Obama's Trade Threat With Britain May Hurt Trade

While touring Britain, Barack Obama publicly admonished the Brits for entertaining the idea of exiting the European Union in what is affectionately known as "Brexit" in that country.  He said that any trade negotiations between Britain and the United States would "go to the end of the queue".  In other words, we would deal with everyone else first before dealing with Britain.

A lot of Brits didn't appreciate that statement, nor his attempted meddling in Britain's affairs.  Like a lot of things Obama does It could easily have a negative effect by hurting our trade with Britain. Some may simply stop buying U.S. goods in retaliation; putting us at the back of the queue.  It already may have backfired since more Brits now seem to be supporting Brexit than before his remarks.  Nice going, Barry!

Reference:

Barack Obama's trade threat to Britain has increased support for Brexit as a string of polls show voters are ignoring the US President's claims: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3559099/David-Cameron-s-election-guru-accuses-pro-EU-campaign-celebrating-victory-Obama-s-threats-trade-warns-s-soon-bunting.html

We Don't Need a Trump Wall

In 2015, a Pew Research Center study found that more than one million Mexicans left the U.S. for a variety of reasons, including the recession and a lack of jobs.  The exodus included complete families and even children who were born in this country. While there was still an inflow of new illegals, it does prove that a lack of jobs can reverse illegal immigration.

To that point, we don't need a wall.  What we need to do is enforce the federal law that makes it a crime for employers to hire illegals, and for communities to declare themselves sanctuary cities.  That  law -- Section 1324 of Title 8 of the United State's Code -- makes it illegal to smuggle, transport, harbor, encourage or induce, or aid or abet an illegal alien or aliens.   The fines can be stiff:

First offenders can be fined $250-$2,000 per illegal employee.

For a second offense, the fine is $2,000-$5,000 per illegal employee.

Three or more offenses can cost an employer $3000-$10,000 per illegal employee. A pattern of knowingly employing illegal immigrants can mean extra fines and up to six months in jail for an employer.

- See more at: http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/penalties-for-employers-hiring-illegal-immigrants.html#sthash.ULDOE7St.dpuf

First offenders can be fined $250-$2,000 per illegal employee.

For a second offense, the fine is $2,000-$5,000 per illegal employee.

Three or more offenses can cost an employer $3000-$10,000 per illegal employee. A pattern of knowingly employing illegal immigrants can mean extra fines and up to six months in jail for an employer.

- See more at: http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/penalties-for-employers-hiring-illegal-immigrants.html#sthash.ULDOE7St.dpuf

First offenders can be fined $250-$2,000 per illegal employee.

For a second offense, the fine is $2,000-$5,000 per illegal employee.

Three or more offenses can cost an employer $3000-$10,000 per illegal employee. A pattern of knowingly employing illegal immigrants can mean extra fines and up to six months in jail for an employer.

- See more at: http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/penalties-for-employers-hiring-illegal-immigrants.html#sthash.ULDOE7St.dpuf

First offenders can be fined $250-$2,000 per illegal employee. - See more at: http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/penalties-for-employers-hiring-illegal-immigrants.html#sthash.ULDOE7St.dpuf

• First time offenders: $250 to $2,000 per illegal employee
• Second time Offenders: $2,000 to $5,000 per illegal employee
• More than the above:  the fines can range from $3000 to $10000 per illegal employee and can include jail time.

I am sure that if Congress added a reward system for identifying violating employers, in general, would stop hiring illegals.

Simply, the cutting off of the ability to find work and sanctuary could both slow and reverse our illegal immigration problem.

References:

More Mexicans leaving US than entering, study says: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/11/20/more-mexicans-leaving-us-than-entering-study-says.html

1907. Title 8, U.S.C. 1324(a) Offenses: https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1907-title-8-usc-1324a-offenses

Penalties for Hiring an Illegal Immigrant: http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/penalties-for-employers-hiring-illegal-immigrants.html

A $15 Minimum Wage? Try $4.25 a Day in Mexico!

I think a lot of people in this country take for granted how fortunate we are to live in this country.

While entry level workers in this country are marching in the streets for a near doubling of the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour,  workers in Mexico just got a 4.2% raise in their minimum wage to 73.04 pesos a day as of January 1st.  On that day, that was the equivalent of just $4.25 a day in U.S. dollars.

Mexico is a poor country with the World Bank estimating that 53.2% of the country living in poverty.  Worse yet, the World Bank estimated that, in 2012, 10.3% of that country's population lived on $3.10 a day or less.  Think about that when you're spending $5 at Starbucks for your daily venti frappucino.

The point here being is twofold.

First, these numbers explain why most of those coming across our southern border are Mexicans.   They aren't so much wanting to come here but, instead, more interested in escaping severe poverty in their own country.

Secondly, I hate it when a company like Ford or Nabisco or Carrier is forced to move manufacturing to Mexico in order to be more competitive on costs with products made in other countries.  But, when they do, it is really a kind of humanitarian aid.  Today, nearly 1 million Mexicans are building U.S. and European cars in that country with the average hourly wage of 90 pesos.  About $5.64 an hour in U.S. dollars. And for those workers, the need to come to this country is abated.

So, the bottom line is that we could do ourselves a favor by, somehow, instituting something akin to the post-World War II Marshall Plan to build that country's economy, reduce poverty, and help Mexicans earn a fair wage.  In doing so, we could slow illegal immigration into this country.

References:

Mexico Approves an Increase to the Daily Minimum Wage for 2016: https://www.littler.com/publication-press/publication/mexico-approves-increase-daily-minimum-wage-2016

Mexico Data: http://data.worldbank.org/country/mexico

Poverty Headcount by Country: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.2DAY

US, Mexican and Canadian autoworkers face common fight: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/08/12/mexi-a12.html

Suing Exxon Mobil? How About Al Gore and Other Alarmists?

Apparently, in a meeting held in late March, 14 attorney's general have joined New York state's Attorney General Eric Schneiderman in investigating whether or not Exxon Mobil mislead the investment community on the minimal effects of climate change when their own internal research said otherwise.  If so, Schneiderman expects to extract a pound, or two, or more of flesh from the energy giant which will lead the way for hundreds of similar extortions throughout the energy industry.  Al Gore, who also attended that meeting, likened it to the cigarette industry's downplaying of the effects of cigarette smoking when its own research clearly proved it harmful and, in some cases, lethal.  Last I heard, we breathe in CO2; and even though there's more of it, we are actually living longer. Of course, the real intent by all of these Democrats such as Schneiderman and Gore is to shutdown freedom of speech; and to ultimately put an end to all climate change deniers.  In typical fashion, the Democrats are using the law and lawsuits to achieve that very end.

But, aren't climate alarmists just as guilty of telling lies?

Al Gore, especially.  In his movie, The Inconvenient Truth, he claimed that the seas would rise 20 feet unless we took steps to abate climate change.  But, the real inconvenient truth is that, based on an average rise of about one-tenth of an inch per year or 10 inches a century, we won't see a 20 foot rise for more than 2,000 years.  Then, there was his claim that the Arctic would be ice free by 2012.  It's now 2016 and the latest report from NASA is that polar ice is not receding due to climate change.  Then, there was the claim (not by Gore) that 4.5 billion people (half the world's population) would die by 2012 due to climate change....and the alarmist lies just keep flowing!

The fact is, that climate change alarmists appear to be free to scare the bejesus out of the world with false claims and without impunity. But, it is literally alright to crucify Exxon Mobil for possibly doing the same thing. I emphasize "possibly" since some of their research may actually disprove climate change being caused by man-made CO2.

Isn't it great to live in a supposedly fair and free society with free speech for some and not all?

References:

Exxon Mobil Climate Change Inquiry in New York Gains Allies: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/30/science/new-york-climate-change-inquiry-into-exxon-adds-prosecutors.html

Al Gore Global Warming Movie Responses: 10 Facts 'An Inconvenient Truth' Got Wrong: http://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/al-gore-global-warming-movie/2014/12/15/id/612566/

Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/05/19/updated-nasa-data-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/#339645f932da

7 Enviro Predictions From Earth Day 1970 That Were Just Dead Wrong: http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/22/7-enviro-predictions-from-earth-day-1970-that-were-just-dead-wrong/

Global Warming Could Kill 4.5 Billion by 2012—Does That Have Your Attention?: http://reason.com/blog/2007/01/09/global-warming-could-kill-45-b

Failed Climate Change Predictions: https://anotherslownewsday.wordpress.com/global-warming-failed-predictions/

Happy Earth Day! China Dumps Wind...Japan Builds Coal Plants!

Once again, the environmental activists around the world got their Earth Day on April 22.  Speeches were given. Trees were planted. But, this year, something special happened.  175 nations signed the Paris Climate Agreement on that day.... So, ah yes, the earth will be saved.

The only problem with the so called non-binding Paris Climate Agreement is that it is already being "unbound" by both China and Japan in massive ways.

China -- the world's largest polluter with CO2 making up nearly a third of the world's carbon emissions and the world's leader in wind power -- has recently decided to pull the plug on wind power expansion.  The reason?  Too much of the power is wasted and wind variability is causing damage to the electrical grid because of surging.  So, we have to assume that China -- who already brings a new coal fired plant online every 7 to 10 days -- will have to step that rate up in order meet its rapidly growing demand for electricity.

Japan, too, is bringing 43 new coal plants online because, following the Fukushima
accident, it is shutting down its nuclear plants and replacing them with coal.  Apparently, wind and solar were not an option.  Probably for economic reasons.

In my opinion, Japan and China are demonstrating how flawed the push towards renewable sources of energy is.  In the U.S., we have an Ivanpah solar power plant in California which -- at a cost of $2.2 billion -- is a failure.  Unable, to produce the promised amount of power, it may actually be shutdown if more tax breaks and tax money aren't poured into it.

Simply, neither wind nor solar are sustainable, consistent, and reliable sources of energy.  And, the world's dependence on fossil fuels will never go away.  Earth Day or not.

References:

175 countries sign Paris Climate Agreement: http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/energy-and-environment/175-countries-sign-paris-climate-agreement/article8512480.ece

World's Largest Polluters: https://www.google.com/search?q=world+largest+polluter&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

China is a world leader in wind power generation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_China

China Stops Building Wind Turbines Because Most Of The Energy Is Wasted: http://www.headlines-news.com/2016/03/30/1045288/china-stops-building-wind-turbines-because-most-of-the-energy-is-wasted

As U.S. Shutters Coal Plants, China and Japan are Building Them: http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/as-u-s-shutters-coal-plants-china-and-japan-are-building-them/ 

Could California’s massive Ivanpah solar power plant be forced to go dark?: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/could-californias-massive-ivanpah-solar-power-plant-be-forced-to-go-dark-2016-03-16 

Democrats Bury Their Racist Past With a $20 Bill

Just recently, the Treasury Department announced that it was replacing Andrew Jackson's face on the twenty dollar bill with that of Harriet Tubman.  It is interesting that it is being done in this, an election year, by a Democrat-run Treasury Department and without any approvals from anyone but themselves and, I suppose, Barack Obama.  In one fell swoop, Democrats have achieved putting a black woman on the old "Jackson" bill.  How's that for currying favor (and votes) from both women and black voters.

It is also interesting that this Democrat Treasury would chose to give Jackson, a former President, the boot rather than remove some other non-President like Hamilton or Ben Franklin.  Because, you see, it was the philosophy of the Jackson Democracy that ultimately evolved into the Democrat Party.  In fact, the symbol of the party, the donkey, was first used by Jackson.  During the 1828 elections, he was referred to by his opponents as a "Jackass",  and rather than reject that accusation, he decided, instead, to use it as a campaign symbol.

However, I do think that the real reason for replacing Jackson with the black abolitionist Tubman is the fact that this Democrat Treasury could, then, erase a slave-owning Democrat President from constant public view.  You see, Jackson was quite the slaver.  He owned a 1,000 acre plantation known as the Hermitage Plantation that was exclusively maintained, cultivated, and harvested by black slaves made up of men, women, and children.  Not exactly the type of image that the modern Democrat Party needs in their historical background.

So...out of sight, out of mind.  Mission accomplished by our first Black President!  And, it was a mission that had no real basis for needing to be done.  Especially when you consider that, for decades, the name "Jackson" has been the generally accepted slang to mean the $20 bill.  My guess is that slang term will last long after the Tubman image has been replaced on the "twenty and Jackson may never really be erased from people's minds.

References:

Hamilton to say on $10, Jackson getting replaced by Tubman: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/treasurys-lew-to-announce-hamilton-to-stay-on-10-bill-222204

Jacksonian Democracy: http://www.history.com/topics/jacksonian-democracy

Slavery | Andrew Jackson's Hermitage Plantation: http://thehermitage.com/learn/mansion-grounds/slavery/

Hillary Sure Loves Income Inequality When Fund Raising

Both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton slam income inequality; with the rich getting richer at a fast rate while the poor and middle class have languished.  But, when Bernie talks income inequality he walks the walk.  Almost all his donations are small and come from  common people who have donated millions to his campaign.   Hillary, on the other hand, utilizes the rich and famous for her donations.

Last weekend, actor George Clooney hosted a $353,000 per couple dinner as a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton.  That's the price to be seated at the table with both Clooney, his wife, and Hillary.  However, if you find $353K a little too steep, you can always buy a cheap-seat next to the kitchen for a mere $33,000.

Hillary once complained that there is something wrong when the average CEO makes 300 times what the average worker makes.  However, this false claim has been debunked because the average CEO pay is really about 4-1/5 times the average worker's pay.  The 300 times number, is again,  another of her distortions based on just 350 top-paid CEO's.

But, one thing is sure, $353K for a dinner is more than 6 thousand times more than what you or I would pay at a fine-dining restaurant in America.  That's some real income inequality.  Even the cheap meal at $33K is more than 1100 times what the average, per-person cost would be for you and I.  In response, a supporter of Bernie and a neighbor of the Clooneys threw a $27 per seat meal on his behalf.

I think this "little" gala meal for Hillary disqualifies her from ever flapping her jaw about income inequality and CEO pay.

One more thing.  How is it that Hillary can receive a $353K donation from members of the  Hollywood elite or, even, a $33K donation, when you and I are restricted to a personal maximum of $2700 per election?

References:

Clinton asks for $353K to sit with the Clooneys: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/hillary-clinton-george-clooney-fundraiser-221207

Clinton Misuses Stat on CEO Pay: http://www.factcheck.org/2015/05/clinton-misuses-stat-on-ceo-pay/

Average eater check in restaurants in the United States in 2013, by restaurant type (in U.S. dollars): http://www.statista.com/statistics/295801/average-eater-check-in-restaurants-by-restaurant-type-us/

Clooney's neighbor throws Saturday fundraiser for Sanders [$27]: http://www.businessinsider.com/george-clooneys-neighbor-threw-a-counter-fundraiser-for-bernie-sanders-as-hillary-clinton-arrived-for-a-hollywood-fundraiser-2016-4

Federal Election Commission: Campaign Donation Limits: http://www.fec.gov/info/contriblimitschart1516.pdf

pb

Equal Pay Day and Hillary Clinton

Last week, on Equal Pay Day, Hillary Clinton trotted out her consistently false claim that women only make 77 cents on the dollar when compared to men.  Seriously?  Does anyone really think that employers across this nation are underpaying women by 23% and, by doing so, are in direct violation of the federal law entitled the Equal Pay Act of 1963? And, further, those employers are doing it right under the noses of the very federal agency, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which is tasked with insuring that pay discrimination doesn't exist on the basis gender, race, age, or religion. If pay discrimination by sex was so prevalent in this nation, why is it that the EEOC only litigated 26,396 sex discrimination cases last year, of which, only 29.5% were charged as violations of the law.  By Hillary's way of thinking, there should have been millions of cases, with most of them found guilty of discrimination; not just 29.5%.

Here's the truth.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in its latest annual report for 2014 titled Highlights of Women's Earnings, women made an average of 83 cents on the dollar when compared to men; up from 82 cents and 81 cents in 2013 and 2012, respectively.  So, one has to wonder where Hillary got the 77 cents number which she has been repeating for years. Now, you have to understand that this number is an aggregate total of women's wages across all professions that women work in, compared to the aggregate total of wages across all the professions that men work in.

The simple truth is that men gravitate to higher paying jobs while women gravitate towards lower paying jobs.  For example, the Women's Bureau of the Department of Labor, reports that, of the leading 20 jobs held by women, 96% of secretaries are women.  Additionally, women hold 84% of clerk positions; 95% of childcare workers;  71% of waiter/waitresses; and 89% of maids and housekeepers.  On the other hand, women only make up 12% to 39% of high paying jobs in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics; otherwise known as STEM jobs.  Just 36% of women hold a Master of Business Administration (MBA).  A graduate degree that is both highly prized by businesses and well compensated.

Also, there are additional factors that can lower a woman's pay.  For example, women who leave the workforce to raise a family, and then, years later return, will see their pay lowered.  This is why on Table 1 of the "Highlights" report (linked below) and before age 35, women earn 91 cents compared to men.  After 35, the number drops to 81 cents.  But, for women "Never Married", the comparative number is high at 94 cents.  This is also why nearly 80% of part time workers are women, enabling them to  still take care of their families while earning additional wages.  Women also work 52 minutes less per workday than men, and for hourly workers, this represents a 12% drop in average incomes.

The issue here is that Hillary wants women to think they are all victims and, as such, she would be the perfect candidate to take on wage discrimination.  But, unless Hillary can force women to work more hours, seek higher degrees, higher paying jobs, and stop raising families, zero income inequality isn't going to happen.  So, women!  Don't look at the guy working right next to you and think he's making 23% more than you are.  It's a just a political lie!

References:

2016: Equal Pay Day: Hillary Clinton praises members of US women’s football team who are suing for equal pay: A woman in the US earns 77 cents for every dollar that a man makes, on broad average, and women of ethnic minorities earn much less:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/equal-pay-day-hillary-clinton-praises-megan-rapinoe-women-football-players-suing-for-equal-pay-a6981046.html

2007: Last month, Sen. Hillary Clinton expressed consternation that women continue to make "just 77 cents for every dollar that a man makes": http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/02/AR2007040201262.html

Equal Pay Act of 1963 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Pay_Act_of_1963

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission - Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Employment_Opportunity_Commission

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: https://www.eeoc.gov/

Enforcement & Litigation Statistics: https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/charges.cfm

Women's Bureau: 20 Leading Occupations of Employed Women 2010 Annual Averages (employment in thousands): http://www.dol.gov/wb/factsheets/20lead2010_txt.htm

Highlights of women’s earnings in 2014: http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/womens-earnings/archive/highlights-of-womens-earnings-in-2014.pdf

Time spent working by full- and part-time status, gender, and location in 2014: http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2015/time-spent-working-by-full-and-part-time-status-gender-and-location-in-2014.htm

The Gender Scorecard for Business Schools: http://poetsandquants.com/2015/05/02/a-gender-scorecard-for-business-schools/

Women Still Underrepresented in STEM Fields: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/10/21/women-still-underrepresented-in-stem-fields

John Kasich is Delusional

To date, there have been 41 contests (primaries, caucuses, and conventions) in the States, territories, and District of Columbia, that awarded delegates for the GOP nomination at the convention in Cleveland, Ohio later this year.  However, in 26 of those contests, John Kasich has walked away with zero delegates, giving him a loss percentage of 63%.  In three of those contests, he only mustered 1 per contest.  After all that, he is still behind Marco Rubio  -- 171 to 143 -- who has been out of the race for weeks.  Furthermore, there aren't enough delegates left for Kasich win the requisite 1237  to win the nomination; especially when you take into account that he usually runs dead last behind Trump and Cruz in most polls for the remaining states.  The only reason he's running in second place in New York is because of Ted Cruz's "New York values" dis at a debate.  Even so, Kasich can only muster 20-22%  compared to 72% for Trump and Cruz combined.

What does this say about someone who still thinks he's going to win the nomination? In my opinion it speaks volumes about his character and mental state.  While I could use a lot of terms to describe Kasich, let's just leave it as delusional.

References:

Election 2016 — Republican Delegate Count: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/republican_delegate_count.html

New York Republican Presidential Primary Polling: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ny/new_york_republican_presidential_primary-4222.html

Hillary's Humanization of a Fetus Has Planned Parentood in Uproar

Recently, Hillary Clinton referred to a fetus as an unborn child.  For Pro-Choice activists, this was anathema.  For decades, abortion advocates have sold abortion by characterizing a fetus as no more than some type of appendage in a woman's body.  Free for her to dispose of like a tumor.  Therefore, they can easily advocate removing it as "a woman's right to chose".

Now, Hillary, herself a Pro-Choicer, has inadvertently and very publicly humanized the fetus.  A Planned Parenthood executive believes that she has further stigmatized abortion with that comment.  Why?  Because if the truth be told, a fetus is a human and, abortion is the killing of a human.  This is why, in most states, if a fetus dies when a pregnant woman is murdered, it is called fetal homicide.  And, as such, the murderer is often charged with two counts of homicide.

References:

Planned Parenthood Exec Slams Hillary Clinton For Calling A ‘Fetus’ An ‘Unborn Child’: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/04/04/planned-parenthood-exec-slams-hillary-clinton-calling-fetus-unborn-child/

Fetal Homicide Laws: http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

Ted Cruz's Stunning Lack of Senatorial Endorsements

As of this writing, only 3 U.S. Republican Senators -- Mike Lee, Lindsey Graham, and John Risch -- have endorsed Senator Ted Cruz for their party's nomination.  What makes this so mystifying, is the fact that only Cruz can stop Trump from getting the 1,237 delegates needed to win going into the GOP Convention.  So, one would think that most of the GOP Senators would be tripping all over themselves to see that he has significant wins in the remaining state contests.

But, no.  The lack of Senators endorsing him merely re-enforces the notion that Cruz is  disliked by the very people that had to work with him in his last 3+ years in the Senate.   So much so, that they are willing to let Trump get his 1,237 delegates and, in doing so, avoid either a brokered or contested convention that could result in someone other than Trump being nominated..

In my opinion, this shows how unqualified Cruz is. Evidently, he's unable to work with his Republican peers; let alone with any Democrats.  Do we really want a Presidential candidate that can't get anything done because of his personality?  It must have really taken some effort on his part to literally become the most disliked man in Congress.


Reference:

Endorsements for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorsements_for_the_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016#Ted_Cruz

Why Everyone (in Congress) Hates Ted Cruz -- NYMag: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/12/why-everyone-in-congress-hates-ted-cruz.html

Why D.C. Hates Ted Cruz - The Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/why-dc-hates-ted-cruz/426915/

New York & California Just Killed Entrepreneurship

In just 16 years, the minimum wage in the State of California will see a rise of 222% from $6.75 in 2006 to $15 in 2022.  That is an average annual increase of nearly 14%.  In New York, the increase to $15 from, again, $6.75 in 2006 is more complicated as follows:

• For workers in New York City employed by large businesses (those with at least 11 employees), the minimum wage would rise to $11 at the end of 2016, then another $2 each year, reaching $15 on 12/31/2018.
• For workers in New York City employed by small businesses (those with 10 employees or fewer), the minimum wage would rise to $10.50 by the end of 2016, then another $1.50 each year, reaching $15 on 12/31/2019.
• For workers in Nassau, Suffolk and Westchester Counties, the minimum wage would increase to $10 at the end of 2016, then $1 each year, reaching $15 on 12/31/2021.
• For workers in the rest of the state, the minimum wage would increase to $9.70 at the end of 2016, then another .70 each year, until reaching $12.50 on 12/31/2020 – then  continue to increase to $15 on an indexed schedule to be set by the Director of the Division of Budget in consultation with the Department of Labor.

The reality is that no other class of workers has seen that kind of increase.  In fact, assuming a 2% raise a year, it would take the middle class worker an average of 111 years to have a 222% rise in their salaries.

The point is that many people will find themselves less able to afford products and services that are heavily dependent on low wage workers; such as fast food businesses, retail, hospitality, and leisure.  The same goes for this nation's 55 million seniors, who, at best have seen increases of just 1% a year in their Social Security checks.  Additionally, millions more, such as waiters and waitresses, won't be eligible for minimum wage because they earn tips.  And, so too, for the three quarters of 47 million Americans in poverty who aren't even working.

More importantly, the $15 wage will accelerate the death of entrepreneurship and its ability to create jobs.  It will be much more expensive to start new businesses that generally depend heavily on entry level employees.  Entrepreneurship has already been in decline for decades, but now it will become a much higher risk proposition.  Even before instituting this excessive wage, 1-in-4 startup businesses failed in the first year.  50% will be kicked to the curb in just 4 years, and operational costs are one of the 4 main reasons for failure.

I hope I'm wrong, but I think the $15 minimum wage will be a real job creation killer.  And, in fact, a job killer for businesses who must raise prices, and in turn, lose customers who can't afford those price hikes. Also, the $15 minimum wage will bring in automation to replace the humans making that wage.  Already, you can rent a robo-security guard that can hear, smell, and has 360 degree night vision for just $6.25 an hour.  So, if you can already automate a security guard, it only seems logical that other lesser tasks, such as flipping burgers, will follow suit.

References:

Governor Cuomo Signs $15 Minimum Wage Plan and 12 Week Paid Family Leave Policy into Law: https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-signs-15-minimum-wage-plan-and-12-week-paid-family-leave-policy-law

California, New York enact $15 minimum wages: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/04/05/california-new-york-enact-15-minimum-wages.html

California Minimum Wage 2006: https://www.google.com/search?q=california+minimum+wage+in+2007&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

New York Minimum Wage 2006: https://www.google.com/search?q=minimum+wage+in+new+york+in+2006&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Minimum Wage - United States Department of Labor: Questions and Answers About the Minimum Wage: http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/q-a.htm

The Mysterious Death of Entrepreneurship in America: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/entrepreneurship-in-america-is-dying-wait-what-does-that-actually-mean/362097/

The Slow Death of American Entrepreneurship: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-slow-death-of-american-entrepreneurship/

Startup Business Failure Rate By Industry: http://www.statisticbrain.com/startup-failure-by-industry/

The Four Major Reasons for New Business Failure: http://smallbusiness.chron.com/four-major-reasons-new-business-failure-51924.html

Rent A Robot Security Guard for $6.25 an Hour: http://www.psfk.com/2014/12/rent-a-silicon-valley-security-bot-for-6-25-per-hour.html

Religion and Why Cruz Can't Win the Presidency

One of the reasons that I, as a conservative, personally don't think that either Ted Cruz or John Kasich are going to win the general election is because they are both too religious in a society that has become less and less so.

For example, previously, I have criticized Kasich for expanding Medicaid in Ohio because it is a broken system, and expanding it will only make hospital and doctor availability worse for the current base who is already having difficulty in that area.  Yet, Kasich, in defending his actions as Governor of Ohio, said simply "read the bible".   Thus, he demonstrated that religion overruled logic and common sense on his Medicaid expansion decision.

The same is true with Cruz.

Recently, in a town hall interview with Fox's Megyn Kelly, Cruz said that Roe v. Wade is not settled law.  Thus he implied it could be overturned.  My problem with that is, in this country, one of the guiding principles of our legal system is "stare decisis".  In Latin, it basically means that [prior] decisions stand.  Otherwise, we would be continually re-litigating the same issues over and over again.  Thus, Roe v. Wade has become the "stare decisis" for abortion in this country.  As a lawyer, Cruz has to know this; but, in order to garner evangelical votes, he lies.  He also has to know that the only real way Roe v. Wade can be overturned is through an Amendment to the Constitution; which has a very high hurdle rate to effect passage.  Now, this is not to say that the nation's highest court can't reverse itself, but it is a tricky process requiring another case that would shed new light on the prior decision having precedence.

Further, he implied that, in banning abortion, there would be no exceptions for rape [or, I guess, incest] by saying this:

"When it comes to rape, rape is a horrific crime against the humanity of a person, and needs to be punished and punished severely..." "But at the same time, as horrible as that crime is, I don't believe it's the child's fault."

Once, again, this is a personal religious belief that is not consistent with our society as a whole.  In polling since 1975, Gallup has found that only about one-in-five Americans share it.  And, consistently, since the 1990's, more than half of those polled believe that abortion should be legal under any circumstance.

If Cruz gets the nomination, Hillary or any other Democrat will beat him over the head with his stand on abortion; with this issue just re-enforcing the GOP's  so-called "war on women" narrative.  Additionally, his stand on abortion will be seen as extreme by most of the nation.  And, I am sure that legal experts will also way in against him.

References:

John Kasich Tells Critics Of Medicaid Expansion To Read The Bible: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/john-kasich-bible-medicaid_us_56140a54e4b022a4ce5fb1e3

Ted Cruz in Wisconsin: Roe v. Wade not settled, ban abortion with no exceptions: http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/govt-and-politics/election-matters/ted-cruz-in-wisconsin-roe-v-wade-not-settled-ban/article_28a2deb5-c488-583e-b4ee-5da06f2f1b3e.html

[now-Chief Justice] Roberts Testifies Roe v. Wade is "Settled As a Precedent" But Refuses to Say Whether He Would Reverse Abortion Ruling: http://www.democracynow.org/2005/9/14/roberts_testifies_roe_v_wade_is

10 Overturned Supreme Court Cases | HowStuffWorks: http://money.howstuffworks.com/10-overturned-supreme-court-cases.htm 

Ted Cruz and Pastors Smite Donald Trump in Wisconsin: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/06/ted-cruz-pours-fuel-on-trumpster-fire-with-a-little-help-from-god.html 

Gallup polling on abortion: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

Defending Bill Clinton Versus Black Lives Matter On Crime

Apparently, a big issue among blacks, and especially the Black Lives Matter group, is the 1994 crime bill that Bill Clinton signed into law while President, which they believe has caused mass incarcerations of blacks.  At a rally, he was forced to dress down Black Lives Matter protestors over that very issue.

Its not often that I defend Bill Clinton, but the 1994 Violent Crime Control Act along with the gun control bill called the Brady Bill (which Clinton also signed into law that same year), have gone a long way in saving lives and reducing crime in this country.

In the 1990's, when Clinton came to office, crime was out of control; especially violent crime and murder.  Murders hit a record high of 24,700 in 1991 and the incidences of violent crime also hit a record 1.9 million in 1992.   As of 2014, murders hit a low of 14,249 and violent crimes are down to 1.2 million.  And, yes, because of those two laws by Clinton, black incarcerations have gone up.

But, understand, according to FBI statistics, blacks commit more crimes relative to their percentage of the population.  While they makeup just 12% of the population, they commit 52.2% of all murders/manslaughters.  They commit 56% of robberies, and overall, 28.3% of all crimes categorized by the FBI.  So, its only logical that they would have a higher incarceration rate (32%).  Also understand, that blacks have a higher rate of recidivism which is generally blamed on higher rates of poverty which stands at 27% compared to 15.4% for the general population.  Additionally, higher black rates of unemployment and higher rates of illiteracy force them to commit higher amounts of crime.  According to the Department of Education, 70% of prison inmates are functionally illiterate.

The bottom line is that Clinton accomplished a reduction of crime.  Especially when you consider that the population of this country is 22% higher than it was in 1994.  Therefore, proportionately, the reductions are even more dramatic.  Now, while the crime bill itself really only addressed getting criminals off the streets, it fell woefully short in reducing the very reasons for crime.  That's what Black Lives Matter protesters should be focused on and not the 22 year old crime bill itself.  Also, blacks need to take responsibility for their high rates of crime and incarceration; starting with education, leading to improved literacy rates, and ultimately, better jobs.

References:

Bill Clinton spars with Black Lives Matter protesters: http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/07/politics/bill-clinton-black-lives-matter-protesters/index.html

20 Years Later, Parts Of Major Crime Bill Viewed As Terrible Mistake: http://www.npr.org/2014/09/12/347736999/20-years-later-major-crime-bill-viewed-as-terrible-mistake

United States Crime Rates 1960 - 2014: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

U.S. Population 1994: https://www.google.com/search?q=u.s+population+in+1994&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

FBI: Arrests by Race and Crime: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-43

Prisoner Populations in 2013: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p13.pdf

Criminal Recidivism: the Plight of African American Male Youth: https://psychsocialissues.com/2013/11/20/criminal-recidivism-the-plight-of-african-american-male-youth/

Poverty in Black America: http://blackdemographics.com/households/poverty/

Illiteracy Statistics:  http://www.statisticbrain.com/number-of-american-adults-who-cant-read/

Ted Cruz's False Narrative Regarding Eliminating the IRS

Throughout his campaign, Ted Cruz has continued to say that he will abolish the IRS by having a simple flat tax where you need only file a return in the form of a postcard.  But, what about that "postcard"? Who is going to verify that what you put on it is the truth?  Cruz seems to forget that the administrative task of verification of income is one of the primary functions of the agency.  A flat tax may reduce paperwork, and, as such, reduce some IRS personnel; but some number of people are still going to be needed to process the 236 million postcards that the agency would expect to receive each year. 

Also, the IRS is tasked with collecting all the money. Apparently, Cruz thinks that processing the $2.7 trillion dollars a year, will somehow, magically, be taken care of.  To  say he will abolish the IRS is a bunch of political B.S. from Cruz the "B.S.-er"; or as Trump would say: "Lying Ted".

References:

'We will abolish the IRS': Ted Cruz wins crowd in Camp Hill: http://www.pennlive.com/news/2016/04/we_will_abolish_the_irs_ted_cr.html

Abolish the IRS! - CNN Money: http://money.cnn.com/2015/11/04/pf/taxes/abolish-the-irs/

Number of Tax Returns Processed by the IRS: https://www.google.com/search?q=number+of+tax+returns+a+year&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Is Black Lives Matter Killing Blacks?

The Black Lives Matter movement grew out of the belief that police were specifically targeting and killing unarmed blacks across the United States.  As a result, there has been public and federal pressure for police to pull back on policing activity.  Less traffic stops.  Less confrontations with blacks in general.  Adding to the problem, Police Officers are now so afraid of being charged with a crime that they are hesitating to effectively do their jobs.  As a result, less guns and fewer potentially violent criminals are being taken off the streets.

In Chicago, police traffic stops are down 90%, while gun violence is skyrocketing.  Murders, alone, are up 72% from last year, and it is estimated that the city is trending to have 700 murders this year, or approximately 1/20th of all the murders in the United States. More importantly, 71% of the murders in Chicago are of blacks. While, as of this writing, there have been 105 blacks murdered out of the 151 total in the city, the number of police-involved homicides is just 2 (races unknown).

So, this begs the question;  Are reduced policing activities killing more blacks?  You be the judge.  Is the Black Lives Matter movement actually killing more blacks than saving their lives?

References:

Chicago Police Stops Down By 90 Percent As Gun Violence Skyrockets: https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20160331/bronzeville/chicago-police-stops-down-by-90-percent-as-gun-violence-skyrockets

Chicago Gun Violence stats: http://heyjackass.com/

Chicago's Murder Rate Soars 72% In 2016; Shootings Up More Than 88%: http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/04/03/chicagos-murder-rate-soars-72-2016-shootings-more-88

Apple's Hubris Leads to Public Embarrasment of iPhone Security

For decades, Apple Computer's main source of pride was its product's security.  First, it was the Mac's that seemed impervious to viruses that often plagued IBM PC's.  In the latest iteration of their vaunted security and privacy protection, Apple publicly went to war with the FBI over the federal agency's demand that Apple crack the security on an iPhone that was owned by Syed Farook -- the San Bernadino terrorist, and expose its hidden contents.  But, Apple stood firm; even willing to go to federal court to protect the contents of that phone.

However, Apple's stupidity lies in their belief that anything created by them is invincible and can't be cracked.  The publicity over the iPhone battle apparently attracted a third party wanting to prove that the iPhone is vulnerable.  Whether because of pride or for financial reward, someone finally figured out how to hack that phone for the FBI; leaving Apple with a hollow feeling that, at least one party has found a way into its iPhone's security system.  And, if they can do it, others will ultimately prove that they can as well.  If so, the iPhone's security compromise is sure to become widespread and end up in the public domain.

The public fight was sheer tactical stupidity by Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple.  What he should have done is quietly worked with the FBI -- protected by non-disclosure agreements -- to provide the hidden data on that phone.  Now, Apple owners will never again know if their phone is truly secure.

Reference:

FBI hacks into terrorist's iPhone without Apple: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/03/28/apple-justice-department-farook/82354040/

Friday's Job's Report: Another Month of Slow Wage Growth

Last Friday, the employment report for March stated that the country added 215,000 new jobs.  The White House and other Democrats were quick to promote the fact that this was a record 73 months of consecutive job creation.  However, missing in this so-called "record" is the fact that we also had 73 months of record low wage growth as noted by this chart from the St. Louis Federal Reserve's Economic Data (FRED) database:

Click on Image to Enlarge or Click on Link Below

The simple fact is that, even during the recession, year-over-year wage growth was higher than under Obama since his time in office.  This is despite the fact that as of January 1st of last year, 29 states and the District of Columbia had increased their minimum wage.

The reality is that creating a job and creating a good paying job are two different things.  65% of the jobs created in this latest report were low paying, in the categories of retail, hospitality and leisure, and in health services like visiting assistance to the elderly.  Higher paying manufacturing lost 29,000 jobs in the month. 

The bottom line is that low pay increases are resulting in declining buying power for the average American worker.


References:

73 Straight Months of Private Sector Job Growth: http://www.dpcc.senate.gov/?p=blog&id=462

Chart Source: Interactive Chart: https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1Jf5

Where The March Jobs Were: The Minimum Wage Deluge Continues: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-01/where-march-jobs-were-minimum-wage-deluge-continues

State Minimum Wages | Minimum Wage by State: http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/pages/minimum-wage-state

Would You Like a 40% Tax to Go Along With Your High-Cost Family Healthcare Insurance?

March 23rd was the 6th anniversary of ObamaCare.  In typical fashion, the President celebrated all the supposedly goods things (through careful cherry picking) it has done for America.  Of course, he never mentions the bad things that this law has done.  One such "good" claim is that it has slowed the cost increases for medical care.  Well, tell that to the average family of four who has seen the following start to rise again, after falling, before the law actually went into effect:

In fact, the Kaiser Family Foundation expects that the average cost of insurance through ObamaCare will go up 10.1% in 2016; making it one of the biggest yearly jumps in healthcare costs since ObamaCare was passed.

More importantly, the cost of employer-sponsored insurance is just 11-1/2% away from triggering ObamaCare's 40% Cadillac tax on any family healthcare policy that costs more than $27,500 by 2020.

Even if costs only increase at a low of 5.4% per year from now forward, the average family will see that 40% threshold easily achieved by 2020 when that tax kicks in.  One can only guess what the cost of a family insurance plan will be then if those 10.1% or higher premium increases are seen.

One last thing.  While 2010's costs are shown on the 2nd chart, mathematically, we can back into that number from the 7.3% increase in 2011 seen in the first chart.  This means the average cost was $18,753 in 2010.  That also means that the average premium costs have risen $5918 or 32% since ObamaCare became law.  Not at all consistent with Obama's claim that the average family would see a $2500 savings on their healthcare premiums.

References:

7 Obamacare failures that have hurt Americans - MarketWatch: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/7-obamacare-failures-that-have-hurt-americans-2016-03-24

ObamaCare Is Sick, And Getting Sicker, Report Finds: http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/obamacare-is-sick-and-getting-sicker-report-finds/

2015 Milliman Medical Index: http://www.milliman.com/mmi/

Analysis of 2016 Premium Changes in the Affordable Care Act’s Health Insurance Marketplaces: http://kff.org/health-reform/fact-sheet/analysis-of-2016-premium-changes-in-the-affordable-care-acts-health-insurance-marketplaces/

Affordable Care Act Cadillac Tax: http://www.cigna.com/health-care-reform/cadillac-tax