The Truth
The national debate over so-called 'Dreamers' has been hijacked by big media. Instead of facts, the dishonest media establishment has dished up heaping helpings of half-truths, scare-mongering and deliberate distortions in an attempt to emotionally blackmail Americans.
The usual suspects in the fake news business are ginning up outrage by suggesting that brown-shirted immigration agents soon will be storming schools, snatching kids and herding them in cattle cars while their parents wail in horror. It would be humorous if so many people weren't fooled.
The news coverage represents a new low even as Americans' trust of the media has skidded to historic troughs. Nearly everything being reported about President Trump's recension of the Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program has been lacking in context and truthfulness.
In 2012, President Obama signed an executive action allowing illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. before age 16 an opportunity to remain in the country to study or work. Those approved for the program were handed a work permit and protection from deportation for two years.
Even before he inked the order, Mr. Obama on several occasions had claimed it was unconstitutional for the president to act on immigration without Congressional approval. Yet he did it anyway. Most constitutional scholars agree Mr. Obama had no authority to unilaterally create immigration law.
After the Obama decree, what began as a trickle of DACA applicants soon turned into a roaring river. As of March of this year, the government had received 936,394 requests for Dreamer status and approved 886,814 since 2012. Of that number, 1,056 have become U.S. citizens.
The statistics cited above were gleaned from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.
Mr. Trump's action triggered a media propaganda blitzkrieg which showcased smart college aged immigrants who had taken advantage of DACA to further their education. But college graduates are a minority of the Dreamer population.
The Bipartisan Policy Center reports the average age of a DACA beneficiary is 25, a far cry from the media image of a struggling teenager. A Harvard study found less than 20 percent of Dreamers had graduated from college. Since 2013, some 2,139 recipients forfeited their benefits because of crimes.
Mr. Obama's open-ended edict also has been abused. DACA immigrants can renew their work permits and deportation protection every two years. Since 2012, about 800,000 renewals have been issued, according to Pew Research's review of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services data.
DACA was never intended to be a permanent ticket to remain in the United States. In fact, in 2012 after stamping the executive order, Mr. Obama made it clear that DACA "is not a path to citizenship." That point has been trampled in the media-manufactured hysteria over deportation.
In an attempt to sway Americans, the media has dredged up photos of children riding trains through Mexico to reach our border in an attempt to escape violence and drugs in Central America. That picture is at odds with the facts. More than 78 percent of DACA applicants are from Mexico.
Liberal lawmakers and the media have featured Karen Caudillo as a poster child for DACA's benefits. In a tearful interview near the Capitol, she told reporters: "I have been fighting so long to be able to sustain myself, to go to school, to be productive." It was compelling television. It was also a fraud.
Turns out the 21-year old Ms. Caudillo owns a cleaning company, is allegedly registered to vote, cast a ballot and made political campaign contributions. She also claims to attend college. Very heady stuff for someone who is not even a citizen of the United States. And potentially very illegal.
Mr. Trump has taken the right path in ending DACA. As any fourth grader knows, Congress makes the laws and therefore must tackle the thorny issue. This is where the matter should be resolved. Democrats had their chance when they controlled all three branches of government but punted.
Now the current do-nothing Congress must prove it can produce legislation. Any legislation. Their challenge will be to avoid being compromised by the media's drumbeat of sob stories and manipulated data. But then no one has ever accused of Congress of sticking to the facts.
The usual suspects in the fake news business are ginning up outrage by suggesting that brown-shirted immigration agents soon will be storming schools, snatching kids and herding them in cattle cars while their parents wail in horror. It would be humorous if so many people weren't fooled.
The news coverage represents a new low even as Americans' trust of the media has skidded to historic troughs. Nearly everything being reported about President Trump's recension of the Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program has been lacking in context and truthfulness.
In 2012, President Obama signed an executive action allowing illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. before age 16 an opportunity to remain in the country to study or work. Those approved for the program were handed a work permit and protection from deportation for two years.
Even before he inked the order, Mr. Obama on several occasions had claimed it was unconstitutional for the president to act on immigration without Congressional approval. Yet he did it anyway. Most constitutional scholars agree Mr. Obama had no authority to unilaterally create immigration law.
After the Obama decree, what began as a trickle of DACA applicants soon turned into a roaring river. As of March of this year, the government had received 936,394 requests for Dreamer status and approved 886,814 since 2012. Of that number, 1,056 have become U.S. citizens.
The statistics cited above were gleaned from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.
Mr. Trump's action triggered a media propaganda blitzkrieg which showcased smart college aged immigrants who had taken advantage of DACA to further their education. But college graduates are a minority of the Dreamer population.
The Bipartisan Policy Center reports the average age of a DACA beneficiary is 25, a far cry from the media image of a struggling teenager. A Harvard study found less than 20 percent of Dreamers had graduated from college. Since 2013, some 2,139 recipients forfeited their benefits because of crimes.
Mr. Obama's open-ended edict also has been abused. DACA immigrants can renew their work permits and deportation protection every two years. Since 2012, about 800,000 renewals have been issued, according to Pew Research's review of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services data.
DACA was never intended to be a permanent ticket to remain in the United States. In fact, in 2012 after stamping the executive order, Mr. Obama made it clear that DACA "is not a path to citizenship." That point has been trampled in the media-manufactured hysteria over deportation.
In an attempt to sway Americans, the media has dredged up photos of children riding trains through Mexico to reach our border in an attempt to escape violence and drugs in Central America. That picture is at odds with the facts. More than 78 percent of DACA applicants are from Mexico.
Liberal lawmakers and the media have featured Karen Caudillo as a poster child for DACA's benefits. In a tearful interview near the Capitol, she told reporters: "I have been fighting so long to be able to sustain myself, to go to school, to be productive." It was compelling television. It was also a fraud.
Turns out the 21-year old Ms. Caudillo owns a cleaning company, is allegedly registered to vote, cast a ballot and made political campaign contributions. She also claims to attend college. Very heady stuff for someone who is not even a citizen of the United States. And potentially very illegal.
Mr. Trump has taken the right path in ending DACA. As any fourth grader knows, Congress makes the laws and therefore must tackle the thorny issue. This is where the matter should be resolved. Democrats had their chance when they controlled all three branches of government but punted.
Now the current do-nothing Congress must prove it can produce legislation. Any legislation. Their challenge will be to avoid being compromised by the media's drumbeat of sob stories and manipulated data. But then no one has ever accused of Congress of sticking to the facts.
Monday, September 11, 2017
Hurricane Harvey: Americans Shine In Crisis
A disaster of epic proportions on the Texas Gulf Coast served to remind us what makes America great. Ordinary folks in Texas and across the nation joined together in heroic fashion to respond to the devastating impact of Hurricane Harvey. This is the America the world knows and admires.
Millions watched the heartbreaking scenes unfurl on television as more than 12 trillion gallons of rain fell in the Houston area. Flood waters swamped homes and businesses. People lost their cars, their homes and all their possessions. Rebuilding costs are expected to far exceed $100 billion.
But you can't put a price tag on human life. At least 70 people died in the horrific aftermath of the hurricane. But the toll could have been much higher if not for the heroism of first responders and ordinary citizens, who unselfishly risked their lives to save others.
A Harris County Deputy Sheriff carried two children, one in each arm, as he waded through waist-high murky brown water to take them to safety. Houston SWAT officer Daryl Hudeck reached a 13-month-old boy and his mom in the nick-of-time as water gushed through their home.
The Cajun Navy, a rag-tag band of good Samaritans from neighboring Louisiana, arrived in the city's darkest hour with a flotilla of small watercraft to assist with evacuations. This citizen armada rescued hundreds in driving rain and gusty wind conditions ignoring their own safety.
The volunteers went neighbor-by-neighborhood in their hunting and fishing boats plucking Houstonians from their water-logged homes. Louisiana's governor threw in with his citizens, dispatching search-and-rescue teams from the state's Department of Wildlife and Fisheries.
Other states joined in the effort as well as the U.S. Coast Guard, now attached to the Department of Homeland Security. Coast Guard helicopters hovered over flooded homes and businesses, rescuing dozens of citizens from rooftops and second stories. The dramatic rescues captured the nation.
Ordinary Joe's unattached to any organization just showed up with their boats and high-water trucks. An African-American man told television reporters he was "gonna try to save some lives." He ignored the danger of flood waters to help stranded homeowners and drivers stuck in their vehicles.
David and Lizzie Cue opened their home to a couple and their children after the flood waters claimed the family's residence in one of the hardest hit neighborhoods. Mary and Robert Hall welcomed Houston relatives who were victimized by the flood even as surging waters threatened their home.
Churches, schools and even some businesses took in thousands of displaced Houstonians whose homes were no longer habitable. A mattress and furniture businessman dispatched his delivery trucks to pick up storm stragglers. He allowed the victims to sleep in his two stores and fed them, too.
This was America at its finest. Neighbors helping neighbors. Strangers extending a hand to those in dire need. Race didn't matter. Neither did ethnicity nor immigration status. In these tense moments, no fights broke out. No one called another person a hateful name.
What happened in Houston stands in stark contrast to the ugly confrontation in Charolettesville more than a month ago. There evil hooligans engaged in fisticuffs after protests turned violent. The thugs represented an infinitesimal minority of Americans, but you wouldn't know it by the media coverage.
This is why no one trusts the news media. Reporters and editors are always looking for the worst in America to serve up on the evening news. But that isn't the real America. Houston proved once again that the overwhelming majority of Americans are giving, loving, caring people.
That may be news to the media but not to everyday Americans.
Millions watched the heartbreaking scenes unfurl on television as more than 12 trillion gallons of rain fell in the Houston area. Flood waters swamped homes and businesses. People lost their cars, their homes and all their possessions. Rebuilding costs are expected to far exceed $100 billion.
But you can't put a price tag on human life. At least 70 people died in the horrific aftermath of the hurricane. But the toll could have been much higher if not for the heroism of first responders and ordinary citizens, who unselfishly risked their lives to save others.
A Harris County Deputy Sheriff carried two children, one in each arm, as he waded through waist-high murky brown water to take them to safety. Houston SWAT officer Daryl Hudeck reached a 13-month-old boy and his mom in the nick-of-time as water gushed through their home.
The Cajun Navy, a rag-tag band of good Samaritans from neighboring Louisiana, arrived in the city's darkest hour with a flotilla of small watercraft to assist with evacuations. This citizen armada rescued hundreds in driving rain and gusty wind conditions ignoring their own safety.
The volunteers went neighbor-by-neighborhood in their hunting and fishing boats plucking Houstonians from their water-logged homes. Louisiana's governor threw in with his citizens, dispatching search-and-rescue teams from the state's Department of Wildlife and Fisheries.
Other states joined in the effort as well as the U.S. Coast Guard, now attached to the Department of Homeland Security. Coast Guard helicopters hovered over flooded homes and businesses, rescuing dozens of citizens from rooftops and second stories. The dramatic rescues captured the nation.
Ordinary Joe's unattached to any organization just showed up with their boats and high-water trucks. An African-American man told television reporters he was "gonna try to save some lives." He ignored the danger of flood waters to help stranded homeowners and drivers stuck in their vehicles.
David and Lizzie Cue opened their home to a couple and their children after the flood waters claimed the family's residence in one of the hardest hit neighborhoods. Mary and Robert Hall welcomed Houston relatives who were victimized by the flood even as surging waters threatened their home.
Churches, schools and even some businesses took in thousands of displaced Houstonians whose homes were no longer habitable. A mattress and furniture businessman dispatched his delivery trucks to pick up storm stragglers. He allowed the victims to sleep in his two stores and fed them, too.
This was America at its finest. Neighbors helping neighbors. Strangers extending a hand to those in dire need. Race didn't matter. Neither did ethnicity nor immigration status. In these tense moments, no fights broke out. No one called another person a hateful name.
What happened in Houston stands in stark contrast to the ugly confrontation in Charolettesville more than a month ago. There evil hooligans engaged in fisticuffs after protests turned violent. The thugs represented an infinitesimal minority of Americans, but you wouldn't know it by the media coverage.
This is why no one trusts the news media. Reporters and editors are always looking for the worst in America to serve up on the evening news. But that isn't the real America. Houston proved once again that the overwhelming majority of Americans are giving, loving, caring people.
That may be news to the media but not to everyday Americans.
Monday, September 4, 2017
Union Membership Shrinks As Political Clout Grows
Labor Day was established as a national holiday in 1894 to officially "honor the social and economic achievements of American workers." Labor unions mounted the campaign for an annual celebration to showcase their influence and to recruit and retain members. The strategy hasn't worked.
Union membership has steadily dwindled since 1983 when the Bureau of Labor Statistics began an official tally. Thirty-four years ago 20.1 percent of all wage and salary earners in the country belonged to a union. At the end of last year, union representation had dipped to 10.7 percent.
In 2016, there were 14.6 million union workers, a steep plunge from 17.7 million in 1983. Most of the members (34.4%) were represented by public sector unions at the end of last year. Their membership rate was five times higher than the private sector (6.4%).
One of the largest and most powerful unions is the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) with a membership of 1.52 million. AFT has an annual budget of more than $329 million and has reported assets of $106 million. Overhead and political lobbying account for nearly 22% of its spending.
Those figures were obtained from the Office of Labor-Management Standards, which requires unions to file annual reports with the group.
The teachers union wields enormous political clout. AFT flexed its muscles in the 2016 presidential election, dishing out a striking $32.85 million to candidates. Every single dollar found its way into the election coffers of Democrats. Not even a penny was donated to Republicans.
This is a predominant theme repeated throughout today's unions. The organizations have become nothing more than a fund-raising arm for the Democratic Party. A review of the Federal Election Records reveals that nearly every dollar the big unions pored into elections went to Democrats.
While the teachers spent the heaviest amount, not far behind was the Laborers' International Union of North America (LINUA), which represents primarily construction workers. LIUNA funneled $25.9 million during the 2016 election cycle to an overwhelming majority of Democrats (98%).
The AFL-CIO, American Federal of State/County/Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and the Operator Engineers Union combined to contribute more than $42 million, the lion's share landing in the pockets of Democrat candidates. AFSCME donated 100% to Democrats.
Yet Democrats always grumble about the notorious Koch Brothers' deep-pocketed giving to Republicans. All the unions mentioned above each shelled out more than the Koch's did. Is this a case where Democrats better represent union members? Does that explain the lopsidedness?
Not according to the actual vote of union members. Surveys show for example that 20 percent of teachers union members cast their ballots for Donald Trump. Among all union households, Mr. Trump carried 43 percent of the votes, compared to 51 percent for Hillary Clinton in 2016.
This should make it clear that the unions' largess for Democrats has little or no relationship to the political views of their members. It is a scandal that union bosses continue to ignore their members, while using dues from their paychecks to support Democrats.
The rank-and-file in powerful unions are held captive by their organization's bosses, who are more interested in burnishing their own political influence. Workers have no voice in the choices the union makes in terms of its political activity. It is time members were consulted.
Fifty years ago there were legitimate worker issues for unions to address concerning hours, wages and benefits. Labor unions were champions of worker rights. Today they have evolved into nothing more than political organizations. Contract negotiations and bargaining are afterthoughts.
In light of this development, labor unions should be required to register as an arm of the Democratic Party since their primary function appears to be funding that organization's candidates.
Union membership has steadily dwindled since 1983 when the Bureau of Labor Statistics began an official tally. Thirty-four years ago 20.1 percent of all wage and salary earners in the country belonged to a union. At the end of last year, union representation had dipped to 10.7 percent.
In 2016, there were 14.6 million union workers, a steep plunge from 17.7 million in 1983. Most of the members (34.4%) were represented by public sector unions at the end of last year. Their membership rate was five times higher than the private sector (6.4%).
One of the largest and most powerful unions is the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) with a membership of 1.52 million. AFT has an annual budget of more than $329 million and has reported assets of $106 million. Overhead and political lobbying account for nearly 22% of its spending.
Those figures were obtained from the Office of Labor-Management Standards, which requires unions to file annual reports with the group.
The teachers union wields enormous political clout. AFT flexed its muscles in the 2016 presidential election, dishing out a striking $32.85 million to candidates. Every single dollar found its way into the election coffers of Democrats. Not even a penny was donated to Republicans.
This is a predominant theme repeated throughout today's unions. The organizations have become nothing more than a fund-raising arm for the Democratic Party. A review of the Federal Election Records reveals that nearly every dollar the big unions pored into elections went to Democrats.
While the teachers spent the heaviest amount, not far behind was the Laborers' International Union of North America (LINUA), which represents primarily construction workers. LIUNA funneled $25.9 million during the 2016 election cycle to an overwhelming majority of Democrats (98%).
The AFL-CIO, American Federal of State/County/Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and the Operator Engineers Union combined to contribute more than $42 million, the lion's share landing in the pockets of Democrat candidates. AFSCME donated 100% to Democrats.
Yet Democrats always grumble about the notorious Koch Brothers' deep-pocketed giving to Republicans. All the unions mentioned above each shelled out more than the Koch's did. Is this a case where Democrats better represent union members? Does that explain the lopsidedness?
Not according to the actual vote of union members. Surveys show for example that 20 percent of teachers union members cast their ballots for Donald Trump. Among all union households, Mr. Trump carried 43 percent of the votes, compared to 51 percent for Hillary Clinton in 2016.
This should make it clear that the unions' largess for Democrats has little or no relationship to the political views of their members. It is a scandal that union bosses continue to ignore their members, while using dues from their paychecks to support Democrats.
The rank-and-file in powerful unions are held captive by their organization's bosses, who are more interested in burnishing their own political influence. Workers have no voice in the choices the union makes in terms of its political activity. It is time members were consulted.
Fifty years ago there were legitimate worker issues for unions to address concerning hours, wages and benefits. Labor unions were champions of worker rights. Today they have evolved into nothing more than political organizations. Contract negotiations and bargaining are afterthoughts.
In light of this development, labor unions should be required to register as an arm of the Democratic Party since their primary function appears to be funding that organization's candidates.
Monday, August 28, 2017
Why Surgery Will Make You Giggle
If you want to experience gales of laughter, sign up for surgery. Sure, there will be excruciating pain. But it seems a small price to pay to be exposed to the peculiarities of today's surgical practice. The duplication, primitiveness and conventions are bound to crack a rib as you bend over in laughter.
Five weeks ago I underwent rotator cuff surgery on my right shoulder. In the weeks leading up to the arthroscopic procedure, a daunting pile of documents flooded my email inbox. Most were questionnaires about my physical health, previous surgeries and family medical history.
Here is a sample: Most recent surgery? (Tonsillitis 65 years ago). Have you experienced chest pains? (Only when the Dallas Cowboys blow a game.) Do you have any diseases? (Does hair lost count?) Do you have an enlarged prostate? (None of your damn business.)
The best was: What is your experience with anesthesia? (Well, it makes me sleepy. In fact, I usually lose consciousness. I try not to drive while I am under the influence. Or make life-changing decisions, like attempt to order a specialty latte at Starbucks. Is that specific enough?)
Every time I answered a health questionnaire, another surfaced. The doctor needed one. The surgical hospital required the same information. When I arrived at the surgical unit, the questions were repeated. For gosh sakes, does anyone know how to share medical data?
To punish the patient, the surgical unit requires you report at dark thirty. Then the doctors make you pace anxiously in the waiting room for hours as you contemplate your last moments above ground. McDonald's serves 200 burgers and fries in the time it takes you to enter the surgical hall of horrors.
Once inside the sterile facility, the nurse asks what kind of surgery you are having. Really? No one had clued her in? "Rotator cuff," I moaned. "Which shoulder?" I looked stunned. "Right," I mumbled. She used a marker and placed an "X" on my right shoulder. I'm not making this up.
Then the orthopedic surgeon bounded into the room after I was hooked up for an IV. Nice man, but he too seemed befuddled. "We're doing surgery on your right shoulder, correct?" he inquired. I wanted to yell: "How the hell should I know? You are the one who is doing the operation!"
He scribbled his name on my right shoulder. I guess like deer, surgeons like to mark their territory. It was like the entire surgical unit was confused about which shoulder was to be sliced and diced. I am sure the doctor wanted to avoid a mistake. But it doesn't inspire patient confidence.
Next the anesthesiologist arrived at my bedside. He wanted to know if I had any past adverse reactions to anesthesia. "Last time I was six years old," I answered truthfully. "I don't recall." He looked worried. Then he proceeded to read a list of all the horrible things that could happen.
He concluded his recitation with this reassuring warning: "The state of Texas requires me to tell you that anesthesia can cause death." Whoa! I almost leaped from the gurney and sprinted for the exit. No one had mentioned that possibility when I signed up for this journey into surgical Neverland.
As I was wheeled into surgery, I remember thinking: I should have at least eaten a last meal of steak, a fully loaded baked potato and a heaping dish of Blue Bell ice cream. But the surgical instructions had emphasized a light evening meal. Even prisoners get to pig out before the electric chair.
When the fog of anesthesia had lifted, I was relieved to know the state of Texas was dead wrong. I had a pulse! My arm was swaddled in an awkward looking contraption. First thing I checked was to make sure it was my right arm. I had learned not to take anything for granted.
Shortly, the doctor appeared and pronounced the procedure a success. That was a relief. However, I half-expected him to whisper: "I really screwed up. I thought it was your left shoulder. I got you mixed up with some guy named Roy Drew. My bad. Can you come back next week?"
Last week I had cataract surgery on my right eye. The nurse and the surgeon used an ink pen to write above my right eyebrow. It took a week of furious scrubbing to remove the ink. This week I have surgery on my other eye. I am wearing a blinking sign with an arrow pointing to the left eye.
Five weeks ago I underwent rotator cuff surgery on my right shoulder. In the weeks leading up to the arthroscopic procedure, a daunting pile of documents flooded my email inbox. Most were questionnaires about my physical health, previous surgeries and family medical history.
Here is a sample: Most recent surgery? (Tonsillitis 65 years ago). Have you experienced chest pains? (Only when the Dallas Cowboys blow a game.) Do you have any diseases? (Does hair lost count?) Do you have an enlarged prostate? (None of your damn business.)
The best was: What is your experience with anesthesia? (Well, it makes me sleepy. In fact, I usually lose consciousness. I try not to drive while I am under the influence. Or make life-changing decisions, like attempt to order a specialty latte at Starbucks. Is that specific enough?)
Every time I answered a health questionnaire, another surfaced. The doctor needed one. The surgical hospital required the same information. When I arrived at the surgical unit, the questions were repeated. For gosh sakes, does anyone know how to share medical data?
To punish the patient, the surgical unit requires you report at dark thirty. Then the doctors make you pace anxiously in the waiting room for hours as you contemplate your last moments above ground. McDonald's serves 200 burgers and fries in the time it takes you to enter the surgical hall of horrors.
Once inside the sterile facility, the nurse asks what kind of surgery you are having. Really? No one had clued her in? "Rotator cuff," I moaned. "Which shoulder?" I looked stunned. "Right," I mumbled. She used a marker and placed an "X" on my right shoulder. I'm not making this up.
Then the orthopedic surgeon bounded into the room after I was hooked up for an IV. Nice man, but he too seemed befuddled. "We're doing surgery on your right shoulder, correct?" he inquired. I wanted to yell: "How the hell should I know? You are the one who is doing the operation!"
He scribbled his name on my right shoulder. I guess like deer, surgeons like to mark their territory. It was like the entire surgical unit was confused about which shoulder was to be sliced and diced. I am sure the doctor wanted to avoid a mistake. But it doesn't inspire patient confidence.
Next the anesthesiologist arrived at my bedside. He wanted to know if I had any past adverse reactions to anesthesia. "Last time I was six years old," I answered truthfully. "I don't recall." He looked worried. Then he proceeded to read a list of all the horrible things that could happen.
He concluded his recitation with this reassuring warning: "The state of Texas requires me to tell you that anesthesia can cause death." Whoa! I almost leaped from the gurney and sprinted for the exit. No one had mentioned that possibility when I signed up for this journey into surgical Neverland.
As I was wheeled into surgery, I remember thinking: I should have at least eaten a last meal of steak, a fully loaded baked potato and a heaping dish of Blue Bell ice cream. But the surgical instructions had emphasized a light evening meal. Even prisoners get to pig out before the electric chair.
When the fog of anesthesia had lifted, I was relieved to know the state of Texas was dead wrong. I had a pulse! My arm was swaddled in an awkward looking contraption. First thing I checked was to make sure it was my right arm. I had learned not to take anything for granted.
Shortly, the doctor appeared and pronounced the procedure a success. That was a relief. However, I half-expected him to whisper: "I really screwed up. I thought it was your left shoulder. I got you mixed up with some guy named Roy Drew. My bad. Can you come back next week?"
Last week I had cataract surgery on my right eye. The nurse and the surgeon used an ink pen to write above my right eyebrow. It took a week of furious scrubbing to remove the ink. This week I have surgery on my other eye. I am wearing a blinking sign with an arrow pointing to the left eye.
Monday, August 21, 2017
Fighting the Civil War All Over Again
Some 152 years after America's bloody Civil War ended, tense battles have erupted over Confederate monuments. Last week's violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, was just the latest skirmish in a noisy campaign to rid America of any remaining symbols of the nation's defining conflict.
A budding list of cities, including Baltimore, New Orleans, Memphis, Lexington and Jacksonville, have declared war on statues of Confederate generals, soldiers and statesmen. Proponents claim the monuments, most prominent in the South, are symbols of lingering racism.
Historical groups and preservation societies have opposed the rush to rip down Civil War memorials. They defend the statues and monuments as an important part of the nation's history, particularly in the South. Members contend the historic markers honor those who fought and died in the war.
Now white supremacy, Klu Klux Klan and Neo-Nazi thugs have usurped the issue to advance their creed of racial hatred and anti-Semitism. The pandering media has turned this into a struggle between Neanderthal whites and oppressed African-Americans, who own the moral high ground.
Instead of treating the issue on its merits, the media has zeroed in on the tiny minority of repugnant bigots associated with fringe groups, giving them a bigger forum than they deserve to spew their malice. Big media has used the issue to paint all whites with the same broad racist brush.
Yet even the liberal Southern Poverty Law Center estimates there are only 5,000-8,000 members of KKK groups. Neo-Nazi hate-mongers have even less members. But neither one of these groups has cornered the market on extremism.
The opposition has coalesced around an anti-fascist group known as ANtifa, a radical pan-leftist organization whose followers are "predominantly communists, socialists and anarchists." That description was lifted from the pages of The Washington Post, not some conservative website.
What began is an honest debate about Civil War symbols, has been corrupted into a shouting match between a few fanatics on both sides who want to inflame unrest. Dishonest media and race-baiting activists have conspired to stoke the fires of rebellion to create political upheaval.
Now white supremacy, Klu Klux Klan and Neo-Nazi thugs have usurped the issue to advance their creed of racial hatred and anti-Semitism. The pandering media has turned this into a struggle between Neanderthal whites and oppressed African-Americans, who own the moral high ground.
Instead of treating the issue on its merits, the media has zeroed in on the tiny minority of repugnant bigots associated with fringe groups, giving them a bigger forum than they deserve to spew their malice. Big media has used the issue to paint all whites with the same broad racist brush.
Yet even the liberal Southern Poverty Law Center estimates there are only 5,000-8,000 members of KKK groups. Neo-Nazi hate-mongers have even less members. But neither one of these groups has cornered the market on extremism.
The opposition has coalesced around an anti-fascist group known as ANtifa, a radical pan-leftist organization whose followers are "predominantly communists, socialists and anarchists." That description was lifted from the pages of The Washington Post, not some conservative website.
What began is an honest debate about Civil War symbols, has been corrupted into a shouting match between a few fanatics on both sides who want to inflame unrest. Dishonest media and race-baiting activists have conspired to stoke the fires of rebellion to create political upheaval.
Since 2015, city leaders often without public consent have purged at least 60 symbols of the Confederacy. However, more than 700 monuments remain in 31 states and 109 schools bear the names of Confederate figures. Those numbers were compiled by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
The capricious removal of statues has emboldened radicals to take matters into their own hands. An angry mob in North Carolina lassoed a rope around a 15-foot bronze statue of a Confederate soldier and toppled it to the ground. Frenzied vandals repeatedly stomped the downed monument.
This has all the earmarks of becoming an escalating mob hysteria with deadly consequences. Free speech has been sacrificed by those who want to silence dissent over the removals. Those against whitewashing history are branded racists. Where are the messengers of reconciliation?
Among the voices of sanity is former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, an African-American who grew up with racism and rose to be one of the nation's most eloquent and informed speakers on the topic. She recently addressed the hostility over Confederate symbols.
"I'm a firm believer in keeping your history before you," she told an interviewer on a national network. "And so, I don't actually want to rename things that were named for slave owners. I want us to have to look at the names and recognize what they did and be able to tell our kids what they did and for them to have a sense of history."
Ridding the country of its past is not a prescription for alleviating racism. And once the country goes down that path, where will it end? Nine of America's first twelve presidents were slave owners. Should their statues be torn down and defiled? Should their names be scrubbed from schools?
There are more than 200 Confederate soldiers buried in Arlington National Cemetery. Should their graves be emptied? The cemetery is located on 624 acres that once belonged to the estate of the family of Confederate General Robert E. Lee. Should the cemetery be relocated?
There are more than 200 Confederate soldiers buried in Arlington National Cemetery. Should their graves be emptied? The cemetery is located on 624 acres that once belonged to the estate of the family of Confederate General Robert E. Lee. Should the cemetery be relocated?
There are lessons to be learned from other countries. After World War II, Germany wanted to cleanse itself of Hitler's death camps. The facilities were embarrassing reminders Germans wanted to forget. But sensible people prevailed and the camp's ruins today serve as a warning to future generations.
Removing statues, school names, monuments and the like will never bleach the scars of slavery or the Civil War. The story of America has been a nation that acknowledges its faults, mends its flaws and moves forward to heal divisions. No country advances by rewriting its past.
This is the country that survived a dreadful Civil War and emerged united. That grim conflict would have been fought in vain if Americans once again are so divided that violence and lawlessness become the solution. Cooler heads on all sides should be able find a peaceful resolution.
Monday, August 14, 2017
Obstruction of Justice: FBI and DOJ Collusion Exposed
New documents released by the Department of Justice cast a dark cloud of suspicion over the conduct of former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and ex-FBI Director James Comey. Information buried in the 417-pages raises troubling ethical and criminal issues that have gone unreported by the media.
The materials were released August 2 by Daniel R. Castellano, a DOJ senior attorney, in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by Judicial Watch, a conservative, non-partisan organization that promotes transparency and integrity in government.
The heavily-redacted records consist primarily of a flurry of emails between the FBI and DOJ after a Phoenix television reporter revealed on June 27, 2016, that Lynch and former president Bill Clinton secretly huddled on the tarmac at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport.
The surreptitious meeting stunned legal scholars at the time because Hillary Clinton was under FBI investigation for her private email server. Ms. Clinton was slated to be interviewed by the FBI a few days later. One week after the clandestine meeting, Comey issued Ms. Clinton a get-out-of jail card.
The timing of the controversial sequence of events was too calculated to be dismissed as a coincidence.
A thorough review of the freshly released records, expose the duplicity and unethical conduct after the tarmac meeting. Here are some of the highlights gleaned from email exchanges:
-- Among the hundreds of emails, there is a single reference that fuels questions about whether the meeting between Lynch and the former president was a chance encounter. There is a DOJ email to the FBI with this subject line: "Security Details Coordinate Between Loretta Lynch/Bill Clinton?" The rest of the email is blacked out. The FBI was present on the tarmac and shooed away reporters who wanted to film the meeting. Was this part of the advance coordination between the Clinton and the AG security teams?
-- When a local ABC news reporter learned of the meeting, it sparked a tsunami of email exchanges between Carolyn Pokorny at the AG's office and Melaine R. Newman, the director of public affairs at the Justice Department. Their task was to hastily craft a "statement/talking points" for Lynch. Even Peter Kadzik, a longtime friend of Hillary Clinton's campaign manager John Podesta, was included in the draft discussion. The AG was copied on many of the emails in the chain under the alias of Elizabeth Carlisle. That leads to the question: Why did Ms. Lynch feel the need to use an alias when conducting official government business?
-- The various drafts of the "statement/talking points" were redacted or blacked out from the documents provided by the DOJ under the guise the communications were protected by the "deliberative process privilege." How can talking points that were designed for public dissemination be protected from disclosure? The DOJ should be required to reveal the entire contents of every pertinent email.
-- It is clear from the email chains that reports of the infamous tarmac talk reached the highest levels of the FBI. Yet on October 21, 2016, Comey replied to Judicial Watch's FOIA request by denying there were any available records regarding the Lynch-Clinton summit. "No records responsive to your request have been located," Comey answered. The recently released records make it clear Comey was less than forthcoming. It is unlawful to withhold government information in response to a FOIA request.
After the "statement/talking points" were approved, Ms. Lynch faced the media on June 28, 2016. Here is a transcript of what she said: "Actually, while I was landing at the airport, I did see President Clinton at the Phoenix airport as I was leaving and he spoke to myself and my husband on the plane. Our conversation was a great deal about his grandchildren. It was primarily social and about our travels." She denied there was any discussion about Ms. Clinton's emails. Interestingly, she did not refer to the meeting as a 'chance encounter' in her original statement.
It strains the bounds of credulity to believe the meeting was not planned in advance; that the timing was incidental just days before Ms. Clinton's FBI interview; or that Comey's decision to defer prosecution was not connected in anyway to Ms. Lynch's discussion with the former president.
Republicans in Congress must stand together and demand the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the crime of obstruction of justice by Comey and Lynch. The charade has continued too long. Justice has not only been blinded but she has been gagged and bound since the tarmac talk.
The materials were released August 2 by Daniel R. Castellano, a DOJ senior attorney, in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by Judicial Watch, a conservative, non-partisan organization that promotes transparency and integrity in government.
The heavily-redacted records consist primarily of a flurry of emails between the FBI and DOJ after a Phoenix television reporter revealed on June 27, 2016, that Lynch and former president Bill Clinton secretly huddled on the tarmac at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport.
The surreptitious meeting stunned legal scholars at the time because Hillary Clinton was under FBI investigation for her private email server. Ms. Clinton was slated to be interviewed by the FBI a few days later. One week after the clandestine meeting, Comey issued Ms. Clinton a get-out-of jail card.
The timing of the controversial sequence of events was too calculated to be dismissed as a coincidence.
A thorough review of the freshly released records, expose the duplicity and unethical conduct after the tarmac meeting. Here are some of the highlights gleaned from email exchanges:
-- Among the hundreds of emails, there is a single reference that fuels questions about whether the meeting between Lynch and the former president was a chance encounter. There is a DOJ email to the FBI with this subject line: "Security Details Coordinate Between Loretta Lynch/Bill Clinton?" The rest of the email is blacked out. The FBI was present on the tarmac and shooed away reporters who wanted to film the meeting. Was this part of the advance coordination between the Clinton and the AG security teams?
-- When a local ABC news reporter learned of the meeting, it sparked a tsunami of email exchanges between Carolyn Pokorny at the AG's office and Melaine R. Newman, the director of public affairs at the Justice Department. Their task was to hastily craft a "statement/talking points" for Lynch. Even Peter Kadzik, a longtime friend of Hillary Clinton's campaign manager John Podesta, was included in the draft discussion. The AG was copied on many of the emails in the chain under the alias of Elizabeth Carlisle. That leads to the question: Why did Ms. Lynch feel the need to use an alias when conducting official government business?
-- The various drafts of the "statement/talking points" were redacted or blacked out from the documents provided by the DOJ under the guise the communications were protected by the "deliberative process privilege." How can talking points that were designed for public dissemination be protected from disclosure? The DOJ should be required to reveal the entire contents of every pertinent email.
-- It is clear from the email chains that reports of the infamous tarmac talk reached the highest levels of the FBI. Yet on October 21, 2016, Comey replied to Judicial Watch's FOIA request by denying there were any available records regarding the Lynch-Clinton summit. "No records responsive to your request have been located," Comey answered. The recently released records make it clear Comey was less than forthcoming. It is unlawful to withhold government information in response to a FOIA request.
After the "statement/talking points" were approved, Ms. Lynch faced the media on June 28, 2016. Here is a transcript of what she said: "Actually, while I was landing at the airport, I did see President Clinton at the Phoenix airport as I was leaving and he spoke to myself and my husband on the plane. Our conversation was a great deal about his grandchildren. It was primarily social and about our travels." She denied there was any discussion about Ms. Clinton's emails. Interestingly, she did not refer to the meeting as a 'chance encounter' in her original statement.
It strains the bounds of credulity to believe the meeting was not planned in advance; that the timing was incidental just days before Ms. Clinton's FBI interview; or that Comey's decision to defer prosecution was not connected in anyway to Ms. Lynch's discussion with the former president.
Republicans in Congress must stand together and demand the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the crime of obstruction of justice by Comey and Lynch. The charade has continued too long. Justice has not only been blinded but she has been gagged and bound since the tarmac talk.
Monday, August 7, 2017
Student Debt: A Trillion Reasons To Scold Colleges
For the first time in history, Americans owe more in college debt than credit card debt. Student debt has reached a staggering $1.3 trillion. Since 2003, student borrowing has skyrocketed nearly 457 percent, spurred by the lowering of credit criteria and an infusion of federal taxpayer funds.
In 2009, the Democratic controlled Congress passed sweeping legislation to overhaul the student loan program, redirecting tens of billions of dollars to college aid. The Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act also essentially removed private lenders from the college loan equation.
With lax lending standards and more taxpayer money available, the government created a gold rush for student loans. The total debt ballooned to more than $1.34 trillion in the first quarter of this year, confirm statistics from the New York Federal Reserve Bank's Center for Microeconomic Data.
Today 44.2 million Americans owe money for college loans. The average student debt for the class of 2016 was $37,172, a six percent increase from the previous year. In the first quarter of this year, student loan debt jumped another 2.6 percent.
Averages often are deceiving. The Fed statistics show that the combined undergraduate and graduate debt incurred by a student with a law degree is $140,616. Medical and health science graduates accumulate an average of $161,772 in debt.
In the most recent year for which data is available, about 71 percent of students graduating from a four-year college were saddled with debt. Students attending private colleges were more likely to be forced to borrow. About 75 percent of private college grads had outstanding loans.
About 40 percent of the student loan debt was used to finance graduate and professional degrees, the Fed figures show. That's why there are more 1.68 million borrowers on repayment plans that stretch out more than 10 years.
The mountain of college debt is straining graduates ability to meet the loan requirements. In the third quarter of last year, 16 percent of student loans were in default, which means a failure to make payments for a period of nine months.
But even that statistic does not tell the whole story. Another 20 percent of student loans were in deferment or were in a grace period or had been forgiven. Those figures were compiled by the College Board in a study last year entitled, "Trends in Student Aid."
There is no light at the end of the tunnel for future college students. Each year college tuition costs at both private and public schools increase while the ability of students and families to pay for a degree decreases. This dynamic is creating a growing burden for many Americans.
The blame needs to be placed squarely on the shoulders of American higher education. Since 1978, Bloomberg estimates that the cost of college tuition has rocketed 1,120 percent. By comparison, medical costs climbed 601 percent and food leapfrogged 244 percent during the same period.
Under the current system, there is no incentive for private or public colleges to hold the line on tuition costs. When the price of tuition rises, the colleges are protected from student sticker shock because the government makes it easy for anyone to mortgage their future to pay for a degree.
It is a perverse system that perpetuates this uneconomic dynamic. The American taxpayer underwrites increases in education costs through federally funded loans as well as state and federal taxes. College tuition increases are passed on to all taxpayers who unwittingly foot the bill.
How does the country change this cycle of tuition hikes? It will not stop until students and their families decide to opt out of the college arms race where higher tuition equates to a more prestigious degree. Only when colleges compete on price like other businesses will the insanity abate.
Unless that happens, college debt will rise exponentially. Instead of demanding college accountability for rising tuition rates, politicians have decided to campaign on forgiving all student debt or promoting legislation to make college "free," tacking on another federal entitlement program.
Neither political solution will lead to lower education costs at colleges. Whatever the political outcome, taxpayers will still be on the hook for more than a trillion dollars worth of spending excess by out-of-control college administrators.
In 2009, the Democratic controlled Congress passed sweeping legislation to overhaul the student loan program, redirecting tens of billions of dollars to college aid. The Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act also essentially removed private lenders from the college loan equation.
With lax lending standards and more taxpayer money available, the government created a gold rush for student loans. The total debt ballooned to more than $1.34 trillion in the first quarter of this year, confirm statistics from the New York Federal Reserve Bank's Center for Microeconomic Data.
Today 44.2 million Americans owe money for college loans. The average student debt for the class of 2016 was $37,172, a six percent increase from the previous year. In the first quarter of this year, student loan debt jumped another 2.6 percent.
Averages often are deceiving. The Fed statistics show that the combined undergraduate and graduate debt incurred by a student with a law degree is $140,616. Medical and health science graduates accumulate an average of $161,772 in debt.
In the most recent year for which data is available, about 71 percent of students graduating from a four-year college were saddled with debt. Students attending private colleges were more likely to be forced to borrow. About 75 percent of private college grads had outstanding loans.
About 40 percent of the student loan debt was used to finance graduate and professional degrees, the Fed figures show. That's why there are more 1.68 million borrowers on repayment plans that stretch out more than 10 years.
The mountain of college debt is straining graduates ability to meet the loan requirements. In the third quarter of last year, 16 percent of student loans were in default, which means a failure to make payments for a period of nine months.
But even that statistic does not tell the whole story. Another 20 percent of student loans were in deferment or were in a grace period or had been forgiven. Those figures were compiled by the College Board in a study last year entitled, "Trends in Student Aid."
There is no light at the end of the tunnel for future college students. Each year college tuition costs at both private and public schools increase while the ability of students and families to pay for a degree decreases. This dynamic is creating a growing burden for many Americans.
The blame needs to be placed squarely on the shoulders of American higher education. Since 1978, Bloomberg estimates that the cost of college tuition has rocketed 1,120 percent. By comparison, medical costs climbed 601 percent and food leapfrogged 244 percent during the same period.
Under the current system, there is no incentive for private or public colleges to hold the line on tuition costs. When the price of tuition rises, the colleges are protected from student sticker shock because the government makes it easy for anyone to mortgage their future to pay for a degree.
It is a perverse system that perpetuates this uneconomic dynamic. The American taxpayer underwrites increases in education costs through federally funded loans as well as state and federal taxes. College tuition increases are passed on to all taxpayers who unwittingly foot the bill.
How does the country change this cycle of tuition hikes? It will not stop until students and their families decide to opt out of the college arms race where higher tuition equates to a more prestigious degree. Only when colleges compete on price like other businesses will the insanity abate.
Unless that happens, college debt will rise exponentially. Instead of demanding college accountability for rising tuition rates, politicians have decided to campaign on forgiving all student debt or promoting legislation to make college "free," tacking on another federal entitlement program.
Neither political solution will lead to lower education costs at colleges. Whatever the political outcome, taxpayers will still be on the hook for more than a trillion dollars worth of spending excess by out-of-control college administrators.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)