Friday, October 31, 2014

Why Democrats Don't Deserve the Black Vote

Recently, The Drudge Report posted the following video made by three activists who were railing against Democrat policies and how they always want the Black vote but do nothing to benefit African American communities:



I, for one, have always been perplexed as to why Democrats think they deserve the Black vote.

It was a Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, who lead a Civil War to free Blacks from slavery.  Following the Civil War, so-called Radical Republicans fought for things like voting rights for Blacks in the Reconstruction era.  Then, in 1964, it was white Southern Democrats such as Robert Byrd and Al Gore Sr. who filibustered trying to block civil rights legislation.  Republicans voted for civil rights by 80% in both Houses of Congress. Democrats only voted to approve 61% in the House and 66% in the Senate.

Now, in the above video, these three Black activists appear to be complaining about just one thing: Jobs.

So, to that I need only present one chart that appeared on the CNN Money site in 2011:
 

Thanks to the policies of Democrat President, Jimmy Carter, Black unemployment rose to over 20% in the early 1980's; and the disparity between Black and White unemployment was high.  Then, thanks to the policies of a Republican President by the name of Ronald Reagan, Blacks, as well as all Americans, enjoyed one of the longest stretches of lower unemployment since World War II.  To be fair, the policies of Bill Clinton also benefited Blacks in the 1990's, though much of that success was done by building on the policies of Reagan.

Today, under Obama, Blacks are again hurting; just as the video above points out.  They, as of this writing, have an unemployment rate of 11.4% as compared to 5.3% for Whites, and the disparity between Black and White unemployment has returned to the days of Jimmy Carter where Black unemployment was more than twice as high as it is for Whites.

So, then, why should any Black think that only Democrats will benefit them in terms of jobs and a better life?

References:

Black unemployment: Highest in 27 years: http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/02/news/economy/black_unemployment_rate/

Civil Rights Act of 1964: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

Radical Republican: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Republican

Reconstruction Era: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_Era





Thursday, October 30, 2014

The True War On Women: ObamaCare

For years, Democrats have claimed that Republicans have waged a war on women; primarily over the so-called "reproductive rights" of abortion and contraception.  As if this is all women care about when they enter the voting booth. 

But, an important issue that should be on every woman's mind when they enter a voting booth should be ObamaCare.

Now, granted, ObamaCare gives them free access to some contraception and four free morning-after abortive meds but, that's where it ends.

First of all, the healthcare law is forcing many women, especially those with families, to lose their existing insurance.  As a result, they are being forced into new plans that may cost them little to nothing on a monthly basis; assuming they qualify for federal subsidies, but the real problem is that almost all ObamaCare health insurance policies are actually catastrophic policies.  Meaning that they have a low monthly cost but carry a hefty deductible of several thousand dollars per year.  And, if they don't qualify for a subsidy, they not only have to pay a high deductible, but also get nailed with high premiums.

Then, too, when enrolled in ObamaCare, it is very possible that women will lose their current doctor if they are not in the network of any of the insurers in the exchange.  At the same time, this new doctor may be miles away and only have admitting and treating privileges with a hospital that is also miles away.  As a result, people needing care are going to emergency rooms rather than travel to an ObamaCare doctor.  In addition, because reimbursement rates are lower under ObamaCare, the quality of care may also suffer.

Finally, there is the expansion of Medicaid under ObamaCare.

Democrats will argue that millions of low income Americans, who are above the poverty level, will get free healthcare under the expansion of Medicaid.  But, the problem here is that too few doctors and hospitals will accept Medicaid patients because the reimbursement rates are so low.  In fact, only 46% of doctors, in a recent study, said they would accept Medicaid patients; down 10% from just 4 years ago.  It is quite possible that we could get to a point where only a third, or less, of this nation's doctors will treat Medicaid patients as states continue to slash reimbursement rates in order to keep their budgets in balance. This will be seen in mostly Democratic states where high union pensions must be dealt with; such as California.

So, ask yourself this, isn't ObamaCare a major part of the real war on women since it fights against their natural instinct to care for themselves and their families?


References:

Another 25 million ObamaCare victims: http://nypost.com/2014/01/14/another-25-million-obamacare-victims/

Obamacare Sticker Shock Found in Deductibles, Not Premiums: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/02/03/Obamacare-Sticker-Shock-Found-Deductibles-Not-Premiums

Obamacare website won’t reveal insurance costs for 2015 until after election:  States with key Senate races face double-digit premium hikes: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/14/obamacare-website-wont-reveal-insurance-costs-for-/?page=all

Doctors Begin To Refuse Obamacare Patients: http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/04/doctors-begin-to-refuse-obamacare-patients/

More patients flocking to ERs under Obamacare: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/08/more-patients-flocking-to-ers-under-obamacare/10173015/

Losing Patience, and Patients, With Medicaid: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-04-10/doctors-shun-patients-who-pay-with-medicaid

California Cuts Medicaid Payments Amid Wave of New Users: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-04/california-cuts-medicaid-payments-amid-wave-of-new-users.html

2012: 13 States Cut Medicaid To Balance Budgets: http://kaiserhealthnews.org/news/medicaid-cuts/

States Can Cut Back on Medicaid Payments, Administration Says: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/us/politics/states-can-cut-back-on-medicaid-payments-administration-says.html

pb




Wednesday, October 29, 2014

Why Midterm Election Polling Might Be Getting It Wrong

Right now, the Real Clear Politics averages of all polls that are covering the Senatorial elections have the Democrats and the Republicans holding 45 seats each; leaving 10 seats as toss ups and too close to call.  This, then, means that whatever party is able to win 6 of those 10 races will have majority control of the Senate come January.

But, the problem with almost all of these polls is that they don't reflect the historical voter demographics of midterm elections which tend to give Republicans a natural advantage.

First of all, the midterm voters tend to be older; and older voters more often vote Republican.  Also, a large part of the Democrat's base, Blacks, tend not to vote in the midterms. This also proves true for women, who historically favor Democrats. On the other hand,  non-black males show up and tend to vote Republican.

So, when you look at it from a sampling basis, women and blacks are typically over-polled relative to historical turnout rates. At the same time, men and older Americans are being under polled.  This is clearly true in Kansas that has Greg Orman leading Republican Pat Roberts 45 to 44 percent.  There, men were under polled 49% to 51% for women. Yet, historically, men have a higher turnout than women.  Also 45% of those polled were under age 45; despite more older voters expected to show up.  While it is true that sorting out the "likely voters" from those polled helps adjust for the demographic turn out rates, that action still doesn't take into account for the turnout rates of the individual groups mentioned above.

These are the reasons why I think that a Republican win is being grossly understated and why most of those "too close to call" races are probably more Republican than the Real Clear Politics averages suggest.  Thus, expect Republicans to win on the high side of the predicted 5 to 8 seats of the 10 toss up races.

References:

Real Clear Politics: 2014 Senate Races: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2014/senate/2014_elections_senate_map.html

Voter turnout always drops off for midterm elections, but why?: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/24/voter-turnout-always-drops-off-for-midterm-elections-but-why/

How the Rise of Reagan Seniors Helps Republicans in November: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-09-25/reagan-loving-senior-voters-give-republicans-an-advantage-in-midterm-elections-and-maybe-control-of-congress

2014 Midterm Elections: More Women In The Electorate, But More Men Vote: http://www.ibtimes.com/2014-midterm-elections-more-women-electorate-more-men-vote-1712601

Women More Likely to Be Democrats, Regardless of Age: http://www.gallup.com/poll/120839/women-likely-democrats-regardless-age.aspx

Obama looks to black radio listeners to boost (black) Dem votes in midterms: http://www.theind.com/news/indnews/19331-obama-looks-to-black-radio-listeners-to-boost-dem-votes-in-midterms

Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball:  Current outlook: Republicans net 5-8 Senate seats: http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/2014-senate/

Kansas Senatorial Race: NBC/Marist Poll: http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/misc/KSpolls/KS141018/Complete%20October%2026,%202014%20Kansas%20NBC%20News__Marist%20Poll%20Release%20and%20Tables.pdf



Tuesday, October 28, 2014

Obama's EPA Reg's Are At Odds With The Coal Miners

The United Mine Workers Union has been a traditional voting base for the Democrats.

However, Obama's plan to kill the coal industry through harsh EPA restrictions on coal usage may just bring that relationship to an end; and, in doing so, ruin the lives of 20,000 active miners.  But, the pain won't stop there.  40,000 retired workers and their 50,000 dependents and spouses could lose their pension benefits because there just won't be enough active workers left to support those benefits.

This is why, on October 7th, 300 miners picketed on the steps of the main headquarters of the EPA.  So, I guess the President has a choice.  Continue with the current course and tick off the mine workers and other sympathetic union members, or put a halt to the harsh restrictions on coal usage and tick off the environmental wing of the Democratic party.  With both actions costing votes.

By the way.  The pain won't only be felt by the current miners, retirees, and their families.  Whole communities depend on the dollars spent by all those workers.   As a result, some towns may cease to exist with people being literally forced to leave behind their homes in an attempt to survive.

References:

Unions protest EPA power plant proposal: http://washingtonexaminer.com/unions-protest-epa-power-plant-proposal/article/2554495

Wikipedia: United Mine Workers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Mine_Workers

Monday, October 27, 2014

Hillary Clinton: Raising the Minimum Wage Won't Kill Jobs

At a recent campaign rally, Hillary Clinton said this: “Don’t let anybody tell you that raising the minimum wage will kill jobs, they always say that.”

That comment is sheer stupidity. Forcing higher wages always puts jobs at risk.  It is why union jobs have declined from a peak of 35% of the workforce in 1954 to today's meager 9%.  The same is true for minimum wage jobs.

Millions of minimum wage jobs have already been lost to automation. Raising it will only hasten that trend.

One of the most plentiful minimum wage jobs before the introduction of the fast food restaurant was that of the gas station attendant at a full-service gas station.  Millions of these jobs have been eliminated by the broad application of automated self-service pumps. ATM's have replaced the need for millions of teller jobs.  Self-checkout lanes in grocery stores and stores like Home Depot are also killing  jobs.  Many hotels and motels have abandoned sit-down breakfast, lunch and dinner restaurants in favor of a complimentary self-serve breakfast that is easily handled by only one or two members of the normal housekeeping staff; thus eliminating minimum wage waitresses, busboys, and dishwashers.  

I guarantee, that if there is another 40% increase in the minimum wage to $10.25 an hour in the next year or so, there will be an eventual blood bath of these jobs being lost.

First, small businesses that are heavily labor intensive and already marginally profitable will have to shutter their doors because, to raise prices in order to cover the higher cost of labor, would make them non-competitive to other, more labor-efficient competitors.  Others will raise prices but, as a result, may see a loss of foot traffic because some of their customers will no longer be able to afford the new higher prices.  As a result, this could cause layoffs or, worst case, bankruptcy.  This would be especially true for businesses who are operating in blighted and economically depressed areas of our major metropolitan cities such as Detroit.  Areas that can ill afford any more job losses.

Secondly, automation will become more cost effective.  I could easily see robotic arms, hanging from  ceilings, in retrofitted fast food restaurants, that are able to cook and bag fries, cook and assemble sandwiches, or do whatever.  Kiosks could easily replace order takers and cashiers. All the while killing jobs.  The technology is already here.  After all, look at all the manufacturing jobs that have already succumbed to robotics.  And, artificial intelligence has advanced to the point where we already have self-driving and self-parking cars.  So, cooking and assembling a burger can't be that impossible for a machine to do. In fact it isn't impossible.  A company by the name of Momentum Machines will soon start introducing gourmet burger operations that are fully robotic.  Some hotels are already introducing robotic butlers that would replace traditional bell hops.  Then, too, there is already a robot, called the Vigilant MCP, that is able to replace your average low-paid security guard.

So, go ahead and believe Hillary.  But, don't say you weren't warned when the inevitable loss of jobs begins happening. To me, pushing a higher minimum wage will only hasten to push those kinds of jobs out of existence.

One last thing.  In that very same speech, Hillary made another remarkable claim: “Don’t let anybody tell you that it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs...”  Well, every month, when the government reports job gains, it's from the private sector.  Typically, 64% of those jobs are from small businesses with the rest from larger businesses and corporations.

She wants to be our next President?  Sometimes, even the idiot Joe Biden makes more sense.  At least he's honest about not being rich!

References:

“Don’t let anybody tell you that raising the minimum wage will kill jobs, they always say that.”: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/26/hillary-clinton-corporations-and-businesses-dont-create-jobs/

Labor unions in the United States: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions_in_the_United_States

AI, Robotics, and the Future of Jobs: http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/08/06/future-of-jobs/

The ‘Fight for $15’ Suffers A Setback As McDonald’s Flirts With Automation: http://dailycaller.com/2014/10/25/the-fight-for-15-suffers-a-setback-as-mcdonalds-flirts-with-automation/

Here's The Burger-Flipping Robot That Could Put Fast-Food Workers Out Of A Job: http://www.businessinsider.com/momentum-machines-burger-robot-2014-8

Panera Bread Will Replace Cashiers With Robots By 2016: http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/14/panera-bread-will-replace-cashiers-with-robots-by-2016/

McDonald's orders 7,000 touchscreen kiosks to replace cashiers: http://www.neowin.net/news/mcdonalds-orders-7000-touchscreen-kiosks-to-replace-cashiers

Nextep Systems: Self Order Kiosks for Restaurants: http://nextepsystems.com/who-we-serve/restaurants/13?gclid=Cj0KEQjwt7KiBRD9lOePpe_BhrgBEiQAHaS_1yFKWq6AEfaYRemW_3C8rXA2vU2-R5MTDdcYbbpSRu4aAnf48P8HAQ

Robot Butlers: Automated Room Service at Aloft Hotels!: http://www.travelandtourworld.com/news/article/robot-butlers-automated-room-service-aloft-hotels/

Mass Produced Security Robots Introduced in U.S.: http://www.activistpost.com/2014/08/mass-produced-security-robots.html

Employment Report: Table A: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm

Small Business Administration: Job Creation: http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/FAQ_Sept_2012.pdf

Joe Biden: I'm not rich: http://www.delawareonline.com/story/firststatepolitics/2014/06/23/biden-not-rich/11265209/






Sunday, October 26, 2014

Both Sides of Gun Control Issue Use Ottawa To Push Their Views

Those who are pro gun control, see the Ottawa Parliament shooting as just another reason to promote gun control here in the United States.  On the other hand, the anti gun control side points to the fact that, if the Sargent of Arms hadn't had a gun in his possession and used it, there could have been many more that were killed. They also believe that, even if the gunman had no access to a gun, the religious fervor of the Ottawa terrorist would have driven him to use some other type of weapon; a bomb or even a hatchet; as was seen just recently in New York.

The simple fact is that, unless two-thirds of Americans turn in favor of gun control, it isn't going to happen because it will take that large of a majority to amend the Constitution's specified right to bear arms.  Further, there are millions of guns out there with nearly every bad guy owning at least one.  If there is gun control, only the law abiding would be left without protection against the evil that resides in this country.  The criminals will always be able to get guns and rifles through smuggling, or through the black market.

Friday, October 24, 2014

A Republican Senate Will Put Congress At War With Obama

Since taking office in 2009, President Barack Obama has only had to use his veto power twice.  The reasons for this are quite simple.

In his first two years in office, he had a fully Democrat-controlled Congress.  So, only "friendly" Senate and House bills were sent to the President for his signature.  Thus, they never put the President in the politically awkward position of having to veto a bill.  Then, since 2010, when the House of Representatives went to Republican control, Harry Reid managed to shield the Obama from using his veto power by simply sitting on more than 350 bills that the Republican House had sent over to the Democrat Senate.  Some are being tied up in Democrat-led committees; while the rest are just withering away because Harry Reid won't bring them to the floor for a vote.

If the Senate turns Republican, Reid will lose his majority leadership and all the Senate committees will become controlled by Republicans.  As a result, many of those idled bills will start being passed and sent to the President for his signature.  Now, most of those bills are not going to be to Obama's  political and ideological liking.  Especially the ones that would kill or delay ObamaCare. So, expect a flurry of vetoes that have never been seen in this country before.  Then Obama will be seen as the obstructionist.  Not Congress.

But, another interesting thing might happen with the vetoing of so many bills.  The President's approval rating may drop significantly.  That drop may force some Democrat Senators who are up for, and at risk of losing reelection in 2016, to distance themselves from him by joining the Republicans in overriding those vetoes.  Of course, that will force Obama to use even more executive orders in order to counter any those bills where his veto was overridden.

Lastly, when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid successfully implemented the so-called nuclear option in the Senate, he literally blew up the minority party's ability to use a filibuster to block the passage of certain bills and, the requirement of a minimum of 60 yea votes to approve the President's  nominees to the judicial bench or to any positions in his Administration.  As a consequence, the Senate Republicans lost the ability to do anything to block bills or block presidential nominees.  Many seem to think that, if the Senate goes Republican, the majority leader will reverse the nuclear option. I don't think so. By once again, requiring a 60-vote override of the filibuster, many of those 350 bills in the Senate won't reach cloture and won't even be sent to the Senate floor for a vote because they will just remain tied up in a filibuster by the Democrats.  Thus, if the Senate does go to the Republicans, the minority party Democrats will deservedly find themselves hoisted up on their own petard because they foolishly and selfishly implemented the nuclear option.

Ah yes.  the President's last two years in office could be quite interesting as both he and Congress battle it out in what could only be envisioned as an all out war.


References:

Veto Counts by President: http://www.senate.gov/reference/Legislation/Vetoes/vetoCounts.htm

Stack of 350 Bills Stuck in the Senate: http://www.texasgopvote.com/issues/grow-economy/stack-350-bills-stuck-senate-006985