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/

To Hillary: ObamaCare's Price Spike Glitches Are Continuing!

Last December, in an ABC-televised debate, Hillary Clinton defended the fact that healthcare premiums have risen 27% in the last 5 years and deductibles were up 62% in the same period by saying: "I would certainly build on the successes of the Affordable Care Act and work to fix some of the glitches".  In other words, she's referring to the massive spike in costs as simply  "glitches" that will be worked out when she becomes President.

Well, this year will be the fourth enrollment in the Exchanges and the "glitches" aren't just happening again but are also nearly out of control with earliest insurance premium requests for 2017 being submitted to the state regulators ranging from a low of 12% in Washington, D.C. to a high of 46% for the State of New York.  The reason?  Only 25% of insurers operating in the ObamaCare Exchanges were profitable last year.

In addition to the rate increase, many insurers will be bumping up the deductibles to as much as $7,050.  To put that number into perspective, a recent poll by the Associated Press found that two-thirds of Americans would have difficulty coming up with just $1,000 in an unexpected emergency.

Lastly, during that same debate, Hillary also stated “I want us to be absolutely clear about making sure the insurance companies in the private employer policy arena, as well as in the Affordable Care exchanges, are properly regulated so that we are not being gamed."  How can 75% of insurers losing money not be gaming the system?  The reality is that the promised "younger and healthier" enrollees that were supposed to force premiums down just aren't happening because costs are already too high.  Instead, the insurers are having to contend with older and sicker enrollees and massive costs to support their healthcare. And, as premiums continue to rise at these high rates, the trend of younger people staying away from ObamaCare will only continue.

Let's face it.  ObamaCare isn't working. It is not a success, and for Hillary to say she will build on it's "successes" is sheer idiocy. As rate requests keep coming in high, it will be very difficult for her to talk about ObamaCare during this election cycle.

References:

Clinton Calls Obamacare’s Rising Premiums and Health Care Costs ‘Glitches’: http://freebeacon.com/issues/clinton-calls-obamacares-rising-premiums-and-health-care-costs-glitches/

Obamacare Sticker Shock for 2017: http://www.rpc.senate.gov/policy-papers/obamacare-sticker-shock-for-2017

Young people saying 'no' to Obamacare's high premiums: https://www.pacificresearch.org/article/young-people-saying-no-to-obamacares-high-premiums/

Elkhart, Indiana: Obama Touts His Economic Success

Last week, while giving a speech on the economy in Elkhart, Indiana, President Obama said this:

“By almost every economic measure, America is better off than when I came here at the beginning of my presidency. That’s the truth.”

The problem with that statement is that it isn't "the truth".  The folks at Zero Hedge, a business, stock market, and economics site, presented this series of 9 graphs to refute it:

Pink Shading Obama's Term in Office...Click on image to enlarge

This is a President who has increasingly presided over one negative economic record after another.  And, there is another not included in the above records: The highest number of Americans in poverty --  nearly one in seven -- since Lyndon Johnson declared a "War on Poverty" more than 50 years ago.  Also, Obama is slated to have the 4th worst economic record in the history of the country.  Only Herbert Hoover, Andrew Johnson, and Teddy Roosevelt were worse.

This President not only thinks, but knows, that most people will believe his lies because they don't understand all the facets and facts that make up the economy, and aren't interested in researching what he says.  And, for sure, the liberal media isn't going to do their job and expose his lies.

References:

Obama visits Elkhart to discuss economy: http://www.idsnews.com/article/2016/06/obama-in-elkhart

Chart Source: These Are The 9 Zero Hedge Charts Showing "Obama's Recovery" That Angered The Washington Post: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-03/these-are-9-zero-hedge-charts-showing-obamas-recovery-angered-washington-post

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

Barack Obama's Sad Record on Economic Growth | RealClearMarkets:  http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2016/02/01/barack_obamas_sad_record_on_economic_growth_101987.html

The Downward Trend in Job Creation

Ever since last Friday's May jobs report was released, various economists/analysts have been quick to say that "one month isn't a trend" and this may just be a "fluke" or a "one-off" situation.  The Labor Secretary says the miss is all about 40,000 Verizon workers who are on strike.  Besides the fact that he's inflating the number by 4,000, adding in 36,000 workers would only show that May's numbers would still be low at 74,000 and 61,000 jobs; respectively.  That's half of what April's numbers were, and almost one-fourth of last year's job creation.

Now, I don't know what report those commentators are looking at, but the decline in job creation extends back a year.  Just look at this snap shot from Table B, page 5 of the May Employment Situation Report:

The top line number is Total Non-Farm job's creation which includes governmental.  The lower line is for the Private Sector Non-Farm job creation.  But, in either case, there has been a substantial decrease from the 273,000 or 256,000 jobs that were created a year ago.  And, this month's numbers are a substantial drop from the trend that had developed in the prior two months.

This is why I join a lot of analysts who believe we are heading for a negative labor market contraction  -- maybe as early as next month -- that would indicate a recession.

As far as those commentators, who think this is only a one-off situation, my only guess is that they are trying to soft-peddle this report to either protect Barack Obama's approvals or protect Hillary Clinton's run for the Presidency. Obviously, a recession would be beneficial to Trump running as a successful businessman. 

References:

Labor Secretary Thomas Perez warned that it's important not to overreact to a single bad jobs report: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-economy-may-jobs-report-thomas-perez-191936901.html#

Employment Situation Summary Table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

A Business Recession Looms: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/06/04/a_business_recession_looms_130771.html

Friday's bad jobs report is good news for Donald Trump: http://www.businessinsider.sg/bad-jobs-report-donald-trump-2016-6/#.V1L--uS9X-s

36,000 Verizon workers go on strike - Apr. 13, 2016 - CNN Money: http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/13/technology/verizon-strike

A Really, Really Ugly Jobs Report

Superficially, the headlines for the May job's report don't look that bad.  38,000 jobs were created and the unemployment rate fell to a post recession low of 4.7% from 5% in April.

However, that 38,000 is the lowest number of jobs created in the last 5 years.  Also understand, that in order to lower the unemployment rate by 3-tenths of a percent from the month prior, 477,000 jobs would have had to be created against April's workforce size of 159.9 million workers.  So, you have to wonder what gives?

Well the "what" that "gives" is that the number of unemployed fell by 484,000, and at the same time, the size of the workforce fell by 458,000.  This tells me that the majority of people who left the workforce were unemployed and have just given up looking for work in frustration.  As such, an unemployed worker who is not looking for work is not counted as  part of the workforce.  This is also why the number of long term unemployed fell by 178,000.  Most likely, because they stopped looking for work and not because they found it.  If they had found work, the number of jobs created would be higher than 38,000.

The bad new doesn't stop there.  The number workers who are working part time because they are not able to find full time work, rose by an amazing 468,000, to a total of 6.4 million.  To put this into perspective, just 4.5 million workers were in this same employment condition in May 2007.

The bottom line is that we have an economy that isn't producing jobs; despite the spin by  President Obama.  We have too many people giving up looking for work and too many people working part time for economic reasons.  If this condition extends into next month, we could be looking at the beginning of a recession.

References:

May 2016 Employment Situation Report: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

May 2007 Employment Situation Report:  http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_06012007.pdf

Katie Couric Continues the Tradition of Gun Control Activist's Lies

One thing I've realized while doing research for this blog is that gun control activists lie because they can't win on facts.

In fact, Katie Couric just followed that tradition by lying in a documentary she recently aired called "Under the Gun".  In a round table discussion with a panel of gun rights advocates, Couric asked "If there are no background checks for gun purchasers, how do you prevent felons or terrorists from purchasing a gun?".  In the aired version, that question is followed by 9 seconds of silence with edited-in video clips of the panel looking perplexed or, as some say, stupid.  However, the real version -- that was edited out -- showed thoughtful responses to the question by the panel members.  But, like most gun control activists, they don't want "thoughtful" or realistic anything regarding gun control.

Take the gun show loophole that Hillary Clinton decries constantly.  There is none.  What she calls the gun show loophole is the fact that any private citizen, per the Brady Bill, can transfer the possession of a firearm to another private party without a background check.  That was an intentional part of the law and not a loophole.   She also claims that 40% of guns sold at gun shows and on the internet are sold without background checks.   There isn't a single study or report that supports that claim.  That statistic is a perversion of a 1994 telephone survey that asked the respondents if they bought their gun from a licensed dealer.  It had nothing to do with background checks because they didn't even exist until 4 years later in 1998. 

A group that calls itself Handgun Control, Inc. claims that 25 to 50 percent of vendors at gun shows don't have federal firearm licenses.  That fact is only true when it includes the  vendors that are not selling guns at the show.  Like those selling hot dogs, hats, t-shirts etc.

Then, Denver congresswoman Diana DeGette said that 70 percent of guns used in crimes come from gun shows.  This is another lie.  The Department of Justice asked 18,000 prison inmates what was the source of the gun they possessed at the time of their arrest.  Only 7-tenths of one percent said it came from a gun show.  The highest response by almost 40% was the "Streets".

Here's the truth in just one graph:

Essentially, gun-related homicides have fallen, while the number of guns owned has risen since 1993. Almost proportionately.  In addition, and not shown on the graph, is the fact that non-fatal gun violence has fallen 68% over the same period.  Also understand that 80% of all crimes are gang related.  Yet, gun control advocates seem to think that it is the average gun owners that are the problem.

Simply, I tune out any talk of gun control because it is almost always based on lies.  Also, our energies would be better focused on gang control and not gun control.

References:

Katie Couric slammed for 'deceptive' documentary about gun rights: http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2016/05/26/katie-couric-slammed-for-deceptive-documentary-about-gun-rights.html

Katie Couric Decried ‘Edited’ Planned Parenthood Footage, Then Doctored A Gun Owner Interview: http://thefederalist.com/2016/05/26/katie-couric-decried-edited-planned-parenthood-footage-then-doctored-a-gun-owner-interview/

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

Fact Check: Clinton’s claim that 40 percent of guns are sold at gun shows and over the Internet: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/10/16/clintons-claim-that-40-percent-of-guns-are-sold-at-gun-shows-and-over-the-internet/

Firearm Use by Offenders: http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

Source of Graph: https://www.aei.org/publication/chart-of-the-day-more-guns-less-gun-violence-between-1993-and-2013/

Gangs Blamed for 80 Percent of U.S. Crimes: http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/FedCrimes/story?id=6773423&page=1

pb

Hillary's Email Claim: "My predecessors did the same thing"

For months now, Hillary Clinton has been using the kind of excuse for her email server problems that you might hear from a ten-year-old: "my predecessors did the same thing".

Well, now, the recent Inspector General's audit and report on email usage by each Secretary of State since Madeleine Albright is out, and that report says something quite different. Here are the excerpts for each Secretary of State:

• Secretary Albright (page 20): "...did not find any evidence to indicate that Secretary Albright used either [State] Department or personal email accounts during her tenure".
• Secretary Powell: (page 21): "...Secretary Powell stated that he accessed the email account via his personal laptop computer in his office [via State Department services], while traveling, and at his residence [via a private line], but not through a mobile device."
• Secretary Rice (page 22): "...Secretary did not use either personal or [State] Department email accounts for official business."
• Secretary Kerry (page 25): "...while he has used a personal email account to conduct official business, he has done so infrequently."

So, in essence, Hillary, is, again caught in a lie.  Her only predecessor that used private emails to conduct official business was Colin Powell; and, not the plurality she implies when she says "predecessors".   But, unlike Secretary Clinton, he retained the text of those emails on a laptop that he carried with him at all times and was only hackable while online.  In Hillary's case, those emails existed on a private server, accessible 24/7, which resided in her New York home and was not maintained and monitored at all times for any attempts at hacking.  She also used unsecured mobile devices such as an unmodified Blackberry and iPhone.  We also know that there were hacking attempts in January of 2011.  Yet, she continued to use that server for 2 more years until she left office in 2013.

Clearly, Clinton's email usage had a far larger potential for the abuse of federal regulations and posed a much greater security risk than any Secretary of State; either before or after her tenure.  This whole email server scandal shows her gross incompetence and inability to protect some of the world's most sensitive information.  Just another example of why she shouldn't be President.

References:

[The text of the] State Department report on Clinton's email practices: https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/politics/state-department-report-on-clintons-email-practices/2039/?tid=a_inlhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/politics/state-department-report-on-clintons-email-practices/2039/?tid=a_inl

Hillary Clinton said 'my predecessors did the same thing' with email: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/09/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-said-my-predecessors-did-same-thin/

Clinton email use broke federal rules: inspector's report: http://www.newswest9.com/story/32061296/clinton-faulted-on-emails-by-state-department-audit