Elections for local district attorneys were once political yawners. The contests were uninteresting, void of partisan politics and starved for big money donors. All that has changed in recent years as billionaire George Soros has emptied his coffers to tip the scales for liberal Democrat candidates.
Beginning in 2014, the hedge fund kingpin has poured tens of millions of dollars into races for county district attorney across the nation. His goal is to remove pro-law enforcement, anti-illegal immigration and anti-sanctuary city DA incumbents and replace them with handpicked ideologues.
Soros launched his campaign four years ago with a $50 million donation from his Open Society Foundation to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). To gain more political leverage, he shoveled millions into political action committees (PAC) targeting law-and-order district attorneys.
Why are county district attorneys so important to Soros? DA's have wide discretion to decide which crimes to prosecute, what charges to file, who to prosecute and whether to permit plea agreements. They have the power to accept or reject police evidence in recommendations for prosecution.
With that much authority, district attorneys have the opportunity to reshape the criminal justice system to fit Soros' progressive model.
The mogul and ally ACLU favor candidates who support open borders, amnesty for illegal immigrants, a moratorium on the death penalty and reduced sentences for so-called low level offenses, such as drug crimes. However, his candidates rarely mention these issues.
Soros' wealth has found its way into races in Philadelphia, San Diego, Los Angeles, Chicago, Orlando, Houston, several Florida counties, Mississippi and San Antonio. Political action committees and shadow groups are showered with cash, usually at least $1 million per contest.
Until Soros waded into these arcane races, most voters could not even name their local district attorney. A contested battle for the position usually attracted little interest and far less than $1 million in donations. That was before Soros began using his finances and political clout to tilt the equation.
His modus operandi is to employ powerful Washington-based law firm Perkins Cole to establish a PAC with a name that is politically sanitized. The PACs are branded "Justice and Safety," "California Justice" and "Public Safety." The names are deliberately obtuse to hide Soros' real agenda.
Soros funding flows through his foundation and some of the 100 organizations with ties to the magnate. The carpetbagger prefers to remain in the background, the puppet master hidden behind the veiled curtain of secrecy. He never publicly endorses a candidate for district attorney.
Rather the tycoon orchestrates an infusion of cash for his chosen candidate, swamping war chests raised by opponents. The money allows the challenger to dominate the air waves with ads smearing the incumbent. Opponents are caught off guard when they discover Soros is financing the attacks.
Consider what happened to incumbent Bexar County District Attorney Nico LaHood in his reelection campaign this spring. Soros blindsided LaHood, investing nearly $1 million in Joe Gonzales to oust the incumbent for the sin of opposing San Antonio's sanctuary city status. LaHood was trounced.
The campaign playbook calls for recruitment of anti-law enforcement organizations such as Black Lives Matter and pro-immigration groups to join forces with the ACLU in stirring up activists in the community. The result creates the appearance of large scale opposition to the office holder.
A few incumbents are fed up with Soros' meddling. In the race for DA in San Diego, the incumbent struck back slamming Soros on the airwaves. In the ads, a picture of Soros is superimposed over masked, black-clad street demonstrator. The inference is clear: Soros is a threat to public safety.
Despite the push back, Soros has racked up many successes, toppling incumbent district attorneys around the nation. His funding is creating a national liberal agenda on criminal justice by buying one county district attorney at a time. There is only one way to stop Soros. Voters are the best defense.
Don't ignore your local district attorney race. Research the positions of the candidates. Use online sources to find out which PAC's are involved in the race. Learn if the organizations have links to Soros. Then decide whether you want an independent DA or one beholden to George Soros.
Monday, July 30, 2018
Monday, July 23, 2018
Unaccompanied Children: Propaganda Versus Fact
A chilling photo of two immigrant children in a fenced detention center went viral two months ago. The picture of young females stretched out on a concrete floor caused a national furor over President Trump's immigration policy. There was only one problem. The photo was snapped in 2014.
In May, posts on Twitter and other social media never mentioned the photo was four years old. The provocative image and others were posted by President's Obama's former speechwriter Jon Favreau, who claimed the photos were evidence of Mr. Trump's cruel punishment of unaccompanied children.
Only when an Arizona newspaper pointed out the photos were taken four years ago did Favreau confess. However, he attempted to weasel out of his deception by pleading he made a mistake. His assertion came long after the images triggered a national outrage on the handling of minors.
The incident is one example of many disinformation efforts to inflame the national conscience over this volatile issue. As a result of the propaganda, the blame for the treatment of these children has fallen on the shoulders of the current administration. Facts seem to matter little to the perpetrators.
In the rush to judgment, few recall the U.S. policy for detaining unaccompanied children has been in force for a decade. Under a law passed with bi-partisan support in 2008, unaccompanied foreign children from countries other than Mexico or Canada are taken into custody for their protection.
The unaccompanied minor problem spiked during the Obama years, beginning in 2014 when thousands of immigrants from Central American countries were smuggled into the U.S. From October 2015 to March of 2016, unaccompanied minors apprehended at the border rose 78 percent.
According to a Pew Research analysis of U.S. Customs and Border Protection data, from 2014 to March of 2016, border agents detained 71,951 unaccompanied minors who crossed the U.S.-Mexico border illegally. Detention centers quickly were overcrowded by the stream of foreign minors.
Alarmed at the surge, the Obama Administration was forced to launch a public information campaign in Central America to stem the flood of children. Although the effort had a temporary impact, it failed to deter the tsunami of immigrant youths journeying north to the U.S.
During the crisis, the Obama Administration followed the 2008 law without a peep from the media. Minors were temporarily placed in shelter facilities operated by Customs and Border Protection. After screening, they were transferred to the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR).
This policy was designed to prevent human trafficking and to keep children safe. The youths were fed, sheltered and provided medical care until they could be released to a family member or sponsor. No matter what you read in the media, this policy remains the same today as it was under Obama.
In recognition of the growing problem, the Department of Health and Human Services recently expanded the number of shelters to 100 with 13,000 beds in 17 states. The federal budget for this fiscal year was increased to $1.08 billion to handle minors placed in U.S. custody.
It was no coincidence the fake social media propaganda appeared soon after the administration enacted a policy of zero tolerance for illegal adults apprehended at the border. The directive does cause children to be temporarily separated from their families after the adult is placed in custody.
Adding to the duplicity, the media circulated stories asserting 1,500 children separated from their parents had gone missing. There was confusion about whether the children were separated from families at the border. It turns out ORR transitioned the minors to sponsors in the U.S.
Under President Trump, ORR has placed 23,543 minors who entered the country illegally. Some of those minors are sent to family members who may be living in the country illegally. Reuniting families is a priority even if the sponsors are undocumented foreigners. Does that sound cruel?
Critics deliberately obfuscate the issue by mixing the unaccompanied minor policy with the apprehension of illegal adult immigrants. The issues are divided by very different laws and legal directives. Most news reporting jumbles the two together to support their anti-Trump narrative.
Additionally, the media has neglected to report that some minors are not innocent children. Documents obtained by government watchdog Judicial Watch reveal nearly 1,000 cases in 2014 of foreign minors confessing to murders, rapes, smuggling and prostitution in their country of origin.
The ORR incident logs also contain reports of Central American minors suffering sexual assaults during their journey through Mexico and being subjected to inappropriate sexual relationships with Mexican cops. Why is there no denunciation of Mexican corruption and treatment of minors?
Children traveling alone is a humanitarian and public safety nightmare. Some are quick to pin the blame on the administration because these minors are put in peril after parents ship them out on their own. There are better ways. The United States offers legal immigration and political asylum.
No one in Congress is asking the obvious question: Why are so many unaccompanied foreign minors continuing to enter the U.S. illegally? Finding a solution requires answers from the governments of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. A country trying to protect children is not the problem.
In May, posts on Twitter and other social media never mentioned the photo was four years old. The provocative image and others were posted by President's Obama's former speechwriter Jon Favreau, who claimed the photos were evidence of Mr. Trump's cruel punishment of unaccompanied children.
Only when an Arizona newspaper pointed out the photos were taken four years ago did Favreau confess. However, he attempted to weasel out of his deception by pleading he made a mistake. His assertion came long after the images triggered a national outrage on the handling of minors.
The incident is one example of many disinformation efforts to inflame the national conscience over this volatile issue. As a result of the propaganda, the blame for the treatment of these children has fallen on the shoulders of the current administration. Facts seem to matter little to the perpetrators.
In the rush to judgment, few recall the U.S. policy for detaining unaccompanied children has been in force for a decade. Under a law passed with bi-partisan support in 2008, unaccompanied foreign children from countries other than Mexico or Canada are taken into custody for their protection.
The unaccompanied minor problem spiked during the Obama years, beginning in 2014 when thousands of immigrants from Central American countries were smuggled into the U.S. From October 2015 to March of 2016, unaccompanied minors apprehended at the border rose 78 percent.
According to a Pew Research analysis of U.S. Customs and Border Protection data, from 2014 to March of 2016, border agents detained 71,951 unaccompanied minors who crossed the U.S.-Mexico border illegally. Detention centers quickly were overcrowded by the stream of foreign minors.
Alarmed at the surge, the Obama Administration was forced to launch a public information campaign in Central America to stem the flood of children. Although the effort had a temporary impact, it failed to deter the tsunami of immigrant youths journeying north to the U.S.
During the crisis, the Obama Administration followed the 2008 law without a peep from the media. Minors were temporarily placed in shelter facilities operated by Customs and Border Protection. After screening, they were transferred to the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR).
This policy was designed to prevent human trafficking and to keep children safe. The youths were fed, sheltered and provided medical care until they could be released to a family member or sponsor. No matter what you read in the media, this policy remains the same today as it was under Obama.
In recognition of the growing problem, the Department of Health and Human Services recently expanded the number of shelters to 100 with 13,000 beds in 17 states. The federal budget for this fiscal year was increased to $1.08 billion to handle minors placed in U.S. custody.
It was no coincidence the fake social media propaganda appeared soon after the administration enacted a policy of zero tolerance for illegal adults apprehended at the border. The directive does cause children to be temporarily separated from their families after the adult is placed in custody.
Adding to the duplicity, the media circulated stories asserting 1,500 children separated from their parents had gone missing. There was confusion about whether the children were separated from families at the border. It turns out ORR transitioned the minors to sponsors in the U.S.
Under President Trump, ORR has placed 23,543 minors who entered the country illegally. Some of those minors are sent to family members who may be living in the country illegally. Reuniting families is a priority even if the sponsors are undocumented foreigners. Does that sound cruel?
Critics deliberately obfuscate the issue by mixing the unaccompanied minor policy with the apprehension of illegal adult immigrants. The issues are divided by very different laws and legal directives. Most news reporting jumbles the two together to support their anti-Trump narrative.
Additionally, the media has neglected to report that some minors are not innocent children. Documents obtained by government watchdog Judicial Watch reveal nearly 1,000 cases in 2014 of foreign minors confessing to murders, rapes, smuggling and prostitution in their country of origin.
The ORR incident logs also contain reports of Central American minors suffering sexual assaults during their journey through Mexico and being subjected to inappropriate sexual relationships with Mexican cops. Why is there no denunciation of Mexican corruption and treatment of minors?
Children traveling alone is a humanitarian and public safety nightmare. Some are quick to pin the blame on the administration because these minors are put in peril after parents ship them out on their own. There are better ways. The United States offers legal immigration and political asylum.
No one in Congress is asking the obvious question: Why are so many unaccompanied foreign minors continuing to enter the U.S. illegally? Finding a solution requires answers from the governments of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. A country trying to protect children is not the problem.
Monday, July 16, 2018
The Supremes: Court Nominees Endure Inquisition
When President George Washington named John Jay as the first chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, he could never have imagined the gauntlet future nominees would face. Almost 230 years later, court appointees endure fierce partisan attacks and personal vilification.
Once presidential nominees to the nation's highest court were treated with polite deference. Those days disappeared during the presidency of Richard Nixon when two appointees were rejected in votes by the Senate in 1969 and 1970. That had not happened since 1930 under President Hoover.
While some nominees have voluntarily withdrawn their names in the past, only a dozen nominees in two centuries have been voted down by the Senate. While scrutiny of any Supreme Court appointment is part of the Senate's role, it has evolved into political theater unfitting of the office.
As evidence, the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy touched off a firestorm of opposition before his replacement was even named. When President Trump tapped Brett Kavanaugh, a respected judge on the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the verbal knifing began.
It is an omen that his confirmation hearings will feature political teeth gnashing instead of serious judicial inquiry.
A powerful Political Action Committee (PAC) funded by George Soros has already begun digging into Kavanaugh's background. The American Bridge 21st Century, founded in 2012, specializes in opposition research, a polite term for trolling for dirt on those the PAC deems its enemies.
In fact, the group has made no pretense that it is less interested in combing through Judge Kavanaugh's legal scholarship than it is in uncovering details of his personal life or views on political and religious issues. The latter may garner the spotlight since the nominee is a practicing Catholic.
The nation was treated to a precursor of what Kavanaugh likely will encounter when President Trump nominated Notre Dame University professor Amy Coney Barrett to an appeals court. Led by California's Senator Dianne Feinstein, the hearings denigrated into a religious inquisition.
The senator delved deeply into how Barrett's faith might influence her rulings, suggesting she wore her Catholicism too "loudly." This represented the worst kind of intolerance and bigotry. Expect more of the same when Kavanaugh is grilled by Democrats during the confirmation hearings.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has already signaled that "women's health care" will be a central issue. His choice of words is political code for abortion. Democrats will hammer that theme to raise the specter that Roe vs. Wade will be overturned if a Catholic justice is confirmed.
(Note to Liberals: A 2017 Pew Research poll of adults nationwide found 57 percent support abortion in all or most cases. Among Catholics surveyed, 53 percent held the same position. That means Catholics or no more likely to oppose abortion than any other adult.)
This red herring survives despite the fact there has never been a direct legal challenge to the 1973 Supreme Court decision that ruled unconstitutional a state law banning abortion to save the life of a mother. The ruling has stood for 45 years. In the interim, there have been 60 million U.S. abortions.
The other issue likely to be front and center is the #MeToo movement. In today's hyper-charged atmosphere any whiff of sexual impropriety is enough to destroy a public figure. A left-wing outfit Ultraviolet has made its mission to sabotage the nomination with scurrilous sexual accusations.
Ultraviolet is shopping a six-page memo to senators and the media insinuating Kavanaugh knew about sexual harassment accusations against a federal judge and failed to act. The sleazy dossier offers no incriminating evidence to back its claims against Kavanaugh, who clerked for the judge.
It matters little the alleged incident happened 25 years ago and there has never been a hint of impropriety on Kavanaugh's part. It also is no coincidence that Ultraviolet has links to MoveOn.org, another activist group that enjoys generous financial support from the irascible Soros.
Over the next month, expect activists armed with war chests to nitpick every email, memo and private utterance of Judge Kavanaugh to find a smoking gun. The ruthless efforts will yield no real proof but insidious innuendos. Thus the hearings likely will be uncivil and uninformative.
Kavanaugh has a 12-year record on the court of appeals. There are more than 300 of his cases that provide a window into his views on the Constitution as well as insights into his integrity, knowledge of the law and judicial competence. His judicial record should determine his fate, but it won't.
This is Washington and nothing inspires political grandstanding and personal bullying like hearings for a Supreme Court nominee. Ultimately, Kavanaugh will be approved but not until senators have shredded every last remnant of their already tattered cloak of dignity.
Once presidential nominees to the nation's highest court were treated with polite deference. Those days disappeared during the presidency of Richard Nixon when two appointees were rejected in votes by the Senate in 1969 and 1970. That had not happened since 1930 under President Hoover.
While some nominees have voluntarily withdrawn their names in the past, only a dozen nominees in two centuries have been voted down by the Senate. While scrutiny of any Supreme Court appointment is part of the Senate's role, it has evolved into political theater unfitting of the office.
As evidence, the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy touched off a firestorm of opposition before his replacement was even named. When President Trump tapped Brett Kavanaugh, a respected judge on the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the verbal knifing began.
It is an omen that his confirmation hearings will feature political teeth gnashing instead of serious judicial inquiry.
A powerful Political Action Committee (PAC) funded by George Soros has already begun digging into Kavanaugh's background. The American Bridge 21st Century, founded in 2012, specializes in opposition research, a polite term for trolling for dirt on those the PAC deems its enemies.
In fact, the group has made no pretense that it is less interested in combing through Judge Kavanaugh's legal scholarship than it is in uncovering details of his personal life or views on political and religious issues. The latter may garner the spotlight since the nominee is a practicing Catholic.
The nation was treated to a precursor of what Kavanaugh likely will encounter when President Trump nominated Notre Dame University professor Amy Coney Barrett to an appeals court. Led by California's Senator Dianne Feinstein, the hearings denigrated into a religious inquisition.
The senator delved deeply into how Barrett's faith might influence her rulings, suggesting she wore her Catholicism too "loudly." This represented the worst kind of intolerance and bigotry. Expect more of the same when Kavanaugh is grilled by Democrats during the confirmation hearings.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has already signaled that "women's health care" will be a central issue. His choice of words is political code for abortion. Democrats will hammer that theme to raise the specter that Roe vs. Wade will be overturned if a Catholic justice is confirmed.
(Note to Liberals: A 2017 Pew Research poll of adults nationwide found 57 percent support abortion in all or most cases. Among Catholics surveyed, 53 percent held the same position. That means Catholics or no more likely to oppose abortion than any other adult.)
This red herring survives despite the fact there has never been a direct legal challenge to the 1973 Supreme Court decision that ruled unconstitutional a state law banning abortion to save the life of a mother. The ruling has stood for 45 years. In the interim, there have been 60 million U.S. abortions.
The other issue likely to be front and center is the #MeToo movement. In today's hyper-charged atmosphere any whiff of sexual impropriety is enough to destroy a public figure. A left-wing outfit Ultraviolet has made its mission to sabotage the nomination with scurrilous sexual accusations.
Ultraviolet is shopping a six-page memo to senators and the media insinuating Kavanaugh knew about sexual harassment accusations against a federal judge and failed to act. The sleazy dossier offers no incriminating evidence to back its claims against Kavanaugh, who clerked for the judge.
It matters little the alleged incident happened 25 years ago and there has never been a hint of impropriety on Kavanaugh's part. It also is no coincidence that Ultraviolet has links to MoveOn.org, another activist group that enjoys generous financial support from the irascible Soros.
Over the next month, expect activists armed with war chests to nitpick every email, memo and private utterance of Judge Kavanaugh to find a smoking gun. The ruthless efforts will yield no real proof but insidious innuendos. Thus the hearings likely will be uncivil and uninformative.
Kavanaugh has a 12-year record on the court of appeals. There are more than 300 of his cases that provide a window into his views on the Constitution as well as insights into his integrity, knowledge of the law and judicial competence. His judicial record should determine his fate, but it won't.
This is Washington and nothing inspires political grandstanding and personal bullying like hearings for a Supreme Court nominee. Ultimately, Kavanaugh will be approved but not until senators have shredded every last remnant of their already tattered cloak of dignity.
Monday, July 9, 2018
What's Next: Basic Income For Every American
An old half-baked idea has been reinvented as a new recipe to grant every American a guaranteed income. This socialist dish last appeared on the menu in 1968 when more than a thousand economists endorsed the income plan. Today the titans of Silicon Valley are serving up the idea.
The vision shepherded by high-tech leaders is for the federal government to pay thousands of dollars each year to every adult in America, whether they are working or unemployed. To make the idea more palatable to taxpayers, they have cleverly relabeled the gimmick a "universal basic income."
The repackaging is a not so subtle suggestion many Americans are failing to earn a basic living wage. It sounds deceptively like a humanitarian issue. But the median income of American wage earners is already among the highest in the world: $59,836 annually per household.
Some of the lords of technology energizing the effort include Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg and Tesla's Elon Musk. But it is gaining traction politically with some elected officials beginning to float the notion. California Democrats this year adopted guaranteed income as part of the party platform.
Those backing guaranteed income have benefited from past political failures. The tech titans claim the government payments are not a handout but a way to assist workers displaced by robots, artificial intelligence and automation. Oddly these same firms are the ones creating the disruptive technology.
Proponents have deliberately been evasive about the nuts-and-bolts of the plan. One idea is for the feds to dispense $10,000 checks annually to every adult. Families with kids would get more money. Existing health care programs and Social Security would remain in place under most assumptions.
Backers claim the payments would lift the vast majority of Americans above the poverty line, gifting everyone with a "living wage". Some anti-poverty programs, such as food stamps, would be eliminated. Even with the savings, the price tag for American taxpayers would be astronomical.
Some economists at MIT figure the cost of a universal basic income plan may tack on as much as $2 trillion in annual expenses to the federal budget. That amount is about one-half of current federal spending. Without massive tax increases, the plan would add trillions to the federal deficit.
The enormous cost doesn't faze apostles such as Natalie Foster from the Institute for the Future and New America California. "No one would have to be a workaholic only out of fear that they'd have nothing to fall back on if they stopped," she points out. She apparently views hard work as unfair.
Others see guaranteed basic income as a way for people to choose not to work at low-paying jobs. Parents would be freed from oppressive jobs with greater opportunities to invest time in their children and to pursue their career dreams. If that sounds Utopian, it is. But it resonates with younger adults.
In a poll conducted this year by Gallup and Northeastern University, 48 percent of Americans surveyed said they would support a universal basic income. Fifty-two percent opposed the idea. A majority (51%) of younger Americans, 18-to-35, are most likely of any group to back UBI.
But one question no one appears anxious to answer is this: Will guaranteed income destroy the work ethic? Some economists fear a toxic side effect will be to undermine the positive aspect of working for a living. Many Americans may just decide to take the "free money" and retire to the couch.
In Silicon Valley, the bigwigs view this as an easy solution to buy off the displaced workers instead of funding retraining programs. Tech chiefs are not the first to sound a warning that technology will uproot hundreds of thousands of workers. However, past alarmists have been proven wrong.
For instance, when computers burst onto the scene, doomsayers predicted technology would make many thousands of jobs redundant. But the reality is the U.S. economy has added 80 million jobs since the advent of the computer.
When the Internet became a global force, economists preached gloom and doom too. Thousands of jobs in bricks and mortal retailers would be lost. Since those predictions, the economy has chugged along, adding 25 million jobs since the Internet became mainstream.
Despite this evidence, UBI advocates are growing in number. The Washington political class salivates at the mention of guaranteed income. Imagine Congress with the power to sway voters each election year by promising to increase the universal basic income. Who could be against it?
America has been built on a proven premise that hard work, dedicated effort and intellect produce success and self-worth. Haphazardly abandoning this unique American concept will create economic and social upheaval. Not to mention that free money will produce idleness not a path to happiness.
The vision shepherded by high-tech leaders is for the federal government to pay thousands of dollars each year to every adult in America, whether they are working or unemployed. To make the idea more palatable to taxpayers, they have cleverly relabeled the gimmick a "universal basic income."
The repackaging is a not so subtle suggestion many Americans are failing to earn a basic living wage. It sounds deceptively like a humanitarian issue. But the median income of American wage earners is already among the highest in the world: $59,836 annually per household.
Some of the lords of technology energizing the effort include Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg and Tesla's Elon Musk. But it is gaining traction politically with some elected officials beginning to float the notion. California Democrats this year adopted guaranteed income as part of the party platform.
Those backing guaranteed income have benefited from past political failures. The tech titans claim the government payments are not a handout but a way to assist workers displaced by robots, artificial intelligence and automation. Oddly these same firms are the ones creating the disruptive technology.
Proponents have deliberately been evasive about the nuts-and-bolts of the plan. One idea is for the feds to dispense $10,000 checks annually to every adult. Families with kids would get more money. Existing health care programs and Social Security would remain in place under most assumptions.
Backers claim the payments would lift the vast majority of Americans above the poverty line, gifting everyone with a "living wage". Some anti-poverty programs, such as food stamps, would be eliminated. Even with the savings, the price tag for American taxpayers would be astronomical.
Some economists at MIT figure the cost of a universal basic income plan may tack on as much as $2 trillion in annual expenses to the federal budget. That amount is about one-half of current federal spending. Without massive tax increases, the plan would add trillions to the federal deficit.
The enormous cost doesn't faze apostles such as Natalie Foster from the Institute for the Future and New America California. "No one would have to be a workaholic only out of fear that they'd have nothing to fall back on if they stopped," she points out. She apparently views hard work as unfair.
Others see guaranteed basic income as a way for people to choose not to work at low-paying jobs. Parents would be freed from oppressive jobs with greater opportunities to invest time in their children and to pursue their career dreams. If that sounds Utopian, it is. But it resonates with younger adults.
In a poll conducted this year by Gallup and Northeastern University, 48 percent of Americans surveyed said they would support a universal basic income. Fifty-two percent opposed the idea. A majority (51%) of younger Americans, 18-to-35, are most likely of any group to back UBI.
But one question no one appears anxious to answer is this: Will guaranteed income destroy the work ethic? Some economists fear a toxic side effect will be to undermine the positive aspect of working for a living. Many Americans may just decide to take the "free money" and retire to the couch.
In Silicon Valley, the bigwigs view this as an easy solution to buy off the displaced workers instead of funding retraining programs. Tech chiefs are not the first to sound a warning that technology will uproot hundreds of thousands of workers. However, past alarmists have been proven wrong.
For instance, when computers burst onto the scene, doomsayers predicted technology would make many thousands of jobs redundant. But the reality is the U.S. economy has added 80 million jobs since the advent of the computer.
When the Internet became a global force, economists preached gloom and doom too. Thousands of jobs in bricks and mortal retailers would be lost. Since those predictions, the economy has chugged along, adding 25 million jobs since the Internet became mainstream.
Despite this evidence, UBI advocates are growing in number. The Washington political class salivates at the mention of guaranteed income. Imagine Congress with the power to sway voters each election year by promising to increase the universal basic income. Who could be against it?
America has been built on a proven premise that hard work, dedicated effort and intellect produce success and self-worth. Haphazardly abandoning this unique American concept will create economic and social upheaval. Not to mention that free money will produce idleness not a path to happiness.
Monday, July 2, 2018
Patriotism: No Longer In Vogue?
As the nation celebrates Independence Day, surveys show Americans' patriotism is slowly, perhaps irreversibly, ebbing. Fewer people than ever are "extremely proud" to be an American, a low in a 16-year trend of declining patriotism. There are many theories on the downdraft but no consensus.
National polling organization Gallup published research two years ago that documented the precipitous drop. In 2003 in the aftermath of 9/11, seven in 10 Americans professed to be "extremely" proud of their country. By 2016, that number had nosedived to 52 percent.
The dip was most noticeable among young adults. This group, aged 18 to 29, are the least patriotic with only 34 percent claiming to be "extremely proud" to be Americans, according to Gallup. Young people experienced the largest decline since 2003: a slide of nearly 30 percentage points.
A 2017 national survey by Pew Research produced similar findings. Among respondents younger than 30, only 12 percent believe America "stands above all other countries." That compares to 85 percent of the general public, the research discovered.
There are also sharp divisions between respondents with self-identified political affiliations. For example, Pew's study uncovered that one in three "liberal" Democrats said there were other nations better than the United States. Only 13 percent of liberals rate America the best above all others.
Gallup's poll underscored the same difference between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives were among the most likely groups to claim to be "extremely proud" to be Americans. More than 60 percent of conservatives viewed themselves as patriotic.
If there is a silver lining, a clear majority of Americans agree on one thing. An Associated Press/NORC poll taken last year said 77 per cent of Americans are extremely or very proud of the country's armed forces. But support for the military is not the same as patriotism.
Definitions of patriotism vary by source and personal beliefs, so there is no one, all encompassing description. But for purposes of this treatise, in my opinion the words below appear more in line with most Americans perception of patriotism:
"Patriotism or national pride is the ideology of love and devotion to a homeland, and a sense of alliance with other citizens who share the same values." Nothing in this definition suggests blind loyalty, uninformed fealty or star-spangled jingoism. There is nothing nefarious about patriotism.
Yet a few public figures and politicians are calling patriotism a dog whistle for racism, anti-immigrant rhetoric, misogamy and injustice. They blame unflinching patriotism for wars, hunger, discrimination and every imaginable offense. No wonder many Americans question their own patriotism.
The problem is the words some voices use to define patriotism. These detractors claim patriotism muffles legitimate faultfinding, stifles public disagreement and insist the patriotic American flag is a symbol of hypocrisy. Those who hold such views have twisted patriotism into something perverse.
Patriots throughout the nation's history have dissented, criticized and protested about a plethora of issues from English rule to the current president. Americans have always been a raucous tribe, but its citizens cling to the notion the country will act in keeping with its highest ideals.
Today in the name of dissent Americans have witnessed a Congresswoman advocate public harassment of members of the current administration. In light of the threat, it's no surprise that a recent poll reports growing numbers of Americans fear an open revolt or armed resistance.
There is nothing red-white-and blue about clamoring for mob tactics. Our rights do not include the abuse of the public forum to incite uncivil behavior. Patriotism should be a clarion call for all Americans to unite behind their country, no matter who occupies the Oval Office.
An Englishmen Winston Churchill had an sober description of the country we love. "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing--after they've tried everything else." As Mr. Churchill suggests, our nation has its flaws, but no country has pursued virtue with as much zeal.
Patriotic Americans want what is best for their country, their fellow citizens and their world. That is not something to be ridiculed and scoffed. Patriotism is the glue that holds a country together. If the bond is torn asunder, America will surrender not only its past but its future.
National polling organization Gallup published research two years ago that documented the precipitous drop. In 2003 in the aftermath of 9/11, seven in 10 Americans professed to be "extremely" proud of their country. By 2016, that number had nosedived to 52 percent.
The dip was most noticeable among young adults. This group, aged 18 to 29, are the least patriotic with only 34 percent claiming to be "extremely proud" to be Americans, according to Gallup. Young people experienced the largest decline since 2003: a slide of nearly 30 percentage points.
A 2017 national survey by Pew Research produced similar findings. Among respondents younger than 30, only 12 percent believe America "stands above all other countries." That compares to 85 percent of the general public, the research discovered.
There are also sharp divisions between respondents with self-identified political affiliations. For example, Pew's study uncovered that one in three "liberal" Democrats said there were other nations better than the United States. Only 13 percent of liberals rate America the best above all others.
Gallup's poll underscored the same difference between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives were among the most likely groups to claim to be "extremely proud" to be Americans. More than 60 percent of conservatives viewed themselves as patriotic.
If there is a silver lining, a clear majority of Americans agree on one thing. An Associated Press/NORC poll taken last year said 77 per cent of Americans are extremely or very proud of the country's armed forces. But support for the military is not the same as patriotism.
Definitions of patriotism vary by source and personal beliefs, so there is no one, all encompassing description. But for purposes of this treatise, in my opinion the words below appear more in line with most Americans perception of patriotism:
"Patriotism or national pride is the ideology of love and devotion to a homeland, and a sense of alliance with other citizens who share the same values." Nothing in this definition suggests blind loyalty, uninformed fealty or star-spangled jingoism. There is nothing nefarious about patriotism.
Yet a few public figures and politicians are calling patriotism a dog whistle for racism, anti-immigrant rhetoric, misogamy and injustice. They blame unflinching patriotism for wars, hunger, discrimination and every imaginable offense. No wonder many Americans question their own patriotism.
The problem is the words some voices use to define patriotism. These detractors claim patriotism muffles legitimate faultfinding, stifles public disagreement and insist the patriotic American flag is a symbol of hypocrisy. Those who hold such views have twisted patriotism into something perverse.
Patriots throughout the nation's history have dissented, criticized and protested about a plethora of issues from English rule to the current president. Americans have always been a raucous tribe, but its citizens cling to the notion the country will act in keeping with its highest ideals.
Today in the name of dissent Americans have witnessed a Congresswoman advocate public harassment of members of the current administration. In light of the threat, it's no surprise that a recent poll reports growing numbers of Americans fear an open revolt or armed resistance.
There is nothing red-white-and blue about clamoring for mob tactics. Our rights do not include the abuse of the public forum to incite uncivil behavior. Patriotism should be a clarion call for all Americans to unite behind their country, no matter who occupies the Oval Office.
An Englishmen Winston Churchill had an sober description of the country we love. "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing--after they've tried everything else." As Mr. Churchill suggests, our nation has its flaws, but no country has pursued virtue with as much zeal.
Patriotic Americans want what is best for their country, their fellow citizens and their world. That is not something to be ridiculed and scoffed. Patriotism is the glue that holds a country together. If the bond is torn asunder, America will surrender not only its past but its future.