Five Reasons To Be Thankful You Live In the United States

America's first Thanksgiving was celebrated 392 years ago near Massachusetts Bay. The festival, organized in 1621 by colonial Governor William Bradford, honored the successful harvest of the corn crop by the Pilgrims.  The invitation list included the colony's Native American allies.

The historic banquet's menu remains lost in the mists of time, but at least one chronicler reports meat dishes included fowl and deer, but not likely turkey.  Historians also doubt pumpkin pie was served at the first feast because of a lack of sugar.

That is a far cry from the the sumptuous spreads that will be enjoyed in dining rooms across America this week. But one truth remains the same.  Americans, then and now, have many reasons to be grateful for their country.

Here are just five reasons to be thankful you live in the United States of America today:

1.  The U.S. is still the country where most people want to live.  A recent survey conducted by Gallup found that 150 million people would like to leave their country and immigrate to the U.S.  Four times as many people surveyed chose the U.S. over the second ranked nation, the United Kingdom. American continually ranks number one in the annual poll.  There are 40 million immigrants living in the country and this figure does not include those here illegally.

2.  Americans are the most generous people in the world.  Individuals doled out $217.79 billion dollars to charities last year, according to Internal Revenue Service data published by The Urban Institute.  These numbers do not include the billions given by two-thirds of tax filers who do not itemize their deductions.  Donations by individuals have risen 38 percent since 2009, despite the recession.

3.  Americans are the most inventive people in the world.  There were 253,155 new patents issued for inventions in the United States in 2012, the highest annual number on record.  It represents a 13 percent increase over the previous year.  Seventeen U.S.-based firms rank in the top 50 worldwide companies issued patents and IBM was the business leader in 2012, according to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

4. The U.S. offers more opportunities for people to start their own business.  There are 23 million small businesses in the country, which provide 55 percent of all the available jobs, according to the Brookings Institute.  Small  firms, those with one to 49 employees, make up nearly 90 percent of all businesses in the U.S.  The number of small businesses has increased 49 percent since 1982, far outpacing growth in large firms.

5.  The U.S. spends more per capita on health care than any other nation. The World Health Organization estimates the the country spends $7,960 per person on health care, the highest figure in the world.  As a percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), health care spending represents 17.6 percent of expenditures, earning the U.S. the top spot on that measure.  The U.S. also has some of the world's best health care facilities, including two of the top three cancer treatment centers in the world, according to Healthcare Global.

Those of us blessed to call the United States of America home have many more reasons to feel indebted to our country.  The list is almost endless.  But the best reason of all is that we live in a free country. Let us take time today to thank God for his divine guidance and continuing protection for these United States.

Obamacare: Beware Of Doctor Shortage

A deeply troubling government report on projections of doctor shortages has been surpressed by Obama Administration officials because the news potentially would further undermine the promises made by the president on health care reform.

The report, authored by the independent Government Accountability Office (GAO), was issued September 30 in Washington and was greeted with stony silence by the news outlets and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

The investigation by the GAO was requested by three Republican senators, including Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Richard Burr of North Carolina and Mike Enzi of Wyoming. In its report, GAO exposes the administration's failings in offering an analysis of a future scarcity of health care providers.

"Since 2008, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) within the Department of Health and Human Services has awarded five contracts to research organizations to update national workforce projections, but HRSA has failed to publish any new reports containing projections," the report documents.

As the GAO points out, government, academic and health organizations have all issued projections of shortfalls in health care professions, which could "adversely affect patients access to care." Yet Sebelius' stormtroopers have steadfastly refused to release figures, despite spending millions to research the issue.

It is painfully obvious that Sebelius' and her boss want to cover up what health care industry experts already know.  The United States faces a crippling deficit of doctors, which has been exacerbated by the introduction of Obamacare.

In a recent report, the Association of American Colleges estimated the country will experience a shortage of more than 90,000 physicians by 2020.  That number is expected to balloon to more than 130,000 doctors by 2025.

Democrats and Obama sycophants are quick to point out those are just projections.  However, the forecast may actually be too low in light of last week's announcement that insurance firm United Healthcare has dropped thousands of doctors from its networks in at least ten states.

The reason many doctors are fleeing for the exits is because Obamacare whittles payments to physicians for many patient services while increasing paperwork and administrative red tape, which raises staffing requirements.   That means doctors' expenses increase while their income falls.

If the projected shortfalls in health care workforce materialize, the GAO warns that this could "result in delays in getting care, or patients not receiving needed care."  Without the government estimates, policy makers are handicapped in addressing the shortage, the GAO underscores in its narrative.

These are sobering cautions that are anathema to the president and Sebelius.  Neither want to hear there won't be enough medical professionals to deliver on their promises of improved health care. They would prefer to dupe Americans in order to reach their political agenda of socialized medicine.

Of course, it wouldn't be the first time the duo has engaged in deception.  Just ask the millions of Americans who are now discovering they can't keep their current health coverage despite the president's repeated assurances on at least 23 separate occasions.  

Wait until Americans learn they won't be able to keep their doctor either.

NFL Case Shines Light On Bullying

The National Football League, under siege for players' off-field behavior, has an ugly new problem that threatens to soil the organization's already tattered reputation.  News reports out of Miami have unmasked bullying as part of pro teams' routine hazing of incoming players.

When the story leaked out, too many NFL players reacted with a shrug.  They dismissed the threats and racist remarks of the Miami player as "boys just being boys." Many in the violent sport of pro football called for the offended player to "man up" and accept the verbal abuse without complaint.

Even the media failed to grasp the serious nature of bullying, despite the fact the hectoring prompted a Dolphin player to leave the team because of "emotional issues." Apparently, a few mental casualties are acceptable on the sports pages of America's jaded media.

For their part, the Dolphins suspended the player accused of bullying. Good for them.  But the larger message about bullying has been lost in the media accounts, which have focused on the code of brotherhood among players that condones the initiation as part of some rite of passage.

Bullying should never be socially acceptable, regardless of the age or occupation of the perpetrator.  If you need convincing, just look at the trends in bullying among young people, who unfortunately often take their behavioral cues from sports and entertainment personalities.

--About thirty percent of students in the United States are involved in bullying on a regular basis, either as a victim, perpetrator or both, according to a recent survey.  Verbal bullying is most common, although a growing number are physically attacked.

--An estimated 160,000 students every day miss school out of fear of an attack or intimidation by their peers.  An alarming 56 percent of students report they have personally witnessed some type of bullying at their school.

--More than one in 10 high school students reported they were in a physical fight on school property in the last year, according to the Crimes Against Children Research Center.

--A recent study presented at the American Psychological Association's annual convention found that more than 20 percent of those who were bullied throughout childhood and adolescence were convicted of crimes.  Victims also had higher incidences of delinquency and substance abuse in school.

Outside of school, many young people are being victimized by cyber bullying, which is spreading like a virus on the Internet.  About one-half of all teens have been verbally assaulted by harmful messages on social media, reported The Wall Street Journal.

When any organization, business or person condones bullying, it should be exposed and condemned.  Bullying will never be stopped until everyone refuses to make excuses for verbal or physical abuse, even if it masquerades under the seemingly innocuous name of hazing.

Now that the situation in Miami has come to light, the NFL should move expeditiously to stamp out bullying league-wide as an example for others to follow.

Obama: The Bystander-in-Chief

In what has become a familiar tactic for this administration, President Obama tried to duck responsibility for the botched roll out of his health care reform by claiming he had no clue the critical government website was hopelessly flawed.

Yet insurance industry experts had been publicly warning for months the web portal was burdened with glitches.  The digital platform had failed hundreds of internal tests, still Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius green-lighted the aborted launch.

The government, Obama's government, belly flopped in its effort to deliver the insurance enrollment system it promised.  Instead of accepting responsibility, Obama and his mouthpiece Jay Carney assured the nation the president was uninvolved, despite warning signs he should have exercised due diligence.

This president has adopted this same head-in-the-sand defense before.

Name a scandal and the president has pleaded ignorance. Benghazi. Mexican gun-running.  NSA snooping on U.S. citizens.  Tapping reporters phones. IRS blacklisting of conservative political groups. Government spying on leaders of nations. In each case, Obama feigned enlightenment.

Apparently, the president wants Americans to believe he is a mere bystander, not the chief executive of the nation.  The sign on the desk in the Oval Office must read:  "I disavow all knowledge that a buck ever visited here, much less stopped."

He certainly had every motivation to learn first-hand about the roll out of the website.  His name has become synonymous with the law. It is the top achievement cited by his administration and the Democrat Party nearly five years into his presidency.

How could he have been so blind to what so many insiders knew?  

The answer is the president deliberately put distance between himself and the flawed website because of the political connections to the contractor responsible for the debacle.  Obama feared a major scandal, if the nature of the relationship with the website's architect was exposed.

In the days after the fiasco, news stories began to surface that a senior executive at the website contractor CGI Federal had ties to First Lady Michelle Obama.  The executive and former classmate, Toni Townes-Whitely, appears to have exploited her cozy relationship.

Townes-Whitely joined the Canadian-based CGI in May of 2010, less than two months after the president penned his signature on the health care law.  Soon after her arrival, the firm received a no bid contract for $678 million for work on the website and related services.

The selection of the company appears curious in light of recent revelations that CGI fumbled a health care system project for the providence of Ontario in Canada.  After missed deadlines and other setbacks, the Ontario government pulled the plug on the $46.2 million project.

Despite the bungled venture, the administration handed the contract to CGI to build a transaction-based website, like hundreds that already exist on the internet.  This did not involve new technology or sophisticated software. It should have been a routine project for a competent tech firm.

In the months leading up to the catastrophic launch, White House visitor logs show Townes-Whitely had a least four meetings with senior administration officials from April to June.  Did she forewarn the White House about the impending disaster?  The administration and Townes-Whitely remain mum.

In the harsh spotlight of public scrutiny, it is more than a little suspicious that one of the largest government contracts for such a high-profile project was awarded to a non-U.S. based business without a competitive bid, despite its less than sterling performance in the health care arena.

As usual, the administration that once promised to be the "most transparent in history" has stiff-armed requests by House committees anxious to look deeper into the the matter.  Secretary Sebelius' testimony before Congress about the website collapse stands as a tutorial in obfuscation.

Americans shouldn't expect Sebelius' boss President Obama to shed any light either on this latest scandal.  He has already admitted he is just an innocent bystander.

Minimum Wage, Maximum Propaganda

The battle over the federal minimum wage has morphed into a propaganda war waged by President Obama and his Democrat cronies. Armed with deception, urban fables and distortions they have marched into the arena of public opinion to promulgate a counterfeit argument for increasing pay.

To hear Obama and his puppets tell it, there are millions of poor single mothers with two or more kids toiling in minimum wages jobs, unable to put food on the family's table. This image has been nurtured to promote the idea of raising the federal minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $10 or more.

However beguiling the illustration, it has been fabricated to deceive average Americans.  The duplicity is easily exposed by facts.  But the mainstream media has invested itself in substantiating Obama's agenda, even if it means sacrificing what little journalistic scruples remain.

Few Americans are actually working for the federal minimum wage. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, about four percent of hourly-paid employees earn $7.25.  If you include both hourly and salaried employees, just 2.9 percent of Americans make the federal minimum.

Last year, a total of 1.6 million workers were paid the federal minimum wage.  Ninety-seven percent of American workers earn more than the minimum wage.

Nearly two-thirds of minimum wage earners receive a raise within 1-to-12 months on the job. The notion that minimum wagers earners are a permanent underclass is simply false.  Part-time workers are more likely to earn the minimum wage than full-time employees.

The majority of minimum-wage workers are between the ages of 16 and 24.  Many are students or part-timers just starting their working careers.  Three-fourths of workers 25 and older in a minimum wage jobs live above the federal poverty line.

A recent study at American University found that among families where one adult was earning minimum wage, 94 percent had a spouse who brought home more money. In fact, the average household income of a majority of minimum-wage workers is more than $53,000 a year.  

The mythical single mom with kids working for minimum wage is more fiction rather than fact.  That doesn't mean there are not some that fit this description, but it is a rarity and not the rule.  Single parents making minimum wage are just four percent of the workforce.

The mantra of the Obama apostles has been to clamor for a "living wage."  It is an elusive concept. For example, a minimum wage worker in New York City would need to earn nearly $30 an hour to match the buying power of a entry level employee making $7.25 hourly in Harlingen, Texas.

Many cities and states already have minimum wage rates that are above the federal level.   Oregon hiked its minimum to $8.30 an hour. Washington state trumped that by raising its minimum to $9.04. California's legislature recently passed a bill to shove the rate to $10. San Francisco has extorted a $10.24 hourly minimum from businesses.

So why are Obama and Democrats hell bent on bumping up the federal minimum wage?

The answer is two-fold.  First, it is good politics because the issue resonates with most Americans. Everyone can rally around the idea of a decent wage.  Since more than 9 out of 10 Americans already earn more than federal minimum, it is hard for them to be against the idea.

Secondarily, the issue has the backing of powerful unions.  Many union contracts peg wage rates to the federal hourly minimum.  For instance, an agreement might have provisions for automatic adjustments if the hourly minimum increases.  The unions are not interested in single moms unless they pay dues.

Even supporters of jacking up the minimum wage surely understand the economic reality that an hourly wage boost will suppress job growth.  Studies have repeatedly shown that businesses hire fewer workers, or reduce hours or layoff employees in the face of sharp increases in wages.

There has been no empirical evidence to date to buttress Obama's case for bumping up the federal minimum wage.  Until there is something more than emotional exaggerations and dishonest information, the minimum should remain exactly where it is today.

A Debt Ceiling Primer

"America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.  America deserves better."  Those two sentences frame the plight of a nation witnessing a vitriolic political tug-of-war in Washington over raising the debt ceiling.

The summary of the country's quandary was offered by then Senator Barrack Obama.  He made the comments in March of 2006 before he voted against increasing the nation's debt ceiling.  Obama turned thumbs down on another debt request in 2007, ignoring warnings of a financial apocalypse.

That's why it is ironic that President Obama has resorted to trashing Republicans who stand in the way of his attempt to hike the U.S. debt ceiling, which now teeters at $16.7 trillion.  Those who oppose the president are labeled hostage takers, extortionists and extremists.

No one can remember any politician spewing such bilge about Senator Obama for his defiant stance on the debt ceiling less than seven years ago.

The current debt limit hysteria, fueled by the president and his slavish media, has drowned out all reasoned debate over the question of whether the nation will benefit by raising the limit on the government credit card.

This toxic atmosphere in Washington has contributed to obfuscation, deception and dishonesty that does nothing to promote a negotiated settlement.  Here are some facts to put the battle over the debt limit in perspective:

1.  President Obama has forewarned that default is likely if Congress fails to act on the debt ceiling.  However, the tax receipts for the current year are expected to top $3 trillion, more than enough to cover the annual interest payment of $237 billion.  The president and the Treasury secretary should have no problem figuring out how to avoid default on the debt.  They alone will make the call on whether to default.  As proof, read about what another president did in the next paragraph.

2.  President Obama has chided legislators for contemplating something no other Congress has done.  In 1953, Republican President Dwight Eisenhower's request for a modest lift in the debt ceiling was rebuffed by Senate Democrats, who argued the existing cap would impede runaway federal spending. In order to meet debt obligations, the president ordered drastic cuts in government expenditures. A full year after Eisenhower's request, the Congress finally approved an increase in the debt ceiling.

3. President Obama continually harps about Congress paying the bills for its spending.  This borders on hypocrisy because the president has presided over the largest increase in the nation's debt in the history of the country.  Since Obama assumed the Oval Office, debt has skyrocketed $4.939 trillion, a 51 percent increase since 2009.  Gargantuan federal deficits run up under Obama have created the ticking debt bomb.

4.  President Obama contends raising the debt ceiling will not add to the nation's borrowing.  That is like a credit card holder asking for an increase in his or her borrowing limit while promising not to add more debt.  Then why do it?  Every time the debt ceiling has been raised by Obama, the nation has quickly bumped up against the cap.  Deficits create the need for borrowing and Obama's federal budget sent to Congress last month projects the ballooning debt to stretch into another financial galaxy.

5.  President Obama deserves the lion's share of the blame for the deficits.  Obama has steadfastly rejected any Republican efforts to scale back entitlements which are growing at an alarming rate. Federal spending for major health care programs and Social Security are expected to increase at twice the average of the past 40 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office's recent report on the budget outlook.  Increasing debt to cover the spending will result in "negative consequences for both the economy and the federal budget," the CBO cautioned.

A healthy debate over the debt ceiling is necessary for the country to come to terms with galloping federal spending that threatens the nation's future.  Instead of stonewalling and haranguing, President Obama should lead the discussion.

By refusing to indulge in serious dialogue, Obama has abdicated his leadership role and polluted the environment for an agreement to end the crisis.  

America's Poor: The Numbers & The Myth

The coiffed news readers at the nation's television stations have been practically apoplectic in reporting that the world's richest country is awash in poverty.  Some 46.4 million Americans are now entombed in beggary, the highest figure in the nation's history, they have gleefully recited from their teleprompter.

Those figures, compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau, were recently released just as Congress began wrestling with the federal budget. The news was timed to arm Democrats with data to justify fattened funding for a host of federal programs, most notably food stamps.

As has been the case so often, the Democrat footmen in the media omitted a few salient facts that would cast a different light on the Census data.

For instance, the federal poverty level is adjusted annually.  The threshold is established by using metrics developed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).  The official yardstick measures inflation, size of a family, ages of the members, total family income and a few other benchmarks.

The household income includes only earned wages.  It does not take into account any federal aid, such as food stamps, housing assistance, Medicaid and other non-cash state or federal benefits. Likewise, there is no accounting for the discrepancies in living costs between geographic regions.

Different federal agencies that administer aid programs employ different poverty guidelines.  That fuels confusion about the exact income point for poverty in the U.S.

Currently, the official federal poverty level for an average family of four is $23,550.  However, a family of eight can earn up to $39,630 and still be counted as poor.  In many industrialized countries, an income of $40,000 would be considered upper middle class.

Most Americans are surprised by the federal income delineation between poor and middle class. Surveys show that the majority imagine the poor are lacking food, shelter, clothing and transportation.  They consider poverty to connote that a family is destitute.

But many of America's poor live in luxury compared to their brethren in other parts of the world.

According to Census data, 80.9 percent of the households below the poverty level have cell phones.  Nearly 6 in 10 (58.2%) own computers.  Practically all (96.1%) have televisions.  Almost 80 percent have satellite or cable TV service.  Ninety-seven percent have refrigerators.  Nine in 10 have microwaves.  Most of the world's poor have none of these conveniences.

Those facts were missing from the media's newscasts, but the most glaring omission of all is the spike in unemployment under President Obama's stewardship.

Since Obama assumed office, poverty in the United States has zoomed 16.73 percent.  Median income has fallen every year of Obama's reign.  Twenty-even percent of African-Americans live at or below the poverty line, the highest since the civil rights movement.

The president gets a pass from the media because he always points the finger at his predecessor, George W. Bush.  But his blame-shifting rings hollow after nearly five years in office, billions in stimulus spending and record funding for federal poverty programs.

There is no escaping the fact that poverty has grown worse under President Obama.  His own government's measurements prove it. Obama needs to point the finger at himself for a change.