America in 2014: Poorer with More Poverty

Just recently, the U.S. Census Bureau released its annual data on the median household incomes and poverty rates for 2014.

The saddest news from the data is that the average American family (household) lost $800 in income in 2014 as compared to 2013; dropping 1.5% from $54,462/year to just $53,657. The fact that this wasn't widely reported is amazing.  And, its even more amazing when you think that the average American paid 1.6% more for the things they bought in 2014 -- as measured by the Consumer Price Index. This means that with the combination of inflation and a falling wage, the typical American family lost 3.1% or roughly $1690 in buying power in 2014.

Falling wages and higher costs hardly justify the claim that our economy somehow grew by 2.4% in 2014; the supposedly fastest growth since the recession ended in 2009.  Yet, this is what the Obama Administration told us at the beginning of the year.  If you're going to tell a lie, at least be consistent.

The other bad news was that the rate of poverty rose from 14.5% to 14.8% of our population; meaning that 46.7 million people are struggling to make ends meet. Even worse than that, 26.2% of blacks and 23.6% of Hispanics were in poverty in 2014 while whites had a rate of just 10.1%.

It's numbers like these that make the so-called low unemployment numbers and stronger economic growth claims meaningless to the average American.

References:

Typical American Family Earned $53,657 Last Year: http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/16/news/economy/census-poverty-income/

Historical Inflation Rates: http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/historical-inflation-rates/

U.S. 2.4% Economic Growth In 2014 Strongest Since Recession:  http://www.forbes.com/sites/samanthasharf/2015/01/30/u-s-economy-grew-2-6-in-fourth-quarter-2-4-in-2014/

Record Heat? Where Are the Records Being Broken?

By presenting the following map, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA) claims that the first 6 months of this year continued the earth's record setting warming trend:

Of course, this follows a similar map that claims 2014 was the hottest year on record:

In both of these maps, the darker pink is where temperatures are much warmer than normal and the red is where record heat has occurred.  For the U.S., the only area on these two maps where there was record heat was on the West Coast.  Most consistently, in the cities on California's coast line.

Logically, it would follow that if records are being set, previous records would have to fall.  So, I went to the weather site Intellicast and found the current weather data for the following California cities: San Diego, Los Angeles, and San Francisco.  Once there, I clicked on the "Historical Averages" section which brought me to a webpage where you not only get average temperatures, rainfall, etc., you also can look at record highs for each day of the year and in what year that record was set.  Checking all 365 days of weather records for those three cities, not one record high temperature was broken in either 2014 or 2015.  In fact, many of the record highs for any given day go back decades.  For example, the hottest single-day record for the month of July was set in 1930.

Is this proof that global warming and NOAA (including NASA) are all frauds?  Perhaps the greatest scientific fraud ever perpetrated on mankind (see link below).

References:

The First Half of 2015 Was the Hottest Ever: http://time.com/3966587/2015-climate-change-heat/

NASA, NOAA Find 2014 Warmest Year in Modern Record: https://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-record

Intellicast Historical Data for San Diego: http://www.intellicast.com/Local/History.aspx?location=USCA0982

Intellicast Historical Data for Los Angeles: http://www.intellicast.com/Local/History.aspx?location=USCA0638

Intellicast Historical Data for San Fransisco: http://www.intellicast.com/Local/History.aspx?location=USCA0987

The Greatest Scientific Fraud of All Time--Part VI:  http://manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2015/7/21/the-greatest-scientific-fraud-of-all-time-part-v

The State of the Union Address and 2014 'Hottest Year' Reports

Its a miracle!  A miracle that two separate agencies of the federal government could work independently on two separate reports and manage to release both on the very same day.  But, it happened.  Both NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA) simultaneously released reports that proved that 2014 was the hottest year on earth on record.  Or, at least, the hottest in the last 130 years of record keeping.

The New York Times celebrated the event with this headline: "2014 Breaks Heat Record, Challenging Global Warming Skeptics."

Wow! This must be really something!  Well, it would be until you find out that this new hottest record was broken by only one one-hundredths of a degree.  The supposed previous record was 58.45 degrees.  The new record literally clobbered the old with a temperature of 58.46 degrees.  Of course, for political reasons, the liberal and pro-climate change initiatives, the New York Times wouldn't tell us that.  Instead, they simply reported that the record was broken.

But, there's a problem with data used in creating these reports.  Both reports are based on thousands of surface thermometer readings from all over the world.  Some are maintained and properly calibrated; and, some not. Sometimes they break and the replacement may read hotter than the old one. Many depend on a hopefully diligent human to accurately and manually record the data; every hour on the hour.  Then, that data must be again manually entered into a centralized computer database which is always subject to fat-fingered data entry errors. As the noted climatologist  Dr. Roy Spencer said in putting down the accuracy of the two reports:

'The thermometer network is made up of a patchwork of non-research quality instruments that were never made to monitor long-term temperature changes to tenths or hundredths of a degree, and the huge data voids around the world are either ignored or in-filled with fictitious data.'

These two reports also contradict the RSS or Remote Sensing System's satellite data which is certainly more accurate and which collects data automatically from places that no thermometer even exists.  Like the mountain tops, the seas, and the polar ice caps. According to Dr. Spencer, through the end of October, that data had 2014 ranked as the 7th warmest year since satellite monitoring had been initiated.  And, it is highly unlikely that the 7th warmest year standing would be upset with just 2 months more of data remaining outstanding.

It is also interesting that these two reports were released on a Friday; just 4 days ahead of Obama's State of the Union Address.  That gave it all weekend to be discussed on all the cable news stations and, on each of the Sunday news shows.  Then, the "hottest ever" is sure to be incorporated into Obama's address to the nation on Tuesday in support of his radical climate agenda.


Isn't it convenient that both NASA and NOAA report to Obama?

Update: After writing this blog entry, the UK Daily Mail reported that NASA only thinks that they are 38% right on 2014 being the hottest year.  In other words, their report might be 62% wrong.  A fact that NASA conveniently forgot to mention in their "hottest" press release.  Also a fact that the liberal media seems to be ignoring ahead of the President's State of the Union speech.

References:

NASA, NOAA Find 2014 Warmest Year in Modern Record: http://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-record/

2014 Breaks Heat Record, Challenging Global Warming Skeptics: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/17/science/earth/2014-was-hottest-year-on-record-surpassing-2010.html

Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer: ‘Why 2014 Won’t Be the Warmest Year on Record’: http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/10/21/climatologist-dr-roy-spencer-why-2014-wont-be-the-warmest-year-on-record-we-are-arguing-over-the-significance-of-hundredths-of-a-degree/

Dr. Roy Spencer Bio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_%28scientist%29

No Record Temperatures According To Satellites: http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/12/03/no-record-temperatures-according-to-satellites/

Scientists balk at ‘hottest year’ claims: Ignores Satellites showing 18 Year ‘Pause’ – ‘We are arguing over the significance of hundredths of a degree’ – The ‘Pause’: http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/01/16/scientists-balk-at-hottest-year-claims-we-are-arguing-over-the-significance-of-hundredths-of-a-degree-the-pause-continues/

Nasa climate scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest year on record... but we're only 38% sure we were right: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2915061/Nasa-climate-scientists-said-2014-warmest-year-record-38-sure-right.html

Some Distrubing Facts About The ObamaCare 2014-2015 Enrollment

First, if you didn't enroll in any ObamaCare exchange by December 15th of 2014, you're out of luck if you want coverage starting January 1, 2015; even though you can continue to enroll through February 15th.  The continuance through February is only to avoid having to pay an IRS tax penalty.  The ObamaCare enrollment rules are very clear and simple.

If you were currently enrolled in a plan in 2014, your coverage ends December 31, 2014.  Your existing 2014 plan will be automatically renewed unless you cancel or change that plan by December 15, 2014.  If you enroll from the 1st to the 15th of any month, your coverage will begin on the 1st day of the next month.  Enroll past the 15th of a month and coverage will begin on the 1st day of the second month going forward.

With the December 15th deadline date in mind, Health and Human Services recently announced that a total of 6.4 million people had enrolled/re-enrolled by December 15th.  Of that, 1.9 million were new enrollees; meaning that only 4.5 million from last year's insurance automatically renewed (60%) or changed (40%) their insurance for 2015.

To put these numbers in perspective you need to understand what happened last year.  Originally, the President proudly proclaimed 8 million enrollees.  Then, later this year, the number was down to 7.3 million because some 600,000 never paid for the insurance they signed up for.  In November, we found out that another 400,000 were double counted.  Thus, the actual 2014 enrollment was only 6.9 million. 

So, what is wrong with this picture?

To start with, only 4.5 million of last year's 6.9 million renewed their insurance coverage for 2015; meaning that 2.4 million took a positive action to cancel in order to avoid automatic renewal. That hardly bodes well for an insurance system that the Democrats said Americans would "grow" to like.  Also, the new number of 1.9 million is very close, but still less than, last year's 2.1 million enrollees by the end of 2013.  Hardly, any improvement over last year's belief that more people would have signed up if the ObamaCare website had been working properly.  All indications are that the website worked fine this year.  Of course, if the current 6.4 number doesn't grow past last year's 6.9 million signups, we might actually see a system that is in retreat and not expanding.  Also, 6.4 million barely scratches the surface of the 42 million Americans without health insurance that, supposedly, ObamaCare was meant to help.  In fact, some government figures show that the number of uninsured actually increased in the first year of ObamaCare.

Then, there's the "freebee" problem.  According to data released by Health and Human Services, 10 million more people went on Medicaid (free health insurance) in the last year due to ObamaCare's Medicaid expansion.  Also, another study found that 87% of people who signed up received government subsidies.  Thus, only 13% of 4.5 million or 600,000 paid full fare for their insurance.  Why more people aren't signing up for exchange insurance plans is simple.  The costs are too high when you look at the monthly premiums, the high deductibles, and the annual out-of-pocket-caps.

Those not buying insurance this year are going to be shocked when the IRS tags them with a minimum penalty of $365 or the greater of two percent of their income for not being insured. Gone is last year's $95 penalty or one percent of income; whichever is higher.

Lastly, this is the year that the employer mandate kicks in and many companies (those with 50 employees or more) will have to pay a penalty for not providing health insurance.  How the mandate affects employer-provided insurance rates is yet to be seen.  Some think that, rather than incur a hefty cost for providing insurance, some number of employers may elect to pay a lower-cost penalty instead.  Or, will the current trend of replacing full time employee with part-timers continue as companies jockey to avoid paying for insurance and, at the same time, avoid any penalties?  Whatever the case may be, it is quite possible that 2015 will be another year where there is no increase in median family income as full-time, high-paying jobs are replaced with lower-paying part-time work.

References:

Affordable Care Act Open Enrollment: https://www.healthcare.gov/marketplace-deadlines/2015/

U.S. Health Chief Calls Review After Obamacare Inflation: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-24/u-s-health-chief-calls-review-after-obamacare-inflation.html

Obamacare Enrollment Numbers As Of Dec. 31: http://www.businessinsider.com/obamacare-enrollment-numbers-dec-31-january-2-million-2013-12

 1.9 million new customers enroll in Obamacare: http://www.nbc33tv.com/news/19-million-new-customers

January 2014:  Obamacare Enrollment Surges Past 2 Million: http://www.businessinsider.com/obamacare-enrollment-numbers-dec-31-january-2-million-2013-12

A whopping 87 per cent of Obamacare customers to get taxpayer-funded subsidies: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2891804/A-whopping-87-cent-Obamacare-subscribers-taxpayer-funded-subsidies-2015-Supreme-Court-make-65-BILLION-subsidies-illegal.html

Medicaid Rolls Surge Under Affordable Care Act: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/19/upshot/medicaid-rolls-surge-under-affordable-care-act.html?abt=0002&abg=1

US Census Data: Uninsured Rate…Increased in 2014?: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2014/09/22/us-census-bureau-number-of-uninsured-americansincreased-in-2014-n1894992

Unable to Meet the Deductible or the Doctor: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/18/us/unable-to-meet-the-deductible-or-the-doctor.html?src=twr 

Employer Mandate | U.S. Chamber of Commerce: https://www.uschamber.com/health-reform/employer-mandate

How Businesses Are Handling the Obamacare Employer Mandate: http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/239039

Median Incomes Fell for All But Richest in 2010-13, Fed Says: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-04/median-incomes-fell-for-all-but-richest-in-2010-2013-fed-says.html

Wealth gap between middle class and rich widest ever: http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/17/news/economy/wealth-gap-middle-class-rich/

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

Will The Label 'Do Nothing Congress' Backfire On Democrats In November

Ever since 2010, when the GOP took control of the House of Representatives, liberals and the liberal media have referred to them as a "Do Nothing Congress" because the President and the Democrats have been unable to get any of their liberal agenda passed through the GOP-controlled House. Of course that moniker also includes the Democrat-controlled Senate.  So, from a public opinion standpoint, they are both "do nothings".  This is why Congress, as a whole, has historically low approval ratings.

Going into the fall elections, when the Democrats desperately need to keep Senatorial control, the liberal name callers may have unwittingly set up a negative branding of their own candidates who are seeking reelection in typically GOP voting states.  And, I think this is why -- at least partly -- that 7 existing Democrat Senate seats are currently up for grabs going into November. This according to today's Real Clear Politics aggregate polling results.

Seven seats that just might give the control of the Senate to the Republicans.

References:

A 'do-nothing Congress'?: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/212041-a-do-nothing-congress

Rachael Maddow: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trying-split-the-do-nothing-congress

No surprise public approval of Congress at rock-bottom: http://www.news-press.com/story/news/2014/10/05/surprise-public-approval-congress-rock-bottom/16737691/

Rush Limbaugh Is Wrong On Having To Pay The ObamaCare Tax In 2014

Recently, Matt Drudge, of the Drudge Report, tweeted that he just paid the tax for not having health insurance in 2014 and he called it his "freedom tax".  Immediately, he was labelled as going from being a complete liar to being just plain stupid for paying a tax that Obama put off until taxes are paid in 2015. Today, Limbaugh went on a tirade in defending Drudge saying that he only did what the law "requires" him to do.  

Now, to be exact, Drudge is one of those people or businesses that are required to file their taxes every quarter along with a supporting form: the 1040ES. With regard to the health care penalty, the IRS instructions are simply advisory:

"Health care coverage. When you file your 2014 tax return in 2015, you will need to either (1) indicate on your return that you and your family had health care coverage throughout 2014, (2) claim an exemption from the health care coverage requirement for some or all of 2014, or (3) make a payment if you do not have coverage or an exemption(s) for all 12 months of 2014."

Contrary to Limbaugh's rant, it was optional for Drudge to pay the tax early.  The IRS simply says that "When you file...in 2015" the payment is due for not having health insurance for 12 full months in 2014.  It implies no mandatory payment on a quarterly basis or even any interest penalty for failing to do so. It then goes on to say that you "can" pay the tax penalty early by indicating so on line 12, Other Taxes, of the 1040ES form.  Even so, only a quarter of the estimated total penalty would be due at this time.

Often I agree with Rush, but this time he's wrong and, in this case it hurts his credibility.

References:

‘Liberty Tax’: White House, Media Attack After Drudge Pays Obamacare Opt-Out Penalty: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/03/21/White-House-Leads-Liberal-Media-In-Matt-Drudge-Attack

2014 1040ES Filing Instructions: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040es.pdf

For ObamaCare: The 2014 Elections Might Have Serious Consequences

I think a lot of Republicans (and Democrats, too) believe that it would be impossible to repeal and replace ObamaCare unless they controlled both houses of Congress and could retake the presidency in 2017.  However, I believe there is another scenario that could seal ObamaCare's fate in 2015.

If (and that is a big "if") the Democrats receive a similar shellacking in 2014 as was seen in 2010, and they lose control of the Senate and see even more losses of seats in the House, a number of Senate Democrats may possibly be willing to side with Republicans in repealing ObamaCare.  Enough, even,  to override an Obama veto.  I can say this with confidence because no Democrat is going to be willing to lose another sweeping election because of their continued support of ObamaCare.

The only way Republicans can pull this off is to offer a bill that, in the very first paragraph, repeals or supersedes ObamaCare and, then, goes on to outline a new reform of heath care. One that would have clear public acceptance over the current law and one that, at the very least, is somewhat acceptable to the Democrats.

The biggest hangup in doing this will be the Republican's insistence on tort reform.  Because trial lawyers are such big donors to the Democrats, it will be very difficult for any of them to vote for a bill that would harm that critical donor base.  In fact, right now, ObamaCare, with all of its legislative facets, is a potential gold mine for trial lawyers if health care providers and insurance companies fail to comply with any parts of the law; leading to both Federal and civil lawsuits being filed.  While tort reform would definitely benefit the country as a whole by lowering health care costs, the Republicans would be wise to hold off doing anything about it until they do have the presidency and both houses of congress.

Will ObamaCare Push Us Into Another Recession In 2014?

No one can actually predict when a recession will occur or how long it will last.  But, in more than 150 years of tracking our economy, recessions have occurred, on average, every 5 years.  In more modern times, they have tended to occur every 6 to 7 years; and, we are already 6 years and almost 2 months past the start of the last one in December of 2007.

Most recessions occur when inflation outpaces the rate at which the average consumer's disposable incomes increase; forcing most to pull back on buying any or all non-essential goods and services. Thus, the economy contracts.  Other times, however, recessions are spawned by some major, economic-impacting event such as the Crash of '29, the OPEC Oil embargo, 9/11, or, most recently, the burst of the housing bubble.

Thanks to PolitiFact, we have a nice scorecard on Obama for things like the growth in disposable income and inflation.  According to that report, disposable incomes, after falling in 2009, rose 1.5% from 2009 to May 2012; a yearly average of  only six-tenths of one percent (.6%).  At the same time, overall inflation averaged 2.7%; or, 4-1/2 times faster than disposable incomes. More importantly, essential items like food and gasoline have risen much faster than overall inflation. 

Click on image to zoom

So, it is apparent that a primary cause of any recession -- inflation faster than wage growth -- has been firmly in place since 2009.

But, another significant economic-impacting event -- the continued roll-out of ObamaCare -- is hovering like a black cloud over this already weak economy; and, it is a "cloud" that is already causing a slowdown in hiring and wages to lag even further.  According to the recent December jobs report, only 74,000 jobs were created; the lowest in three years.  But, more importantly, during the 3-months that ObamaCare was being rolled out, the average hourly wage only increased by about a quarter of one percent; from $24.11 in October to $24.17 in December.  That was half as fast as the rate at which wages rose in the first 9 months of the year.  Is this because of ObamaCare or just a coincidence?

I guess we'll have to wait until January 30 when the GDP report for the fourth quarter comes out to see if the October roll out of ObamaCare hurt economic growth.  If it is substantially less than the projected 2.5% growth, we could be seeing the start of another recession. Further, the U.S. stock markets are tumbling on a assumed slow-down in world economic activity.


References:

Politifact's Obama Economic Scorecard: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/jun/01/scorecard-economy-obama/

December Employment Report, Table 3-B, Average Hourly Earnings: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t19.htm

 Econbrowser: Recession in 2006-07?: http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2005/08/recession_in_20.html