Democrats are "Ginning Up" Support For ObamaCare

The Democrats seem to think they have a winning reason for people "not" to vote Republican in 2020 (and beyond) as a result of the repeal of ObamaCare. Because of this, they are willing to make up all kinds of lies in order to gin up support for keeping the ACA.

Bernie Sanders said 36,000 people a year would die with the repeal/replacement of ObamaCare.  The Washington Post said this about that:

That's the max Pinocchio's you can get from the "Post" for lying.  And, the lie didn't just stop with Bernie.  Despite the "pants on fire" rating by the "Post," the claim continues to be perpetuated by well-known Democrats such as Terry McAuliffe and Elizabeth Warren.

Then, there's this from Nancy Pelosi.  According to her, 17 million children have pre-existing conditions that would result in denial of coverage. First of all, that number represents 24% of the 70 million children in the country.  Does anyone think that one-out-of-every-four children in America will become uninsured?  Again, the Washington Post had to set the record straight by saying that it is more likely that only 4 million children have pre-existing conditions.

But, understand, there is a difference between having a pre-existing condition like ADHD and having an extremely serious condition that would warrant being uninsurable.  Healthcare economist John C. Goodman stated in an interview with CNBC, that before ObamaCare went into effect, the percentage of uninsured was just 1%.  Thus, Nancy Pelosi's 17 million would be further whittled down to 700,000.

The same goes for Representative Frank Pallone Jr. of New Jersey, who is claiming 129 million people with pre-existing conditions would be hurt (I guess financially) by TrumpCare. Again, this is another gross exaggeration that had to be called out by the Washington Post, and to which the 1%  rule (noted above) would be applied.  The "Post" says the number is more like 50 million who will have negative impacts on their insurance.   Further, only about 3 million may find themselves uninsurable.

The word "might" is highlighted because the GOP House healthcare bill addresses pre-existing conditions with risk pools.  People who would have higher insurance rates would be placed in risk pools that would be partially funded by the Federal Government to keep their costs down.  In addition, the GOP healthcare bill mandates that no one can be denied insurance because of a pre-existing condition. Those who don't have pre-existing conditions, should have their insurance costs reduced as a result of not having to pay for those with high healthcare costs due to long-term care for those pre-existing conditions.

 I could go on and on about all the lies being told.  But, people dying and pre-existing conditions seem to be at he forefront of the Democrat's effort to save ObamaCare.  Other related issues will be addressed in later blog posts.

References:

Fact Checker: Bernie Sanders’s claim that ‘36,000 people will die yearly’ if Obamacare is repealed: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/14/bernie-sanderss-claim-that-36000-people-will-die-yearly-if-obamacare-is-repealed/?utm_term=.9fd97e7078a6

Democrats' grim prognosis on GOP health bill: 'People will die': http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/democrats-grim-prognosis-on-gop-health-bill-people-will-die/article/2622207

Pre-Existing Conditions: Evaluating Competing Claims: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/03/us/politics/health-care-fact-check-preexisting-conditions.html

Pre-existing condition figures 'nonsense' — here's how to address it, author says: http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/04/pre-existing-condition-figures-nonsense--heres-how-to-address-it-author-says.html

New York's Tuition-Free College Madness

During their runs for the White House, both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders promised tuition-free college.  Now, with Trump's victory, that seemed to become a distant dream.  That is, until Democratic Governor Cuomo of New York tepped up and proposed that the state legislature make it a reality for up to one million eligible families who have children in the State, who want to attend state colleges.  He promises that the program will only cost $163 million a year; when fully phased in over 3 years.

Now, one thing I've learned about Democrats like Cuomo, is that they are terrible at math.  They almost always underestimate the true cost of any new entitlement program.  Once more, this appears to be the case for this tuition-free entitlement program.  Here's why.  The in-state annual cost of tuition for a New York public college student is $6,470.  Divide that into Cuomo's proposed $163 million a year and you end up with 25,193 students who could benefit from the program.  Yet, a million families would be eligible?  That's just 2-1/2% of all eligible families.  Also, when you talk about eligible families, you are not taking into account that some families could have more than one eligible child.

However, here's the biggest problem with any talk about free tuition.  As a country, we waste billions of dollars on college education.   Most students enrolled in a 4 year colleges don't graduate in 4 years.  In addition, the 6-year graduation rate for state colleges is still only 57%.  In other words, those that don't graduate in either 4 or 6 years, will be -- a waste of money.  Of course, under Cuomo's plan, that will be a waste of taxpayer's money.  But, its not just about money.  ACT (American College Testing) found that 60% of high school students that took their test were not qualified or prepared for college.  Yet, somehow, 66% of high school graduates go on to college.

There is also a bigger problem with college education in this country.  All too many workers have degrees that are worthless.  Career Builder, in 2014, found that 51% of those college students who graduated that year and found emplooyment, were working in jobs that didn't require a degree, which that brings me to another point.  Too much emphasis is placed on a college education.  What we should be doing is getting people into trade schools for professions that are desperately in need of trained job seekers.  This is where tuition-free education would carry more bang for the buck. Further, if you want to provide 4 years of college tuition, make sure it is targeted to students that are enrolled in programs that will provide the type of expertise that is so often lacking in the country.

References:

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo Announces Free College Plan With Bernie Sanders: http://time.com/4621407/free-college-andrew-cuomo-bernie-sanders-new-york/

Bernie Sanders is wrong: College is not a right: http://theweek.com/articles/553857/bernie-sanders-wrong-college-not-right

National Center for educational Statistics: College Graduation Rates: https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=40

ACT Shows 60% of High School Seniors Not College-ready: http://www.governing.com/news/state/mct-seniors-not-college-ready.html

Most High School Seniors Aren't College Or Career Ready, Says 'Nation's Report Card': http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/04/27/475628214/most-high-school-seniors-arent-college-or-career-ready-says-nations-report-card

Fewer U.S. Graduates Opt for College After High School: Last October, just 65.9 percent of people who had graduated from high school the previous spring had enrolled in college, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said this week. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/26/business/fewer-us-high-school-graduates-opt-for-college.html

51 Percent of Employed 2014 College Grads Are in Jobs That Don’t Require a Degree, Finds CareerBuilder Survey: http://www.careerbuilder.com/share/aboutus/pressreleasesdetail.aspx?sd=10%2F9%2F2014&id=pr846&ed=10%2F9%2F2099

America's Skilled Trades Dilemma: Shortages Loom As Most-In-Demand Group Of Workers Ages:  http://www.forbes.com/sites/emsi/2013/03/07/americas-skilled-trades-dilemma-shortages-loom-as-most-in-demand-group-of-workers-ages/#3939ec4c4545

Conservatives With A Better Understanding Of Science Are Climate Skeptics

From the title of this blog, one might think what is being said is that  "conservatives" have a "better understanding of science" (and math) and are therefore more likely to be "climate skeptics".  But no.  According to research by Dan M. Kahan and Jonathan C. Corbin, conservatives who are open-minded and have a better understanding of math and science, actually results in a "perverse" belief in climate change denial.

This is almost laughable.

Just think about it.  The inverse of what these two researchers are actually saying is that climate alarmists are closed-minded with little understanding of math and science.  Also, it appears that a belief is only "perverse" if it goes against the beliefs of those closed-minded, math and science illiterates.  And, by the way. Who appointed these two researchers as the arbiters of what is "perverse"?

More importantly, the study dispels the claim by Democrats and climate alarmists that conservatives and Republicans are those who don't understand science.  Back in January, Hollywood climate alarmist, Leonardo DiCaprio publicly said this: “Anyone that doesn’t believe that climate change is happening doesn’t believe in science.”  And, many others have said the same thing.  Bernie Sanders said this about Republicans in a Senate committee tirade in early November of this year: "We have an entire political party who is rejecting basic science!"

So, the bottom line is, that the Republicans are better educated in math and science; are too open-minded; and have a perverse belief in climate change denial.  While, on the other hand, people like DiCaprio and Bernie Sanders are closed minded science and math ignoramuses who have an excellent, non-perverted grasp of climate change.   Maybe, Kahan and Corbin should rethink their research findings.

References:

NEW PAPER: CLIMATE SKEPTICISM IS A ‘PERVERSE’ EFFECT OF ‘ACTIVELY OPEN-MINDED THINKING’ http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/12/02/new-paper-climate-skepticism-is-a-perverse-effect-of-actively-open-minded-thinking/

Leonardo DiCaprio Declares ‘Argument Over’ On Global Warming: http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/07/leonardo-dicaprio-global-warming-skeptics-science/

Only one major political party in the world denies climate change, and it's in charge of the most important political body in the world: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/why-republicans-still-reject-the-science-of-global-warming-w448023

pb

Could Hillary Lose Because of Another Email Scandal?

Because of the Wikileaks data dump of nearly 20,000 internal emails of the Democratic National Committee, we now know that the Democratic Party, at its highest levels, plotted to disadvantage Bernie Sanders in the primaries and caucuses; thus favoring the nomination of Hillary Clinton. Even before this, the Sanders supporters felt that the "Super-Delegate'' system was rigged to give Hillary the edge.  Donald Trump had been wooing Bernie Sanders voters by claiming the system was rigged against Bernie all along. Those emails just proved "the Donald" was right.

Hillary had already taken a hit in the polls because of the FBI findings about her own email scandal. Now this. And, now, what do the more than 12 million people who voted for Sanders do in light of these revelations.  Vote for Hillary? Maybe not.  My guess is that some may not vote at all.  Others may vote for the Green Party candidate, and surprisingly, some have actually said in TV interviews that they might vote "Trump".  Let's not forget that Sanders received 45% of the popular vote but received only 38% of the delegates.  So, already, the Sanders voters may have felt disenfranchised.

The real irony is that the emails that talked about how to derail Bernie may, in fact, wind up derailing Hillary.

References:

The 4 Most Damaging Emails From the DNC WikiLeaks Dump: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/damaging-emails-dnc-wikileaks-dump/story?id=40852448

New DNC boss also bashed Sanders in leaked emails: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/07/25/new-dnc-boss-also-bashed-sanders-in-leaked-emails.html

Leaked Emails Suggest DNC Was Conspiring Against Bernie Sanders: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wikileaks-dnc-bernie-sanders_us_579381fbe4b02d5d5ed1d157

2016 Democratic Popular Vote: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_vote_count.html

pb

Americans Waste Billions on College Education

As of this writing, student loan debt is rapidly closing in on a record $1.4 trillion.  But, more importantly, the average college graduate's debt has risen 350% in just the last 22 years while overall inflation has only risen 164% over the same period:

Yet, over the same period, real college graduate incomes have been relatively flat:

Combine this with the fact that, since 1993, the percentage of graduates with debt has risen from 45% to 70%. It doesn't take a math degree to figure out why 27.3% of student loans are in delinquency following the normal 6-month grace period after graduation.  The simple fact, is that high and rapidly-rising student debt, high delinquency rates, and flat wages, mean that our society isn't cranking out enough high-paying college-level jobs to support all that debt.  That fact couldn't be any clearer than shown on these two graphs from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, as published by the Washington Post:

Essentially, 38% of college graduates are working below their achieved education levels.  And, only 27.3% of those with degrees are employed in jobs that match their original chosen fields.   Other studies confirm these results. For example, in 2014, Career Builder found that, for the class of 2014, 51% of graduates wound up working in jobs that required "no" degree.  Another study by the Center for College Affordability and Productivity found that 37% of college grads were working in jobs that only required a high school diploma.

With statistic like these, it's no wonder they can't repay their loans. A fact that hurts their credit ratings right out of the box.

So, the solution by Democrats such as Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Barack Obama is to make college education debt free.  In other words, let the taxpayers pay the debt off.  But, that ignores the basic problem of graduating too many college students for the number of jobs available to them.  For that reason, we, as a country should be de-emphasizing the importance of a college degree.  Instead, the focus should shift to trade schools as the means to making a good salary.  In fact, all of these jobs pay more than what a median college job is paying:

1. Air traffic controller – Annual income: $108,000
2. Nuclear Operator – $75,600
3. Registered Nurse – $64,700
4. Construction Manager $95,956
5. Radiation Therapist $74,900
6. Storage and distribution manager – Annual income: $66,600
7. Transportation manager – Annual income: $77,762
8. Police and detectives supervisor – Annual income: $64,430
9. Non-retail sales manager – Annual income: $59,300
10. Forest fire fighting and prevention supervisor – Annual income: $58,920
11. Municipal fire fighting and prevention supervisor – Annual income: $58,902
12. Real estate broker – Annual income: $58,720
13. Elevator installers and repairer – Annual income: $65,893
14. Sales representative – Annual income: $62,000
15. Dental hygienist – Annual income: $66,221
16. Radiation therapist – Annual income: $72,491
17. Nuclear medicine technologist – Annual income: $71,212
18. Child support, missing persons and unemployment insurance fraud investigator – Annual income: $53,900
19. Criminal investigators and special agents – Annual income: $53,990

The simple fact is that our society is wrongly leading people to believe that any college degree will get you a good paying job.  When you have so few people working in the college major that they spent so much money to get, it is a complete financial waste, and the taxpayers should not be burdened with that waste.  As long as colleges and universities are able to turn students away because of the sheer volume of applicants, tuitions and student debt will rise unabated.  However, if we can get to a point where colleges can't fill the number of slots available, tuition rates won't increase nearly as quickly; or may even fall as they attempt to attract more students.  That's simple college level economics.


References:

Student Loan Debt Clock: http://www.finaid.org/loans/studentloandebtclock.phtml

Wall Street Journal: Head of the Class Chart: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/05/08/congratulations-class-of-2015-youre-the-most-indebted-ever-for-now/

Only 27 percent of college grads have a job related to their major: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/05/20/only-27-percent-of-college-grads-have-a-job-related-to-their-major/

Annual Wage by Education Chart:  http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/09/08/college_graduate_vs_high_school_graduate_salaries.html

51 Percent of Employed 2014 College Grads Are in Jobs That Don’t Require a Degree, Finds CareerBuilder Survey: http://www.careerbuilder.com/share/aboutus/pressreleasesdetail.aspx?sd=10%2F9%2F2014&id=pr846&ed=10%2F9%2F2099

College graduates underutilized in current job market: http://www.schoolguides.com/College_News/college_graduates_underutilized_in_current_job_market_379061.html

Student Loan Delinquency: A Big Problem Getting Worse?: https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/economic-synopses/2015/04/10/student-loan-delinquency-a-big-problem-getting-worse/

19 Good Jobs That Don’t Require a 4-Year College Degree: http://wealthpilgrim.com/19-great-jobs-without-a-college-degree-and-how-to-get-them-fast/

Why Sanders is Doing so Well

Many wonder how a 74-year-old socialist candidate can be doing so well in our capitalist society.  The answer is simple.  Socialism rises out of discontent regarding the economy and jobs.  When people think that they are not getting a fair shake and the rich are getting richer while they keep getting poorer, socialism seems an attractive solution.  Even as flawed as that assumption is, after 7+ years of Obama, those aren't just perceptions...they're realities.

Currently, we have a record 47 million Americans in poverty; and that number rose again in the latest reporting.  Pre-recession the number was 10 million less, at about $37 million.

Then, there is this chart:

As this shows, the bottom 99% saw their incomes rise by less than 1% per year over the first five years of the Obama Administration. To put this into perspective, in 2006 and 2007, wages grew at an average of 4% per year. In the 1970's and 1980's, it was not uncommon for salaries to grow by 8% or 9% or more.

In addition to all of that, the middle class keeps shrinking.  Today, only 45.8% of Americans find themselves in that segment of the population.  Well below the normal target of 50% or more, and certainly below the 53% that were in the middle class in the 1960's.   In fact, the median household's income and buying power is where it was in 1996.  This is also why the greatest contributors to Sanders' campaign are the unemployed.  Nearly 29% of donations are coming from this class of worker.

Simply, the conditions are ripe for the false promises of socialism to take hold and Bernie is the beneficiary.  The American dream is dissolving before our eyes.  What worries me is that, if Hillary Clinton becomes President, we will have another 4 years of Obama's policies and a further decline in wages and the middle class.  Poverty and income inequality will likely continue to rise. If so, America is sure to become a socialist nation in the future.  Mark my words.

References:

Source of Chart: Obama's Economy in 7 Charts: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly: http://fortune.com/2016/01/12/obama-economy-charts/

Poverty in the United States, 2007: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104520.html

Record 46.7 Million Americans Live In Poverty: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-16/record-467-million-americans-live-poverty-median-houshold-income-back-1989-levels

5 Charts That Show How the Middle Class Is Disappearing: http://billmoyers.com/2015/01/26/middle-class/

The Shrinking American Middle Class: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/01/25/upshot/shrinking-middle-class.html?version=meter+at+1&module=meter-Links&pgtype=article&contentId=&mediaId=&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&priority=true&action=click&contentCollection=meter-links-click

Our analysis of nearly 7 million donations offers unprecedented detail about the army that's funded his insurgent campaign: http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-na-pol-sanders-donors/

Enough with the Bernie/Hillary Jabs at Wall Street

Throughout their political campaigns, both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have laid blame for the 2008 financial crisis on Wall Street; as if the six 'too-big-to-fail' banks that had to be bailed out were somehow representative of thousands of companies who have allowed their stocks to be publicly traded.

Hillary says she's not going to allow "Wall Street to bring down Main Street" ever again. Bernie wants to tax Wall Street; breakup the big banks; and reinstate Glass-Steagall which prevented banks from investment activities on Wall Street.

First of all, both these people act as if nothing was done following the financial crisis.  They seem to forget that, in 2010, both Houses of Congress -- both controlled by Democrats -- and Barack Obama passed the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act into law to, supposedly, stop the 2008 crisis from ever happening again.  So, why is this an issue all over, again?

Also understand, Wall Street IS Main Street. According to Gallup polling, 55% of those surveyed said they were invested in the stock market.  While down from 62% before the financial crisis, that 55% is climbing back from a low of 52% in 2013.  So, I suppose that 55% of this country's households aren't "Main Street" enough for Hillary Clinton.  Or, for Bernie, the lie that only millionaires and billionaires -- of which there are only a little over 10 million in a country of 320 million -- only benefit from Wall Street.

Lastly, the financial crisis that followed the housing bubble was primarily a result of two things.  

• The first was the expanded use and enforcement of the Jimmy Carter passed law known as the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) by Bill Clinton while he was President. Basically, that Democrat-written law forced banks to lower their lending requirements and increase the number of mortgages for otherwise non-eligible, low-income borrowers.  Thus, banks did get involved with forms of predatory lending in order to comply with the law. In hearings following the financial crisis, the CEO of Bank America said that, while CRA loans only made up 7% of that bank's mortgage portfolio, they resulted in 29% of their losses during the housing meltdown.  Another CEO of a mid-sized bank said that about 20% of all his CRA loans would be in arrears in the first year and 7% would fall into foreclosure.  Democrats have always tried to shift blame away from the CRA because they were responsible for it.  Thus, Wall Street and big banks have become their diversionary targets for those who are uniformed.
• In addition, Glass-Steagall, which Bernie Sanders wants to reinstate, was repealed by none other than Bill Clinton when he signed the Gramm, Leach, Bliley Act which allowed banks to participate in investment banking in the stock market.

The reality is that Bernie and Hillary, as Democrats, should be looking in the mirror when they talk about blaming someone for the financial crisis.   And, by the way.  The best analysis of the financial meltdown is given by two writers from the liberal New York Times titled "Reckless Endangerment".  See below for an excellent video summation of that book by Rush Limbaugh.

References:

Bernie Sanders on Financial Regulation: http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-financial-regulation/

Community Reinvestment Act: 

Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd%E2%80%93Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer_Protection_Act

Little Change in Percentage of Americans Who Own Stocks: http://www.gallup.com/poll/182816/little-change-percentage-americans-invested-market.aspx

More millionaires than ever are living in the US: http://www.cnbc.com/2015/03/09/more-millionaires-than-ever-are-living-in-the-us.html

Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act

Video: Subprime Disaster - President Clinton Takes Credit for Community Reinvestment Act Loans: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTZIB6Sika4

Video:  Rush Limbaugh on 'Reckless Endangerment': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MG7U2g9MFKg

Bernie Sanders' Phony Free College Claims

Whether it's during a debate with Hillary Clinton or at a campaign appearance on the road, Bernie Sanders continues to hype his plan for tuition-free college by arguing that "countries all over the world" provide this benefit to their students.  Usually, he mentions socialist Sweden as his shining example.

The problem with Sanders' "all over the world" comment, is that only 9 countries in a world of nearly 200 have tuition-free college: Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Norway, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Sweden and Turkey.  That is not the impression he leaves you with when he says "countries all over the world". Also understand, that when he uses the term "tuition-free" many seem to think that all the costs of going to college will be paid for; just as in Sweden.

Now here's the truth:

College graduates in Sweden enter the workforce with the highest ratio of college debt-to-income in the world, because in order to pay for all the "free stuff" they get, the worker taxation rate is about 60%.  Whereas, in the U.S. the average worker pays 31% in taxes.  And, yes, they do have college debt, which Bernie implies doesn't exist. In fact, 85% of Swedish college graduates have debt equaling $19,000; when, in the U.S., only 50% of students have any debt. When they do, it averages $24,800. Also understand, that free tuition doesn't include fees, course materials, room, board, and transportation costs; and these are typically the highest costs for those not living at home. Also, because of the high debt-to-income ratio and high costs of living and taxation, Swedish graduates take years longer to pay off that supposedly smaller debt.

Sadly, Bernie Sanders is distorting the issue of tuition-free college for pure political gain.  Once again "the grass isn't always greener on the other side".

References:

Sanders said, "Making public colleges and universities tuition free, that exists in countries all over the world, used to exist in the United States.": http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2016/feb/09/bernie-s/was-college-once-free-united-states-and-it-oversea/

The High Price of a Free College Education in Sweden:  http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/05/the-high-price-of-a-free-college-education-in-sweden/276428/

A Chicago Alderman Incited Violence at Trump Rally

There were all kinds of anti-Trump activities prior to his appearance at a rally in Chicago.  The left-wing MoveOn.org was at the heart of it by circulating a petition.  So was the group "People for Bernie" who support Sanders.  But, most ashamedly, Chicago politicians, too, fomented the violence that took place in Chicago last Friday night.

One in particular was 15th Ward Alderman Ray Lopez who said this just days before the planned protests at a televised news conference.

"When Mr. Trump arrives in Chicago, we'll be the first to welcome him, to greet him and then to send him back on his merry way..."

What did he think that the words "send him back" suggests.  To many who attended that protest, it implies sanctioned violence from a city official in a city that is well know for its out-of-control reactions.

I understand that many, on both the political left and the right, don't like Trump and his all-too-often controversial rhetoric.  I am one of those. But, in this country, he has a right to speak his mind and people have a right to a peaceful objection without stepping on each others right to speak. However, for an elected official to stir up what was to be an obviously large crowd and foment the potential for violence is beyond the pale.

Finally, because all too many Trump supporters now know that Bernie Sanders' supporters were at the heart of this protest, I am afraid that they may retaliate at some Sanders' event in the future, setting this whole political process spinning out of control. 


References:

Student Petition Aims to Cancel Trump Rally in Chicago, Protests Planned: http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/Student-Petition-Aims-to-Cancel-Trump-Rally-in-Chicago-Protests-Planned-371279681.html

Far-Left Anarchists With MoveOn.Org and Bernie Sanders Take Credit For Chicago Political Mayhem: http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/03/11/far-left-anarchists-with-moveon-org-and-bernie-sanders-take-credit-for-chicago-political-mayhem/

To CNN: It's the Economy, Stupid!

In 1992, Bill Clinton was able to shorten George H. W. Bush's Presidency to just one term  by coining the slogan: "It's the economy stupid!".  I think today, its still appropriate, because the liberal political class and the liberal media just don't get it.

In a discussion following Bernie Sander's unexpected win over Hillary Clinton in Michigan, the host of a CNN news and opinion show -- whose name I don't know because I was just listening to the audio - expressed her amazement that the number one issue in exit polling was the economy and jobs.  Then, she went on to state that the economy is good.  Unemployment is the lowest its been in 8 years.  The stock market is still doing well, and that gasoline prices are 68 cents lower than last year.  So, I guess in her mind all is well, and there is nothing to complain about economically.


What she apparently doesn't understand is that people outside of her own gilded life are hurting.  If the economy is so good, why do we have a record number of people living in poverty?  Why is the real median household income sitting at a level that hasn't been seen since 1986?  Why did the average weekly wage fall by $6 in February for America's more than 157 million workers?  Why more than 6000 stores for major retailers closed last year, and why another 2500 stores are set to close this year?  Apparently, CNN's hosts don't read CNN's own Money news division's commentaries about how bad things really are. (see links below).

I think show producers should get their facts straight before airing falsehoods to a national audience.  Just one of the reasons that I rarely watch CNN.


References:

Exit poll: Both parties’ voters worry about economy, disdain federal government: http://www.star-telegram.com/news/politics-government/article64901532.html

It's the economy stupid!: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_the_economy,_stupid

Record 46.7 Million Americans Live In Poverty; Household Income Back To 1989 Levels: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-16/record-467-million-americans-live-poverty-median-houshold-income-back-1989-levels

Major U.S. Retailers Are Closing More Than 6,000 Stores: http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/major-u-s-retailers-are-closing-more-than-6000-stores

2016 Store Closures: http://retailindustry.about.com/od/USRetailStoreClosingInfoFAQs/fl/US-2016-Store-Closings-All-Retail-Chain-Store-Locations-To-Be-Closed.htm

The cracks in America's economy are growing - CNN Money: http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/28/news/economy/cracks-in-the-us-economy/

U.S. economy grinds to near halt at end of 2015 - CNN Money: https://www.google.com/search?q=cnn+economy+doing+well&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Sears announces it's closing at least 50 stores - Feb. 9, 2016: http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/09/news/companies/sears-kmart-stores-closing/

Walmart will close 269 stores this year, affecting 16,000 Jobs: http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/15/news/companies/walmart-store-closings/

Sports Authority is bankrupt and closing 140 stores - CNN Money: http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/02/news/companies/sports-authority-bankruptcy/

Macy's closings could leave a trail of dead malls - CNN Money: http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/11/news/companies/macys-dead-malls/

Bernie, Hillary.....Have You Hugged Enough Black People Today?

Politicians have always been known to garner votes by kissing babies.  But, not this year.
 Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have been chasing down black voters in order to catch them in a photo-op; proving, of course, that they are truly simpatico with the needs of black Americans. Even though 7 years of Barack Obama has done nothing for them (see referenced links below).

When Bernie met with Al Sharpton, he got this nationally published photo-op:

Hillary, not to be outdone, had to have her own Sharpton moment:

Making sure that she was as close as possible to Al.

You see, lacking the blackness of Obama, both Hillary and Bernie know they can't win the primaries or the general election without a large turnout of the black vote.

Damn, if they both don't wish they were really black!  Of course, this is not to imply that both Bernie and Hillary are using blacks for political gain.  God knows that would never happen!

References:

Source: Sanders/Sharpton Photo: http://www.npr.org/2016/02/10/466276101/bernie-sanders-dines-with-al-sharpton-in-harlem

Source: Hillary/Sharpton Photo: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/431424/clinton-sharpton-endorsement

The Racial Wealth Gap: Why A Typical White Household Has 16 Times The Wealth Of A Black One: http://www.forbes.com/sites/laurashin/2015/03/26/the-racial-wealth-gap-why-a-typical-white-household-has-16-times-the-wealth-of-a-black-one/#5bab1dc6c5bc

Under Obama, Blacks Are Worse Off -- Far Worse: http://townhall.com/columnists/larryelder/2015/07/23/under-obama-blacks-are-worse-off--far-worse-n2028985/page/full

NAACP president: Black people worse off under Obama: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/28/naacp-president-black-people-worse-under-obama/ 

Do Supporters of Bernie Sanders Really Understand Democratic Socialism?

Bernie Sanders calls himself a Democratic Socialist and half of Iowa's caucus voters, and 60% of New Hampshire's primary voters, and nearly half of Nevada's caucus goers voted for him.  But, do these people really know what a Democratic Socialist is?

Well, here's what the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) say about that on their website:

Democratic socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives. 

Their key goal, at least economically, is the above statement "to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few".  In essence, and regarding this nation's 250,000+ corporations, this, again from their website, explains it:

Democratic socialists do not want to create an all-powerful government bureaucracy. But we do not want big corporate bureaucracies to control our society either. Rather, we believe that social and economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect.

Today, corporate executives who answer only to themselves and a few wealthy stockholders make basic economic decisions affecting millions of people. Resources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs. We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them.

Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic socialists favor as much decentralization as possible. While the large concentrations of capital in industries such as energy and steel may necessitate some form of state ownership, many consumer-goods industries might be best run as cooperatives.

Thus, Democratic Socialists want to destroy the very things that make this country great: The corporate structure and free enterprise system that have created 65% of the jobs in this country in the last 20 years, with wages that are 50% higher than smaller companies. Instead, they would have them run by committee; made up of workers and consumers.  With companies being less profitable and more "needs" oriented.  Does anyone think you'd have an Apple iPhone under that kind of "needs" oriented agenda? Or, for that matter, would we have many of the things that we all enjoy today made by -- you guessed it -- profitable corporations run by corporate executives whose goals are to create new products for us and become exceptionally competitive by producing those products at a lower cost?

This is why Democratic Socialism doesn't exist anywhere in the world. Even the closest thing to it, Sweden, is on its way to dumping its socialist way of life. That's because Sweden's high taxes, like a 25% VAT tax, are taking its toll. Compared to the United States, the average home is 60% smaller and only half of all Swedes own a car, compared to over 80% of Americans. The average workers after-tax income is just 40%. And, in 2005, the number of workers was only 4.46 million in a population of 9 million.

By the way, the organization "Democratic Socialists of America" had exactly 6,204 members in 2012.  Not exactly proof that Americans are eager to embrace their philosophy.

References:

Democratic Socialists of America: http://www.dsausa.org/what_is_democratic_socialism

Wikipedia: Democratic Socialists of America: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Socialists_of_America#Membership_size

Who actually creates jobs: Start-ups, small businesses or big corporations?: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/on-small-business/who-actually-creates-jobs-start-ups-small-businesses-or-big-corporations/2013/04/24/d373ef08-ac2b-11e2-a8b9-2a63d75b5459_story.html

Big firms pay 50 percent higher wages than small businesses, study shows: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/on-small-business/big-firms-pay-50-percent-higher-wages-than-small-businesses-study-shows/2012/11/28/e24a1f58-3970-11e2-a263-f0ebffed2f15_story.html

The strange death of social-democratic Sweden: http://www.economist.com/node/17039151

The economy of Sweden: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Sweden

Bernie Sanders' Dishonest "Medicare for All" Ploy

One of the most important big-ticket items on Bernie Sanders' socialist agenda is to ditch all other forms of health care insurance and put every American on Medicare.  Even though this would represent a $2 Trillion increase for health care spending over the current $4 trillion in current federal spending, not to worry.  The rich and Wall Street will pay for it.  Probably tanking our economy and making us as screwed up as Greece; economically.  But, let's put that aside.

A lot of people like Bernie's plan because most people think Medicare works; providing 55 million elder Americans with the kind of health care they need at the time the need it most.

However, for millions of Medicare beneficiaries, the system is broken.  In a 2008 study by the Independent Payment Advisory Commission for Medicare that reports to Congress, 29% of Medicare enrollees were unable to find a primary care doctor that would accept the insurance because, simply, Medicare substantially underpays doctors and hospitals for their services.  In fact, the American Hospital Association (AHA) found that, on average, hospitals received only 86 cents on the dollar for the care they provided in 2012; substantially less than those cities and states that have higher costs of living.  The only reason that a doctor or  hospital accepts Medicare patients is that they can offset that deficit by charging the privately insured at a high rate, and if unable to do so, they stop treating Medicare patients.

The reality is that if private insurance didn't exist, few if any doctors or hospitals would be able to survive on what Medicare pays.  Our whole system of health care would collapse.  That would be the legacy of Bernie's "Medicare for all" plan.

One last thing. When trying to justify his plan, Sanders continually repeats the lie, that as a country, we pay the most for our health care and get little in return.  While it is true that we do pay more, we also have the highest disposable income of almost every other country.  For example, the average American had an annual personal purchasing power of $54,582 in 2012.  When comparing that to the United Kingdom, where they have universal free health care, the number is $30,064.  So, it is only logical that our standard of living would result in higher health care costs.  Also, the costs are lower in other countries because they cap damages for medical malpractice.  Not so here, where malpractice litigation can result in payouts in the multi-millions, forcing doctors and hospitals to practice defensive medicine by increasing the number of referrals to expensive specialists and pushing them to order a greater number of tests to insure that he/she doesn't miss something.

More importantly, contrary to the Democrat's claim that we don't have the best healthcare system in the world, just look a this table from a Forbes article:

This is why so many people who have universal health care in their own countries, elect to fly here (if they can afford it) to get treated for serious diseases.  Again, this shows Bernie's dishonesty by making it sound as if we don't have the best health system in the world. Enough already with the socialist crap!

References:

Bernie 2016: On the Issues: Medicare for All: Leaving No One Behind: https://berniesanders.com/issues/medicare-for-all/

New York Times: Finding a Doctor Who Accepts Medicare Isn't Easy:  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/business/retirementspecial/02health.html

AHA: Medicare, Medicaid Underpaid Hospitals by $56B: http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/aha-medicare-medicaid-underpaid-hospitals-by-56b.html

U.S. Cancer Care Is Number One: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba596

U.S. Cancer Care Is Number One

U.S. Cancer Care Is Number One

U.S. Cancer Care Is Number One

The Myth of Americans' Poor Life Expectancy: http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/11/23/the-myth-of-americans-poor-life-expectancy/#2be5abb13b35

How Other Countries Judge Malpractice The health-care systems Democrats want to emulate don't allow contingency fees or large jury awards: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124631652544770707

Lists of countries by average wage and disposable incomes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_wage

pb

What Sanders' Near-Win Says About the Democratic Party

For most Democrats, Iowa is part of fly-over country.  Too white.  Too religious. Too gun toting.  And, most importantly, too patriotic.

But, the Democratic caucus has proved that Iowa has become anything but those stereotypes.  In fact, Bernie Sanders' near-win proves that the face of Iowa's Democratic party has moved far left from its traditional center-left beliefs.  Those Midwest values seem to have been torn asunder in favor of socialist values that have destroyed so many economies and countries; both now and in the past. In fact, socialists falsely believe that they can elevate the poor by destroying the rich.  Yet, the opposite is true.  In Venezuela the poor can't even afford toilet paper or milk; and this year, they will have to contend with 700% inflation.  Then there's Greece, where the failure of that socialist state has again hurt the poor the most.

It is disturbing to me that so many Iowan's find this country -- a capitalist country -- so distasteful.  Where is the pioneer spirit that built Iowa?   Has rugged individualism been thrown over for [nanny] statism?  Sadly, that's what voting for Bernie Sanders reveals.

References:

The Bernie Sanders Philosophy: An Equal Share Of Misery: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2016/02/01/democratic-socialist-bernie-sanders-winston-churchill-and-the-equal-sharing-of-miseries/#fe4947d228bb

Democratic socialism might be inevitable in America, even if Bernie Sanders loses: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/01/this-scholar-argues-democratic-socialism-is-not-only-possible-in-america-but-inevitable/

Venezuela's 'socialist paradise' turns into a nightmare: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/venezuela/11385294/Venezuelas-socialist-paradise-turns-into-a-nightmare-medical-shortages-claim-lives-as-oil-price-collapses.html

Rich In Oil, Venezuela Is Now Poor In Most Everything Else: http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/02/07/384331225/rich-in-oil-venezuela-is-now-poor-in-most-everything-else 

Why are we ignoring this colossal socialist failure? - CNBC: http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/01/greek-disaster-is-all-about-socialism.html

Greece Financial Crisis Hits Poorest and Hungriest the Hardest: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/12/world/europe/greece-debt-crisis-athens-poverty-inequality.html 

Democrats Abuse of the Word 'Loophole'

To most people, the word loophole has a negative connotation.  It implies that someone has found a way around something.

When Democrats talk about the gun show loophole, corporate tax loopholes, or the loophole that allows the automatic approval of a gun sale if the FBI fails to provide a background check within 3 days, they are actually talking about laws, passed by Congress and signed by various Presidents, allowing certain things to happen.

Take the so-called gun show loophole referred to by Democrats.  This is actually the legal right of a private party to transfer a gun to another private party by sale, gift, inheritance, or loan without the receiving party having to go through a background check.  This is how the law is written.  And, it doesn't matter if the "transfer" takes place at a gun show, in someone's home, or out of the back of a car.  Now, understand, the law also has some serious caveats in the transfer of a firearm that could cause the original owner to be charged with a felony.  Those caveats are simply that you can't transfer a gun to another party if you know that party couldn't, themselves, pass a background check, or you are aware that the gun will be used in the commission of a crime.

Then, there are the corporate tax loopholes that both Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders like to talk about.  Again, these aren't loopholes.  These are tax breaks given by Congress to corporations as incentives.  For example, incentives to find more domestic oil and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Or, to write off the cost of making corporate owned buildings more energy efficient.  Or, the accelerated depreciation of certain capital expenses.  Believe me, if a corporation does skirt the law, the Internal Revenue Service will be all over it and would advise Congress to ange the law.

Now, Democrat Representative James Clyburn wants to close what he defines as another gun-sale related loophole.  This newly minted loophole is the "default proceed rule" under the Brady Bill that allows a gun sale to proceed if the FBI doesn't provide a result to the background check within 3 days.  If it was up to Clyburn, you could die waiting for an FBI background check to be completed.

The fact is that Democrats are using the word "loophole" as a disingenuous means to force legislation that would reverse laws that they don't like. That's why every time they want to close such "loopholes" they can get legislation passed because closing them would result in broader consequences.

References:

Definition of Loophole: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/loophole

The Facts about Gun Shows: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/facts-about-gun-shows

Eliminate all oil and gas tax loopholes - PolitiFact: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/2/eliminate-all-oil-and-gas-tax-loopholes/

Congressman introduces bill to close loophole that allowed alleged Charleston shooter to buy gun: http://www.businessinsider.com/charleston-shooting-gun-control-bill-2015-7

Clinton, O'Malley, & Sanders: American Corporations and Their CEO's Are Under Siege

When Martin O'Malley announced his candidacy, he took aim at American CEO's.

First he said:

"I’ve got news for the bullies of Wall Street: The presidency is not a crown to be passed back and forth by you between two royal families."

The term "bullies of Wall Street" certainly implies some deep seated hatred of these  companies and their execs.

Also, he said this:

"Tell me how it is that not a single Wall Street CEO was convicted of a crime related to the 2008 economic meltdown."

Well, maybe because the meltdown was more about legislative and political efforts and the position that Wall Street and the Banks were put into in order to push for low income and poor home ownership.

Later, O'Malley made the comment that he is happy to be 'the last person' Wall Street CEOs want running in 2016.  Which, is not even a veiled threat that, if elected, he would go after America's engine of economic growth.

Then, there's Bernie Sanders.

Early on in his campaign, he said he would be fine with a 90% tax on the wealthy.  He also took aim at 18 CEO's that he claimed took billions in bailouts, outsourced jobs, and dodged taxes.  One of those was Jeffery Immelt of GE who sits on President Obama's Economic Council.

Rounding out the attack on CEO hatred, there's Hillary Clinton.

In the first month of her campaign,  she claimed the average CEO was payed 400 times that of an average worker, and as such, if she was elected, she would do something about that.  However, this statistic only narrowly applies to 350 of the nearly 1/4 million CEO's in the country.  The median salary for those top-paid CEO's is $15.1 million while the median salary for most is a little over $173,000.  Obviously, she wants to pit the workers against the CEO's in her effort to get elected.

What all of this shows is that the Democratic party and its presidential candidates have become more and more anti-wealth and anti-business socialists. This at a time when most of Europe has figured out that socialism doesn't work and are now trying to throw that form of politics and economics overboard.

References:

Martin O’Malley announces presidential campaign: http://nypost.com/2015/05/30/martin-omalley-announces-presidential-campaign/

Martin O'Malley is happy to be 'the last person' Wall Street CEOs want running in 2016: http://www.businessinsider.com/martin-omalley-is-happy-to-be-the-last-person-wall-street-ceos-want-running-in-2016-2015-6

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) doesn't think a 90 percent tax rate on the richest is too high in order to combat income inequality.: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/05/26/3662773/sanders-90-percent-tax/

Bernie Sanders Exposes 18 CEOs who took Trillions in Bailouts, Evaded Taxes and Outsourced Jobs: http://www.politicususa.com/2012/10/25/bernie-sanders-exposes-18-ceos-trillions-bailouts-evaded-taxes-outsourced-jobs.html 

Fact check: Hillary Clinton misuses stat on CEO pay: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/05/21/fact-check-hillary-clinton-ceo-pay/27719353/

Poll: Dems now have as favorable a view of socialism as they do capitalism: http://libertyunyielding.com/2015/05/12/poll-dems-now-have-as-favorable-a-view-of-socialism-as-they-do-of-capitalism/ 

Europe: Social-democratic parties are in crisis everywhere — ideological and political: http://www.politico.eu/article/europes-lonely-socialist/

Free College and Student Loan Forgiveness?

Last week, college students across the country rallied, demanding free public college tuition and the erasure of all student loan debt.  Obviously, they'd gotten their cue from socialist Democratic candidate for President, Bernie Sanders.  Their simple solution to pay for this is to tax the richest 1% at 90%.  Thus, the lowest paid 1%-er would be left with $34,400 after a 90% income tax was collected against his/her $344,000.  Less than that when state taxes are also applied.  But, that's only fair in their minds.  After all, why should a senior law partner and Harvard graduate be paid more than a high school dropout garbage collector?

However, my biggest problem with "free" college is the fact that we already graduate too many college students who never fully utilize the degrees they have.  In a study conducted by the New York Federal Reserve,  one-third of all college graduates will never work at a job in which the degree they earned was a requirement; including all too many jobs that require no degrees.  And, for recent graduates, those under 27 years of age, that underemployment rate jumps to 45%.

According to the same study, of those underemployed, 45% will spend their working life in non-degreed but good paying jobs.  15% will never achieve a good paying job.  And, another 15% will spend their lives working part time.

To put it bluntly, these protesting students are asking the tax payers to pay for a full third of degrees that are, at times, more like hobbies than productive  or job creating.  For example, 63% of the people working in the Leisure and Hospitality industry have a degree, but are working in jobs that don't require one.

There's another side to this story as well.  American college students don't always dedicate themselves to a degree program.  From another study covered by U.S. News, we have this chart:

While lack of funding may be the case for some, most of the low on-time graduation story has to do with students making bad choices or not being prepared for college.  Twenty percent of all new undergraduates lose time towards their degree by having to take at least one remedial course.  Delays in graduation are also caused by changing majors or by losing credits due to transferring to another school.  Also, too many students prefer not to take a full course load in any given semester.  Or they simply  dropout for a variety of reasons not necessarily related to money.  Also, lets not forget that another study found that 30% of high school seniors, moving on to college, are doomed to flunk out.

In my opinion, making college free, will only exacerbate the problems outlined above.  College should not be a "right" as some would say. In fact, the goal should be to reduce college enrollment by focusing on better qualified students enrolled in degree programs that have a realistic chance of getting them a good paying job.  Does anyone really believe that the fastest growing degree program in this country should be in the fields of parks, recreation, leisure, and fitness studies?  31,667 degrees were earned in the last 10 years; most will never be used as originally intended. 


References:

Students across U.S. march over debt, free public college:  https://ca.news.yahoo.com/students-across-u-march-over-debt-free-public-110404606.html

Lowest Income For Top One Percent: https://www.google.com/search?q=lowest+income+for+1+percent&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

New York Federal Reserve:  Are Recent College Graduates  Finding Good Jobs?: http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/current_issues/ci20-1.pdf

Most College Students Don't Graduate On Time: http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014/12/01/report-too-much-freedom-hurts-college-graduation-rates

20 Surprising Higher Education Facts: http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/the-college-solution/2011/09/06/20-surprising-higher-education-facts

Over 30% Of High School Seniors Are On Track To Flunk Out Of College: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jmaureenhenderson/2014/08/20/over-30-of-high-school-seniors-are-on-track-to-flunk-out-of-college/

 

The Occupy Movement Is Alive and Well For Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton

In 2011, the news was filled with coverage of protests by the "Occupy Wall Street" movement driven by the concept of income inequality. The demonstrations were directed towards the top one percent of income earners.  Since then and recently, there has been nary a word about "Occupy".  That is until Hillary and Bernie began running for President. While not actually declaring themselves members of "Occupy", their words say otherwise.  Bernie, the consummate socialist, would tax the top one percent at 90%.   Hillary, after seeing the following chart by the far left Economic Policy Institute, said that top one percent should be "toppled":

Click on Chart to Enlarge

Of course, what Hillary Clinton was aghast at was that, since 1979, the income of this country's top one percent grew by 153.6%, while those at the the bottom only saw a growth of 17.1%.  Thus, she is implying that the wealthy got that way by suppressing the wages of the working poor.

Now a few points about that chart.

Most of the growth in the top one percent's earnings occurred in the years that Hillary's husband, Bill Clinton, was President (January 1993 to January 2001).  Since his leaving, that group has basically saw-toothed its way sideways; being significantly hurt in 2000 and 2008 by recessions. Also, the recovery to the 150% mark was much faster under Obama than it was under Bush.  Clearly, the top once percent seem to benefit from Democrat Presidents.

But, who are these so-called one percenters and why have their incomes grown so rapidly.

Most people seem to think that the one-percent crowd is made up of millionaires and billionaires.  But understand that this country has about 10 million people whose net worth is over a million dollars; or, about 3 percent of the population.  We have approximately 1745 billionaires; representing just 2 one-thousandths of a percent of our population.

The reality is that, according to the IRS, the top one percent are individuals or families with incomes just over $380,000; and, the average pay of all the one percenters is less than $1 million at $717,000.  Just 235,000 tax returns in 2009 were for people and families making over a million dollars a year.  8,274 returns were for those making $10 million and above.  There really aren't a lot of extremely rich tax returns being filed.

So, why has the one percent's incomes grow so rapidly?

Well, we have a lot of people that are being paid drastically increasing annual incomes over the last few decades.  The average NFL player in 1969 was making just $25,000.  If adjusted for inflation, that would be a little above $156,000 today.  Yet, the average NFL salary is now $1.9 million dollars.  An average NBA player is at $5.15 million.  A major league baseball player: $3.2 million. Rapper Jay-Z has an annual income of $56 million. Kanye West $30 million.  Both Celine Dion and Britney Spears earned $15 million a year each from just their Las Vegas shows.  The 31 year-old Mark Zuckerberg is worth $41.7 billion for creating a premier social media site called Facebook.  Bill Gates is the richest man in the world with a net worth of almost $80 billion for co-founding Microsoft.  And the list goes on.

The growth of wealth spans all areas of the economy.  At the same time, tax policies, government regulations, and a decline in education has driven the high paying jobs off- shore.

References:

Average America vs the One Percent - Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneywisewomen/2012/03/21/average-america-vs-the-one-percent/

How Much Money Do The Top Income Earners Make?: http://www.financialsamurai.com/how-much-money-do-the-top-income-earners-make-percent/

Average Pro Player Salary: https://www.google.com/search?q=average+pro+player+salary&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
 

Hillary and Bernie at War with Big Business

As long as I can remember, Democrats have hated big business. They claim that they have too many tax loopholes; don't pay their workers well; ruin the environment; don't provide good healthcare plans or other benefits; and ship jobs overseas.  Its no wonder then, that during this election cycle, both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have both tried to outdo each other by bashing big businesses and, in doing so, have promised big regulatory changes to put them in their places.

The problem is that this is simply unfounded, political talk.  Most people don't realize how crucial big business is to the economy and jobs.

First, there's job creation.

Data Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

As you can see, since 1990, the vast majority of new jobs -- 65% --  were created by big business.  Before you decide this is some right wing propaganda, the above chart was put together by Jared Bernstein; a former economist for the Obama Administration and economic adviser to Joe Biden.

Besides creating a lot of jobs, large businesses pay well.  On average, those firms pay their employees 50% more than those employees working at small companies.  So, obviously, if we want to give America a raise -- as President Obama has said in the past -- our focus should be on helping big businesses grow jobs. 

Then, there's health insurance.

What this collection of charts shows is that -- 3 years before the ObamaCare employer mandate went into effect -- nearly 100% of large businesses offered their employees health insurance; even though the author of these charts considers businesses with 200+ employees a large business rather than the accepted standard of 500+ employees.   But, even so, it shows that large businesses -- besides paying better -- also provide greater benefits; this also includes retirement programs.  While most large companies offer profit sharing, pensions, or matching contribution 401K plans, only 24% of small businesses offer similar retirement plans.  Most workers at smaller firms must either rely on Social Security or their own savings after retirement.  Also, if they do offer a 401k, the value of it is most likely much smaller smaller employers simply cannot afford matching dollar programs like those offered by large organizations.  This is one of the primary reasons why 9% of retirees in this country are in poverty.

Last year, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the typical American family lost $800 in income.  This tells me that we are creating too many small businesses and do not have enough expansion of existing big businesses which typically create more jobs with higher pay and better benefit programs.  We need to encourage the growth of large companies in this country by allowing them to bring back already-taxed overseas profits without having to be taxed a second time at the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world.  To that point, we need to lower the corporate tax rate to be competitive with other countries.  The last thing we need is Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders promising to further retard large business growth through more regulation.  We've had enough of that from Obama; resulting in overall lower pay for the middle class.  We certainly don't need Hillary's misguided pledge to be the "Small Business President".

References:

On big business, Clinton moves to the left of Sanders:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/on-big-business-clinton-moves-left-of-sanders/2015/07/30/203e3ba2-3624-11e5-9739-170df8af8eb9_story.html

Jared Bernstein: Getting Straight on Small Business Job Creation: Firms vs. Establishments: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jared-bernstein/small-business-job-creation_b_1685869.html

President Obama: It's Time to Give America a Raise: https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/03/05/president-obama-its-time-give-america-raise

Big firms pay 50 percent higher wages than small businesses, study shows: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/on-small-business/big-firms-pay-50-percent-higher-wages-than-small-businesses-study-shows/2012/11/28/e24a1f58-3970-11e2-a263-f0ebffed2f15_story.html

Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance - 3 Questions All Small Businesses Should Ask: http://www.zanebenefits.com/blog/bid/324135/Employer-Sponsored-Health-Insurance-3-Questions-All-Small-Businesses-Should-Ask

Working for a Small Business? Your 401(k) Is Probably Small, Too: http://time.com/money/2850490/small-business-may-mean-small-401k/

Why you may retire in poverty: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/07/us-column-miller-poverty-idUSBRE8760VW20120807

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

Obama’s 3 Strikes Against Big Business: http://www.cheatsheet.com/business/obamas-3-strikes-against-big-business.html/?a=viewall

Small Business | Issues | Hillary for America - Hillary Clinton: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/small-business/ 

 

Bernie Sanders: Jail Wall Street CEO's

On October 6th, Bernie Sanders said this:

“It is an obscenity that people in this country are getting arrested at near record rates for smoking marijuana, but not one Wall Street CEO has been prosecuted for triggering the Great Recession in 2008. Millions of Americans lost their jobs, homes, life savings and ability to send their kids to college because of the greed on Wall Street. We can no longer tolerate a criminal justice system that treats Wall Street executives as too big to jail when their actions have ruined the lives of so many Americans.”

Simply, the reason that no Wall Street CEO was ever charged with a single crime during the financial crisis, was that two Democratic-controlled Congresses and two Democratic Presidents -- Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton -- were responsible for the housing bubble and the fact that banking institutions were engaging in investment activities by bundling loans and selling them on Wall Street. A fact that the Obama Administration didn't want made public with a series of federal trials. 

In 1977, Congress passed a bill called the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA); which President Carter signed into law. That law "encouraged" any banking institution receiving Federal Depositors Insurance to provide increased loan activity to low income neighborhoods in the area they served. In other words, banks were forced to relax their lending requirements and take on more risk by lending to lower income families.  Banking institutions not in compliance could lose FDIC and be barred from any expansion of their operations.

Enforcement was lax until Bill Clinton became President in 1993.  His administration heavily cracked down on banks and expanded the mandate to increase the percentage of low income families being served by the law. Thus, they were seriously forced to take on more risk and severely reduce lending requirements.  This resulted in people getting  loans that never should have. In the following video, Clinton brags about the fact that since 1977, 85+% of the funding in low income neighborhoods had come after his 5 years in office:

Then, too, Clinton also signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act which repealed those parts of the 1933 Glass-Stegall law which had prohibited investment banking.  Therefore, banks got the green light to use Wall Street to bundle mortgages and sell them in the stock market in order to shield themselves from the increased loan risk from low income families.

Basically, it was the federal government that created the financial mess that occurred just 6 years after Clinton left office.  And, any CEO being charged with some kind of fiduciary malfeasance -- as Bernie Sanders has suggested -- would have easily escaped  any fines or prison time because of  "the devil made me do it" defense; where the devil is really President Clinton.

So Bernie, maybe it is Bill Clinton who needs to be behind bars; and not some Wall Street CEO.

References:

Bernie Sanders wants Wall Street execs jailed for 2008 financial crisis: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251653762

A Brief Description of CRA: http://www.ncrc.org/programs-a-services-mainmenu-109/policy-and-legislation-mainmenu-110/the-community-reinvestment-act-mainmenu-80/a-brief-description-of-cra-mainmenu-136

Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act