America's Politics of Religion

America was founded on religious freedom by those who escaped religious persecution in other countries.  The phrase "Under God" appears consistently on our currency, and is integral to our Pledge of Allegiance.  However, God may be less important to Americans, today than He was even in 2007.  As the following chart shows, the percentage of those who were not affiliated with any religion has risen from 16% in 2007 to 23% in 2014.

Within that rise of unaffiliated, the percentage of Atheists rose from 1.6% to 3.1% and those who consider themselves Agnostic rose from 2.4% to 4% over that same 7 year period.  In general, members of mainstream religion are losing steam to non-believers:

The fact is simple, the country is becoming increasingly secular.  Evangelicals, Protestants, and Catholics are all in decline. As such, the Democrat party seems to be the biggest beneficiary of the decline with 28% of the party being non-affiliates.  How this will play out in this year's election is anyone's guess.  But, on the surface, it looks as if the Democrats are gaining in the size of their electoral base.

References:

Secular Voters Raise Their Voices - WSJ: https://www.google.com/search?q=Secular+Voters+Raise+Their+Voices&safe=off&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjikcOLpZbNAhUES2MKHXCADbcQ_AUICCgC&biw=1067&bih=521#imgrc=kdNc32xWRl7mBM%3A

America’s Changing Religious Landscape: Christians Decline Sharply as Share of Population; Unaffiliated and Other Faiths Continue to Grow: http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/

Americans are less Christian, more atheist and agnostic: Pew survey: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/americans-christian-atheist-agnostic-survey-article-1.2219229

pb

Tax Payer Money for Illegal Alien Healthcare?

One provision of the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) says this:

Section 1332 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) permits a state to apply for a State Innovation Waiver to pursue innovative strategies for providing their residents with access to high quality, affordable health insurance while retaining the basic protections of the ACA.

State Innovation Waivers are available beginning January 1, 2017.  State Innovation Waivers are approved for five-year periods, and can be renewed.  Waivers must not increase the Federal deficit.

Well, it now appears that California is poised to take advantage of this provision by submitting a waiver request that would allow illegal aliens to buy insurance in California's ObamaCare exchange.  California expects that this waiver would benefit 50,000 of the state's 2.6 million illegals.  The state is emphasizing that subsidies are not being requested  along with this waiver. The hope is that this will be reviewed and approved after January 1, 2017 and before Obama leaves office on January 20, 2017.

In my opinion, this is less about helping illegals get access to health insurance and more about helping the state's Democrat in an election year.

First of all, the number being helped by such a waiver is quite small, at less than 2% of the Illegal population of California.   I also think that the estimate of 50,000 is still too high because the cost of healthcare premiums -- without subsidies -- will make this insurance unaffordable for most illegals.  But never mind that. Some believe that this waiver request is a migration strategy that will lead to illegals getting federal subsidies in just a few years. Also, illegals may not want to buy insurance in the exchanges for fear of exposure.

Right now, California's 2.6 million illegals are getting their healthcare -- for free -- by simply going to any hospital that accepts Medicaid patients by taking advantage of the federal law known as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA).  That law allows any foreign national to receive healthcare regardless of their ability to pay.  So, why would they give up free for paid healthcare in the exchanges?

If illegals do get federally subsidized insurance, it will be another broken promise by President Obama who, in 2009, said this:

“There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms that I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.”

Again, this is all about politics and about Democrat's hopes that Hispanics remain a solid voting block for them; both in this year and in the future.  Their biggest hope is that, someday, 10 million illegal Hispanics will become citizens and, as such, instant Democrats.

References:

California Could Become the First State to Expand Coverage to Illegal Immigrants Under Obamacare: http://dailysignal.com/2016/06/06/california-could-become-the-first-state-to-expand-coverage-to-illegal-immigrants-under-obamacare/

SECTION 1332: STATE INNOVATION WAIVERS: https://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Programs-and-Initiatives/State-Innovation-Waivers/Section_1332_state_Innovation_Waivers-.html

Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act

Should High Capacity Firearms Be Licensed?

What we know about the Orlando massacre is that the shooter used a "223" AR-15 to do most of the damage.  He legally bought it by passing a background check. For those who don't know, the AR-15 and all of its variants is essentially the civilian version of the military's M-16, and has standard magazine capacities of 20 and 30 rounds.  That's a lot of shots available to someone who wants to kill a lot of people. Larger magazines are also available.

The normal argument for owning one or more of these high capacity military-style weapons is "for self defense".  Arguing that there are bad guys out there with similar capability.  This is a reasonably sound argument since Americans have bought tens of millions of them.  Others say they are just gun enthusiasts who want them as part of their personal collections.

However, because of the widespread killing power of the AR-15 and other weapons like them, I think that a new federal license coupled with a more thorough background check should be required before a purchase can even be attempted.  Perhaps, even a mandatory interview by the FBI or other law enforcement agency. Additionally, there should be an enforced waiting period of two weeks or more before a dealer surrenders the weapon to its new owner. Also, the number of high capacity magazines should be limited to only two purchases per year.

These restrictions would not bar qualified individuals from owning these guns, and, as such, would not be a violation of one's 2nd Amendment rights. It would simply put qualifying time and purchase limits on buyers so that those who intend to kill would be stopped or abandon the plan; especially if they have to be interviewed by an FBI agent.  Would this program have prevented the Orlando shooting? I don't know.  People who want to kill will always find some way to do so.  Just look at the Boston Marathon bombings.

Lastly, while high capacity rifles tend to show up in mass shootings, they, themselves, are rarely used in the commission of homicides.  According to the FBI's statistics on homicides by weapon type, out of nearly 12,000 murders in 2014, just 248 victims were killed by rifles (of any kind).  This represents a year-after-year decline since 2010 when 367 were killed by rifles.  The reality is that rifles are not the weapon of choice by murderers because they are difficult to conceal.  Therefore, even if we did ban all assault rifles, the impact on the murder rate in America may only be negligible.

References:

Hillary Clinton Calls For A Ban On AR-15 Rifles After Orlando Massacre:  http://uproxx.com/news/hillary-clinton-ar-15-ban-assault-weapons/

FBI — Expanded Homicide Data, 2010 to 2014, Table 8: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls

What Obama Should Have Done After Orlando

The Orlando massacre was an atrocity akin to an act of war.  Instead of referencing how easy it is to get guns and never once mentioning ISIS (or ISIL?) by name, President Obama should have committed us to at least a doubling of air attacks against ISIS in retaliation.  And, further, pledged even more "in kind" escalations whenever there is a terror attack against this country.

Perhaps then, U.S.-based ISIS supporters will learn that their actions will actually result in a destruction of their own cause.

Reference: Video: President Obama on the Tragic Shooting in Orlando: https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/06/12/president-obama-tragic-shooting-orlando

Obama Calls Orlando Massacre "Perversions of Islam"

Just one day after we learned of the massacre of LGBT's at a famed nightclub in Orlando, President Obama stated that the killer was inspired by "perversions of Islam".  So, in other words, Muslims have a peaceful opinion of gays.

Really?

Then, why do Afghanistan, Brunei, Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, United Arab Emirates and Yemen all have death penalties for homosexual activities?   Apparently, all these Islamic states are perverted.  Especially, our supposed good friends in Saudi Arabia.

References:

LGBT in Islam: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_in_Islam

Obama: Orlando Killer Inspired by 'Propaganda and Perversions of Islam' on Internet: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/2016/06/13/obama-orlando-killer-inspired-by-propaganda-and-perversions-of-islam-on-internet/

Job Creation and Slow Wage Growth

Click on Image to Enlarge

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, nearly 60% of all workers in this country are paid hourly.  But, when I look at the graph above, showing extremely low wage growth for hourly workers since 2009, it tells me that it is nearly half of what it should be.  It also tells me that the economy is suffering from an employment condition known as a "slack workforce".  In other words, there are too many workers chasing too few jobs.  As a result, employers aren't competing with each other to fill jobs and retain personnel through higher wages.

Essentially, organic wage growth all comes down to vigorous job creation which appears to be seriously missing.  There can be several reasons for this.  The lack of funding to create startup businesses and entrepreneurship.  Government over-regulation such as ObamaCare which forces businesses to convert workers to part time employment or to use contract labor.   Or, low wages themselves which results in slow business activity and less job growth.

What I am trying to stress is that, since Obama has been in office, wage growth has been well below normal from about 3.5% to 4.5% annually.  Now, while there has been an up trend that started last year, I believe that it had more to do with the fact that 29 States and the District of Columbia imposed minimum wages higher than the Federal minimum of $7.25. If so, this is not indicative of normal or sustainable growth. Only time will tell if true wage growth is restored to normal levels.

References:

Chart Source: St. Louis Federal Reserve:  https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1Jf5#

What Is an Appropriate Annual Salary Increase?: http://work.chron.com/appropriate-annual-salary-increase-16035.html

Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers, 2014: http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/archive/characteristics-of-minimum-wage-workers-2014.pdf

American Entrepreneurship: Dead or Alive?: http://www.gallup.com/businessjournal/180431/american-entrepreneurship-dead-alive.aspx

35% of Workforce Unemployed in 20 Years

It seems like almost everyday, there are new concerns and warnings about the coming reality of replacing workers with Artificial Intelligence (AI) coupled with robotics.

Now, the latest news comes in a joint report from the consulting firm Deloitte and experts at Oxford University that suggests that 35% of the workforce will be replaced in just 20 years. This is a less aggressive prediction than last year's estimate of a 30% replacement  -- including white collar jobs -- by 2025.

But, supporting those predictions are real life stories that prove we are -- right now -- on the path of high unemployment due to robotics.  In China, the electronics contractor Foxconn Technology Group just announced the replacement of 60,000 factory workers with robots.  At the same time, the former CEO of McDonald's, Ed Rensi, pointed to this year's National Restaurant Show and the number of working robots on display as a forewarning of the future of the restaurant industry; especially fast food.  As he noted, it is cheaper to buy a $35,000 robotic arm to bag fries than to pay someone $15/hour to do the same.  By the way, the annualized salary at $15/hour is $31,000; meaning a ROI (Return on Investment) in just a little over a year.  Even less, if the cost of providing health insurance is added in.

This is just further proof that those pushing a $15 minimum wage are, in fact, pushing the minimum wage worker right off a cliff.  And, once again, the unions are the ones doing the pushing.  In fact, unions have done more to decrease their own membership in the last 50 years; down from 35% of the workforce in 1964 to just 10% today.  Fast food workers should make note of that fact when union workers are picketing outside their workplace for a $15 minimum wage.

References:

Foxconn replaces '60,000 factory workers with robots': http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36376966

Building robot McDonald's staff 'cheaper' than hiring workers on minimum wage: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/building-robot-mcdonalds-staff-cheaper-8044106

Experts predict robots will take over 30% of our jobs by 2025 — and white-collar jobs aren't immune: http://www.businessinsider.com/experts-predict-that-one-third-of-jobs-will-be-replaced-by-robots-2015-5

Union, not workers, behind push for $15 wage: http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20160417/OPINION03/160419427

The incredible decline of American unions, in one animated map: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/24/the-incredible-decline-of-american-unions-in-one-animated-map/

pb