Tuesday, July 30, 2013
Congressional Black Caucus recommends Sheila Jackson Lee for Homeland Security Secretary !
Houston Chronicle ^ | 07/29/2013 | Hannah Jeffrey
Conservative bloggers went wild Monday when they got wind of the Congressional Black Caucus’ suggestion that President Obama pick Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee of Houston for the post of Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.
Rich Cooper, avid blogger for Security Debrief, responded to the news of the Jackson Lee recommendation in a post by saying, “Apparently, it is not a joke. For reasons that baffle any sense of reality, it is a serious gesture on the part of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) to encourage President Obama to nominate Rep. Jackson Lee as a replacement for outgoing-DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano.”
A letter dated July 25 and signed by CBC Chairwoman Rep. Marcia Fudge, an Ohio Democrat, urges President Barack Obama to consider Jackson Lee for the position formerly held by Janet Napolitano, the first woman to hold the position. Napolitano resigned earlier this month to become president of the University of California.
“Representative Jackson Lee would serve as an effective DHS Secretary because she understands the importance of increasing border security and maintaining homeland security,” the nomination letter reads.
Since entering Congress in 1995, Jackson Lee has served on several committees, including Foreign Affairs, Judiciary and Homeland Security, in which she was the Chairwoman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection.
“As Chairwoman, Representative Jackson Lee supported increased airplane cargo inspections and increased security for railroads, issues of great importance to the security of this nation and its citizens,” the letter continues.
Jackson Lee currently holds the post of Ranking Member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security, a position that the CBC says she “stands as a strong and honest ‘voice of reason.’”
Conservative bloggers went wild Monday when they got wind of the Congressional Black Caucus’ suggestion that President Obama pick Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee of Houston for the post of Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.
Rich Cooper, avid blogger for Security Debrief, responded to the news of the Jackson Lee recommendation in a post by saying, “Apparently, it is not a joke. For reasons that baffle any sense of reality, it is a serious gesture on the part of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) to encourage President Obama to nominate Rep. Jackson Lee as a replacement for outgoing-DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano.”
A letter dated July 25 and signed by CBC Chairwoman Rep. Marcia Fudge, an Ohio Democrat, urges President Barack Obama to consider Jackson Lee for the position formerly held by Janet Napolitano, the first woman to hold the position. Napolitano resigned earlier this month to become president of the University of California.
“Representative Jackson Lee would serve as an effective DHS Secretary because she understands the importance of increasing border security and maintaining homeland security,” the nomination letter reads.
Since entering Congress in 1995, Jackson Lee has served on several committees, including Foreign Affairs, Judiciary and Homeland Security, in which she was the Chairwoman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection.
“As Chairwoman, Representative Jackson Lee supported increased airplane cargo inspections and increased security for railroads, issues of great importance to the security of this nation and its citizens,” the letter continues.
Jackson Lee currently holds the post of Ranking Member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security, a position that the CBC says she “stands as a strong and honest ‘voice of reason.’”
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.chron.com ...
5 Ways Liberalism Destroyed Detroit
Townhall.com ^ | July 30, 2013 | John Hawkins
Detroit was once one of the world's great cities. It was the 4th largest metropolis in America, jobs were plentiful because of the auto industry, and Motown even kept it on the cutting edge musically.
Unfortunately, from 1962 until the present day, the mayor of Detroit has been a Democrat.
The result?
Detroit's population has dropped from 1.8 million to just over 700,000, the unemployment rate is over 50% if you count the people who've given up on finding jobs, property values have dropped so much you can buy homes in the crime-ridden city for $500, and Detroit has gone bankrupt.
How did Democrats kill one of the most prosperous cities in America? With the same sort of unfettered liberalism that Democrats like Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi want to foist on the rest of the nation.
1) Unions crippled the auto industry: The Big 3 automakers could afford unions when they practically had a monopoly on auto production in the United States. However, once they started facing real competition from overseas, the unions made them less and less competitive. The unions forced the companies to pay out more than market value for their workers, put stifling work rules in place that made flexibility and innovation difficult, and created generous pension plans that are proving to be unsustainable. This wouldn't have been possible without a symbiotic relationship between the unions and the Democrats in government who tied the hands of the Big 3 automakers and simply wouldn't allow them to get rid of the unions that were slowly strangling them to death. Eventually because of the unions, the Big 3 automakers had to deal with significantly larger costs per car than their overseas competitors and they took it out of the only place they could: the cars. As the quality of their products dropped, their competitors took an ever larger share of their market, and there were fewer jobs to go around. If you want to know why the "Motor City" is up on cinder blocks in Michigan's front yard, this is where it started.
2) White citizens were demonized until they left: Detroit was a heavily segregated city and in 1967, there were black riots. After that, white flight to the suburbs began. This was dramatically exacerbated when Coleman Young became Detroit's first black mayor in 1972. Young was cut from the same cloth as men like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, but unlike the two of them, he actually had power. Young systematically drove white government employees out of their jobs so they could be replaced by blacks, was hostile to the white suburbs, and was generally perceived as anti-white. Naturally, a lot of white people just left, which reduced the population and significantly cut into the tax base. Today, Detroit is a 7.9% white city, and if he were alive and kicking, that would probably suit Coleman Young just fine.
3) Out-of-control crime helped drive much of the black middle class out of the city: Ever heard of "Devil's Night?" It's the night before Halloween and in Detroit, fires are set all over the city. Combine the sort of criminal mentality that produces an unofficial "holiday" like that with a sky high unemployment rate and Draconian laws designed to make it difficult for law abiding citizens to arm themselves, and it's not a surprise that crime is a problem in Detroit. However, the issue goes much deeper than that. In case you haven't noticed, in a conflict between a cop and a criminal, the hearts of liberals almost always seem to bleed for the thug. Combine that with the liberal tendency, when money gets tight, to cut essential programs instead of their perks and the goodies they hand out to their supporters, and you end up with a police department that is both dramatically underfunded and completely incompetent.
How bad has it gotten?
"The size of the police force in Detroit has been cut by about 40 percent over the past decade," "it takes (the police) an average of 58 minutes to respond" to a call and the "police solve less than 10 percent of the crimes that are committed in Detroit."
4) Reckless government spending bankrupted the city: Detroit's tax base has been plunging like an anvil dropped into the Marianas Trench and so, in true liberal fashion, liberals have raised taxes to make up for it instead of cutting spending. "The city's per-capita tax burden is the highest in Michigan. Detroit has the country's highest property taxes on homes, the top commercial property tax and the second-highest industrial property tax." Unfortunately for Detroit, you can't get blood from a stone. As jobs and wealth fled the city, there was simply less cash available for big government programs, pensions, and the incredibly generous, but almost completely unfunded union health care program. It's fantastic that the city paid "80 percent to 100 percent of retirees' medical costs," but 99.6% of those costs were unfunded. As Obamacare supporters should have learned by now, it's a lot easier for politicians to make big promises about what they’re going to give you than it is to back them up in the real world.
5) The government is completely incompetent: Ever notice that the bigger government seems to get, the less it does anything well? Citizens of Detroit could tell you all about that. The school system is horrible, which explains why a staggering 47% of the population is illiterate. In addition, 40% of the street lights don't work, only about 1/3 of the ambulances are running, and 2/3 of the parks have been closed since 2008. Just to give you an idea of its priorities, an independent report in 2012 suggested the city fire 80% of the Water and Sewage Department including a horseshoer" that it has on staff even though it has NO HORSES.. How did the union respond to that report? "They don’t have enough people as it is right now. They are just dreaming to think they can operate that plant with less."Detroit may not have enough police, ambulances, or competent teachers, but if you ever need a horseshoe in the Motor City, they've got you covered.
"Does anybody think it's OK to have 40-year-old trees growing through the roofs of dilapidated houses?" -- Detroit's Emergency Manager Kevyn Orr
"A few years ago, the nonpartisan Bay Area Center for Voting Research rated Detroit as the most liberal city in America." --Michael Tanner
Detroit was once one of the world's great cities. It was the 4th largest metropolis in America, jobs were plentiful because of the auto industry, and Motown even kept it on the cutting edge musically.
Unfortunately, from 1962 until the present day, the mayor of Detroit has been a Democrat.
The result?
Detroit's population has dropped from 1.8 million to just over 700,000, the unemployment rate is over 50% if you count the people who've given up on finding jobs, property values have dropped so much you can buy homes in the crime-ridden city for $500, and Detroit has gone bankrupt.
How did Democrats kill one of the most prosperous cities in America? With the same sort of unfettered liberalism that Democrats like Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi want to foist on the rest of the nation.
1) Unions crippled the auto industry: The Big 3 automakers could afford unions when they practically had a monopoly on auto production in the United States. However, once they started facing real competition from overseas, the unions made them less and less competitive. The unions forced the companies to pay out more than market value for their workers, put stifling work rules in place that made flexibility and innovation difficult, and created generous pension plans that are proving to be unsustainable. This wouldn't have been possible without a symbiotic relationship between the unions and the Democrats in government who tied the hands of the Big 3 automakers and simply wouldn't allow them to get rid of the unions that were slowly strangling them to death. Eventually because of the unions, the Big 3 automakers had to deal with significantly larger costs per car than their overseas competitors and they took it out of the only place they could: the cars. As the quality of their products dropped, their competitors took an ever larger share of their market, and there were fewer jobs to go around. If you want to know why the "Motor City" is up on cinder blocks in Michigan's front yard, this is where it started.
2) White citizens were demonized until they left: Detroit was a heavily segregated city and in 1967, there were black riots. After that, white flight to the suburbs began. This was dramatically exacerbated when Coleman Young became Detroit's first black mayor in 1972. Young was cut from the same cloth as men like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, but unlike the two of them, he actually had power. Young systematically drove white government employees out of their jobs so they could be replaced by blacks, was hostile to the white suburbs, and was generally perceived as anti-white. Naturally, a lot of white people just left, which reduced the population and significantly cut into the tax base. Today, Detroit is a 7.9% white city, and if he were alive and kicking, that would probably suit Coleman Young just fine.
3) Out-of-control crime helped drive much of the black middle class out of the city: Ever heard of "Devil's Night?" It's the night before Halloween and in Detroit, fires are set all over the city. Combine the sort of criminal mentality that produces an unofficial "holiday" like that with a sky high unemployment rate and Draconian laws designed to make it difficult for law abiding citizens to arm themselves, and it's not a surprise that crime is a problem in Detroit. However, the issue goes much deeper than that. In case you haven't noticed, in a conflict between a cop and a criminal, the hearts of liberals almost always seem to bleed for the thug. Combine that with the liberal tendency, when money gets tight, to cut essential programs instead of their perks and the goodies they hand out to their supporters, and you end up with a police department that is both dramatically underfunded and completely incompetent.
How bad has it gotten?
"The size of the police force in Detroit has been cut by about 40 percent over the past decade," "it takes (the police) an average of 58 minutes to respond" to a call and the "police solve less than 10 percent of the crimes that are committed in Detroit."
4) Reckless government spending bankrupted the city: Detroit's tax base has been plunging like an anvil dropped into the Marianas Trench and so, in true liberal fashion, liberals have raised taxes to make up for it instead of cutting spending. "The city's per-capita tax burden is the highest in Michigan. Detroit has the country's highest property taxes on homes, the top commercial property tax and the second-highest industrial property tax." Unfortunately for Detroit, you can't get blood from a stone. As jobs and wealth fled the city, there was simply less cash available for big government programs, pensions, and the incredibly generous, but almost completely unfunded union health care program. It's fantastic that the city paid "80 percent to 100 percent of retirees' medical costs," but 99.6% of those costs were unfunded. As Obamacare supporters should have learned by now, it's a lot easier for politicians to make big promises about what they’re going to give you than it is to back them up in the real world.
5) The government is completely incompetent: Ever notice that the bigger government seems to get, the less it does anything well? Citizens of Detroit could tell you all about that. The school system is horrible, which explains why a staggering 47% of the population is illiterate. In addition, 40% of the street lights don't work, only about 1/3 of the ambulances are running, and 2/3 of the parks have been closed since 2008. Just to give you an idea of its priorities, an independent report in 2012 suggested the city fire 80% of the Water and Sewage Department including a horseshoer" that it has on staff even though it has NO HORSES.. How did the union respond to that report? "They don’t have enough people as it is right now. They are just dreaming to think they can operate that plant with less."Detroit may not have enough police, ambulances, or competent teachers, but if you ever need a horseshoe in the Motor City, they've got you covered.
Both GOP and Democrats Have Party Problems
Townhall.com ^ | July 30, 2013 | Michael Barone
Since last November's election, there has been a lot of punditry about the fissures and schisms in the Republican Party. The divisions are real, and some of the commentary has been revealing.
There has been less of a look at fissures and schisms in the Democratic Party. They're real, as well. Most House Democrats voted against the Obama administration on NSA surveillance last week.
This shouldn't be surprising. America's two political parties need to get 50 percent of the votes, or nearly that, to win elections. That's difficult in a diverse country with significant cultural and economic differences.
The Democratic Party has managed to do that in two consecutive presidential elections, for the first time in three-quarters of a century. But holding that majority together has been harder.
But Democrats have failed to win majorities in the House of Representatives in the last two congressional elections, and in eight of 10 elections over the last two decades.
In the years of the Obama presidency, the president and congressional Democratic leaders have made a series of choices on legislation and policy that have alienated some of the party's major constituencies.
The first was to vastly expand the size and scope of government by passing the $787 billion stimulus package in February 2009 and passing Obamacare in March 2010.
That choice was not inevitable. Democrats didn't take a similar course during most of the Clinton presidency.
But Democrats in 2009 had a large House majority and a determined and effective leader in Speaker Nancy Pelosi. And in the Senate they had a supermajority of 60 votes during critical months in 2009 and 2010.
That was the result of some lucky (or unlucky) political accidents -- the prosecution by the Bush administration Justice Department of Republican Sen. Ted Stevens, a prosecution overturned after Stevens was defeated by 1 percentage point by Democrat Mark Begich; the party switch of Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter; the superior lawyering that gave Democrat Al Franken a victory in a very close contest in Minnesota.
Oscar Wilde said that he could resist everything but temptation. Democratic leaders could not resist the temptation provided by that 60-vote supermajority. Even after Scott Brown's special election victory in Massachusetts deprived them of the 60th vote, Pelosi squeezed out just enough votes to push Obamacare through.
Some of those votes came from Blue Dog Democrats elected from relatively conservative districts. Without such moderates, Democrats would not have maintained their majorities in the House during most of the years from 1958 to 1994.
The unpopularity of the stimulus package and Obamacare resulted in the defeat or retirement of most of the Blue Dogs. Their numbers fell from 54 in 2009 to 26 after 2010 to only 14 in 2012. A historic Democratic constituency largely disappeared, and so did Democrats' majority in the House.
Democratic numbers were further reduced by Pelosi's decision to pass cap-and-trade environmental legislation in June 2009. That decision favored the Democrats' urban green constituency over its historic constituencies in coal and oil country.
It was particularly surprising, since cap-and-trade's prospects in the Senate were never good. So coal and oil country Democrats were sacrificed for nothing. West Virginia, once safely Democratic, voted 62 percent for the not-culturally-Appalachian Mitt Romney.
This year Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid made a similar choice when he threatened to eliminate the requirement of 60 votes to overcome a filibuster unless Republicans agreed to allow confirmation of members of the National Labor Relations Board.
This favored the party's labor union constituency, which feared the Supreme Court would affirm an appeals court decision declaring Obama's recess appointments to the NLRB invalid.
The unions want favorable NLRB rulings over the next three years. Reid acted at their behest even though there's a good chance Republicans will regain a Senate majority in 2014, in which case changing the filibuster rule would hurt Democrats.
But he wasn't willing to change the filibuster rule on judgeship nominations -- something the party's feminist constituency would love. Reid favored the unions and shoved the feminists under the bus.
Campaigning is about assembling majority coalitions. But to govern, as John Kennedy said, is to choose. In particular, governing requires choosing to favor one constituency over another. That can result in the disassembling of a majority coalition.
Democrats aren't necessarily doomed in 2014 or 2016. But they are weaker because of the choices their leaders have made.
Since last November's election, there has been a lot of punditry about the fissures and schisms in the Republican Party. The divisions are real, and some of the commentary has been revealing.
There has been less of a look at fissures and schisms in the Democratic Party. They're real, as well. Most House Democrats voted against the Obama administration on NSA surveillance last week.
This shouldn't be surprising. America's two political parties need to get 50 percent of the votes, or nearly that, to win elections. That's difficult in a diverse country with significant cultural and economic differences.
The Democratic Party has managed to do that in two consecutive presidential elections, for the first time in three-quarters of a century. But holding that majority together has been harder.
But Democrats have failed to win majorities in the House of Representatives in the last two congressional elections, and in eight of 10 elections over the last two decades.
In the years of the Obama presidency, the president and congressional Democratic leaders have made a series of choices on legislation and policy that have alienated some of the party's major constituencies.
The first was to vastly expand the size and scope of government by passing the $787 billion stimulus package in February 2009 and passing Obamacare in March 2010.
That choice was not inevitable. Democrats didn't take a similar course during most of the Clinton presidency.
But Democrats in 2009 had a large House majority and a determined and effective leader in Speaker Nancy Pelosi. And in the Senate they had a supermajority of 60 votes during critical months in 2009 and 2010.
That was the result of some lucky (or unlucky) political accidents -- the prosecution by the Bush administration Justice Department of Republican Sen. Ted Stevens, a prosecution overturned after Stevens was defeated by 1 percentage point by Democrat Mark Begich; the party switch of Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter; the superior lawyering that gave Democrat Al Franken a victory in a very close contest in Minnesota.
Oscar Wilde said that he could resist everything but temptation. Democratic leaders could not resist the temptation provided by that 60-vote supermajority. Even after Scott Brown's special election victory in Massachusetts deprived them of the 60th vote, Pelosi squeezed out just enough votes to push Obamacare through.
Some of those votes came from Blue Dog Democrats elected from relatively conservative districts. Without such moderates, Democrats would not have maintained their majorities in the House during most of the years from 1958 to 1994.
The unpopularity of the stimulus package and Obamacare resulted in the defeat or retirement of most of the Blue Dogs. Their numbers fell from 54 in 2009 to 26 after 2010 to only 14 in 2012. A historic Democratic constituency largely disappeared, and so did Democrats' majority in the House.
Democratic numbers were further reduced by Pelosi's decision to pass cap-and-trade environmental legislation in June 2009. That decision favored the Democrats' urban green constituency over its historic constituencies in coal and oil country.
It was particularly surprising, since cap-and-trade's prospects in the Senate were never good. So coal and oil country Democrats were sacrificed for nothing. West Virginia, once safely Democratic, voted 62 percent for the not-culturally-Appalachian Mitt Romney.
This year Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid made a similar choice when he threatened to eliminate the requirement of 60 votes to overcome a filibuster unless Republicans agreed to allow confirmation of members of the National Labor Relations Board.
This favored the party's labor union constituency, which feared the Supreme Court would affirm an appeals court decision declaring Obama's recess appointments to the NLRB invalid.
The unions want favorable NLRB rulings over the next three years. Reid acted at their behest even though there's a good chance Republicans will regain a Senate majority in 2014, in which case changing the filibuster rule would hurt Democrats.
But he wasn't willing to change the filibuster rule on judgeship nominations -- something the party's feminist constituency would love. Reid favored the unions and shoved the feminists under the bus.
Campaigning is about assembling majority coalitions. But to govern, as John Kennedy said, is to choose. In particular, governing requires choosing to favor one constituency over another. That can result in the disassembling of a majority coalition.
Democrats aren't necessarily doomed in 2014 or 2016. But they are weaker because of the choices their leaders have made.
Obama: Pay gap ‘morally wrong’!
The Hill ^ | - 07/30/13 05:00 AM EDT | By Peter Schroeder
President Obama is changing gears on the economy, highlighting income inequality as a growing problem in advance of pitched fall battles with congressional Republicans over funding the government and raising the debt ceiling. [WATCH VIDEO]
The focus is intended to make it easier for Obama to argue that new taxes on the rich — and not cuts to social spending — should be imposed to lower the deficit.
It also dovetails with Obama’s call for Congress to raise the federal $7.25 minimum wage and to end the automatic spending cuts known as sequestration.
“This growing inequality is not just morally wrong, it’s bad economics,” Obama said in remarks last week in Galesburg, Ill., where he began a new push on the economy.
“The income of the top 1 percent nearly quadrupled from 1979-2007, but the typical family’s incomes barely budged,” he said.
The president reiterated that message in an interview with The New York Times last week.
“If we stand pat, if we don’t do anything … income inequality will continue to rise,” he told the newspaper. “Wages, incomes, savings rates for middle-class families will continue to be relatively flat. And that’s not a future that we should accept.”
Obama is also discussing the matter in private.
During a meeting earlier this month with members of the Congressional Black Caucus, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) said he pressed Obama to issue an executive order requiring federal contractors to provide higher wages.
“He said it’s something that he would take a close look at,” said Ellison, the co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. “He should seriously look at doing that because he might be able to help a whole bunch of workers.”
Opponents of raising the minimum wage, including many Republicans and business groups, argue an increase would hurt small businesses already injured by the recession and slow recovery.
And if those small businesses cannot afford to pay the mandated boost, they will end up laying off workers, opponents contend.
There is evidence that income inequality has grown since the economic recession of 2008-2009.
Economists Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty found that between 2009 and 2011, 121 percent of income gains went to the richest 1 percent of the population, according to a report in CBS News.
The other 99 percent, the two said, saw their incomes fall by about half a percent over the same period.
When adjusted for inflation, low-wage workers are actually making less now than they did 50 years ago.
According to a June study from the Congressional Research Service, inflation-adjusted wages have declined from a peak in 1968 and now stand roughly 26 percent below that level when adjusted for price growth. Workers would have to make $10.70 now to make an amount equal to the purchasing power of 1968’s $5.65 minimum wage.
Labor statistics indicate that a relatively small portion of the working population brings home the minimum wage. According to the Labor Department, just 4.7 percent of the 75.3 million workers in the U.S. in 2012 received the minimum wage or lower. (Some wait staff earn less than the middle wage because a portion of their income is paid in tips.)
Of that population, roughly half are under the age of 25 — employees aged 16-19 make up one-fifth of all minimum wage workers.
If Obama can’t convince Congress to raise the minimum wage, he’d be the first president since Ronald Reagan to not sign a wage hike into law.
The minimum wage hasn’t been increased since 2009, when the final stage of a three-step increase approved by Congress in 2007 was implemented.
Before last week, Obama had talked little about the minimum wage since calling for it to be increased in his State of the Union address.
Growing income inequality “undermines the very essence of America,” he told the crowd in Galesburg.
The White House is also making a last stand of sorts on the sequester.
It pressed Congress to undo the cuts earlier this year to no avail, and now faces another year of significant budget cuts unless a deal can be reached to replace them.
Republicans have shown little sign that they would accept the elimination of tax breaks, particularly after the fiscal cliff deal at the beginning of the year raised tax rates on households with annual income above $450,000.
House Democrats are pushing to end the sequester and have offered legislation that would boost the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour and index it to inflation.
Proponents hope protests from fast-food workers, along with Obama’s calls, will galvanize public support.
Ellison and other liberal Democrats are backing strikes held by workers at McDonald’s and other restaurants demanding a $15 minimum wage, as well as the right to unionize.
“There is a groundswell movement going on,” Ellison said. “They’re pressed so hard to the wall that they don’t have any other choice.”
Ellison, who worked at a McDonald’s between high school and college, said workers in the industry earn every penny they make.
“I know it’s hard work. You come home bathed in grease,” he said.
President Obama is changing gears on the economy, highlighting income inequality as a growing problem in advance of pitched fall battles with congressional Republicans over funding the government and raising the debt ceiling. [WATCH VIDEO]
The focus is intended to make it easier for Obama to argue that new taxes on the rich — and not cuts to social spending — should be imposed to lower the deficit.
It also dovetails with Obama’s call for Congress to raise the federal $7.25 minimum wage and to end the automatic spending cuts known as sequestration.
“This growing inequality is not just morally wrong, it’s bad economics,” Obama said in remarks last week in Galesburg, Ill., where he began a new push on the economy.
“The income of the top 1 percent nearly quadrupled from 1979-2007, but the typical family’s incomes barely budged,” he said.
The president reiterated that message in an interview with The New York Times last week.
“If we stand pat, if we don’t do anything … income inequality will continue to rise,” he told the newspaper. “Wages, incomes, savings rates for middle-class families will continue to be relatively flat. And that’s not a future that we should accept.”
Obama is also discussing the matter in private.
During a meeting earlier this month with members of the Congressional Black Caucus, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) said he pressed Obama to issue an executive order requiring federal contractors to provide higher wages.
“He said it’s something that he would take a close look at,” said Ellison, the co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. “He should seriously look at doing that because he might be able to help a whole bunch of workers.”
Opponents of raising the minimum wage, including many Republicans and business groups, argue an increase would hurt small businesses already injured by the recession and slow recovery.
And if those small businesses cannot afford to pay the mandated boost, they will end up laying off workers, opponents contend.
There is evidence that income inequality has grown since the economic recession of 2008-2009.
Economists Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty found that between 2009 and 2011, 121 percent of income gains went to the richest 1 percent of the population, according to a report in CBS News.
The other 99 percent, the two said, saw their incomes fall by about half a percent over the same period.
When adjusted for inflation, low-wage workers are actually making less now than they did 50 years ago.
According to a June study from the Congressional Research Service, inflation-adjusted wages have declined from a peak in 1968 and now stand roughly 26 percent below that level when adjusted for price growth. Workers would have to make $10.70 now to make an amount equal to the purchasing power of 1968’s $5.65 minimum wage.
Labor statistics indicate that a relatively small portion of the working population brings home the minimum wage. According to the Labor Department, just 4.7 percent of the 75.3 million workers in the U.S. in 2012 received the minimum wage or lower. (Some wait staff earn less than the middle wage because a portion of their income is paid in tips.)
Of that population, roughly half are under the age of 25 — employees aged 16-19 make up one-fifth of all minimum wage workers.
If Obama can’t convince Congress to raise the minimum wage, he’d be the first president since Ronald Reagan to not sign a wage hike into law.
The minimum wage hasn’t been increased since 2009, when the final stage of a three-step increase approved by Congress in 2007 was implemented.
Before last week, Obama had talked little about the minimum wage since calling for it to be increased in his State of the Union address.
Growing income inequality “undermines the very essence of America,” he told the crowd in Galesburg.
The White House is also making a last stand of sorts on the sequester.
It pressed Congress to undo the cuts earlier this year to no avail, and now faces another year of significant budget cuts unless a deal can be reached to replace them.
Republicans have shown little sign that they would accept the elimination of tax breaks, particularly after the fiscal cliff deal at the beginning of the year raised tax rates on households with annual income above $450,000.
House Democrats are pushing to end the sequester and have offered legislation that would boost the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour and index it to inflation.
Proponents hope protests from fast-food workers, along with Obama’s calls, will galvanize public support.
Ellison and other liberal Democrats are backing strikes held by workers at McDonald’s and other restaurants demanding a $15 minimum wage, as well as the right to unionize.
“There is a groundswell movement going on,” Ellison said. “They’re pressed so hard to the wall that they don’t have any other choice.”
Ellison, who worked at a McDonald’s between high school and college, said workers in the industry earn every penny they make.
“I know it’s hard work. You come home bathed in grease,” he said.
Punk'd by Obama and that Old Hobbit John McCain
Townhall.com ^ | July 30, 2013 | John Ransom
Steampunk: a sub-genre of science fiction that typically features steam-powered machinery especially in a setting inspired by industrialized Western civilization during the 19th century. - Wikipedia
Punk'd: To be fooled publicly by the use of a videotaped or filmed practical joke.
On a March snow-day in Georgetown, Washington, DC, as America was still getting over the oratory of Barack Obama, the 44th president of the United States delivered a landmark speech on the future of energy policy in America.
The US had suffered the severe blow of the financial crises of 2008. Energy prices once again were going up as a result of loose money policies, the war in Libya and the Fukishima nuclear failures. And along with subprime mortgages and derivatives gone astray and securitization gone bad, citizens understood that energy prices that skyrocketed out of control in the summer of '08 played an important part in giving the tottering markets a final push- a push that may have triggered the fall in fact.
“We dodged a recession (at least through most of 2007) despite a dramatic housing downturn,” wrote economist James Hamilton in June of 2008. “The modern American economy could perhaps also continue to grow through the kind of effects we saw from the oil price spike of 1990. But what if we have to deal with both sets of problems at the same time? I'm afraid we're about to find out.”
Yes, find out we did. The combination of the housing crash and an oil spike was really what killed us.
So in March of 2011, the country, especially Obama allies, were hungry to hear the rookie tell us all how the largest, most competitive and ingenious economy in the history of the world was going to secure its energy future and it's economy from future shocks.
For a week, the White House played up the speech, promoting it as a big thing, breathless and broad. And the rest of us waited for the man himself to deliver some audacity- or at least some energy.
So finally at 11:36 AM Eastern Time, the lanky president stepped out before the assembled elite at Georgetown University, cleared his throat, and began to speak.
"I want to start with a difficult subject,” said the president, “The Hoyas had a tough loss, Coach. Coach is here, too, and I love Coach Thompson. I love his dad and the great tradition that they’ve had. And it turned out VCU was pretty good. I had Georgetown winning that game in my bracket, so we’re all hurting here. But that's what next year is for. "
Ha, ha, ha!
Thus concluded the most meaningful part of Obama's remarks.
The rest of what he said on that occasion does not matter.
It rarely does.
Obama says lots of things. There is never more meat than flax when he talks.
Fortunately, however, the New York Times neatly summed up Obama's speech for the rest of us, so we needn't repeat it here. Like Catholic school beef stew, it was bad enough going down, without having to regurgitate it.
Near the end of the review of the speech, in an editor's correction, the Grey Lady made sure we knew at least this much; in truth, it was about all we really needed to know, regarding the drift of Obama's "new" energy policies:
The remarkable thing about the Times' sideswipe at Obama's energy speech wasn't that it went beyond a media ally shaming The One in public. No, the remarkable thing was that these allies expected new ideas from Barack Hussein Obama.
As I mentioned before, Obama says a lot of things. But rarely does he say or promote anything new.
In fact, most of Obama's philosophy is cribbed from a time when steam power was the motive power behind the developing economies of the Western world. That is, most of his ideas are 100 years old or older. The ideas were made for a time before universal education, public works, and public health. The ideas that animate Obama were made for workers who worked in lamplight, could be thrown into debtors prison, lived scarcely past the age of 50 and owned few, if any books.
And what Mr. Obama and his progressive allies are trying to accomplish by Hope and “Change,” is to graft those steam powered ideas to the technology of today and create a steampunk society, as I call it; a society that's not modern, not open and will fail to take advantage of the revolution going on that today is providing people around the world one of the most dynamic periods of prosperity the world has known.
Because, despite the malaise in the world economy in the last few years, the trend is very positive, very encouraging.There is more access to information worldwide, more opportunity, more potential for liberty than any time, ever.
The fight for liberty, indeed, has gone global.
And this is what threatens elites like Obama, and the UN, and the World Bank and that Old Hobbit, John McCain- who, not incidentally, is also empty of any new ideas.
So they seek to create a world that for all intents and purposes comes out of a Jules Vern novel, or the Wild, Wild West movie of Will Smith and Kevin Kline, with impossibly powered contraptions, wasteful, inefficient and grandiose like the Nautilus in 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea.
They use obsolete ideas painted with a patina of technology and stylized effects.
And because steampunk has a certain style, many are gulled into thinking that these stylized ideas are new.
But not only are they not new, they are so old and ratty that our grandparents rejected them long ago. Indeed, much of the history of the last 100 years was of civilization being saved by the wholesale rejection of this old-fashioned philosophy that was born, literally, when kings ruled the world.
So I guess in regards to royalty, things haven’t changed that much.
But in what Obama offers, knowingly or not, he's steampunk'd not just the United States, but also the world.
Steampunk: a sub-genre of science fiction that typically features steam-powered machinery especially in a setting inspired by industrialized Western civilization during the 19th century. - Wikipedia
Punk'd: To be fooled publicly by the use of a videotaped or filmed practical joke.
On a March snow-day in Georgetown, Washington, DC, as America was still getting over the oratory of Barack Obama, the 44th president of the United States delivered a landmark speech on the future of energy policy in America.
The US had suffered the severe blow of the financial crises of 2008. Energy prices once again were going up as a result of loose money policies, the war in Libya and the Fukishima nuclear failures. And along with subprime mortgages and derivatives gone astray and securitization gone bad, citizens understood that energy prices that skyrocketed out of control in the summer of '08 played an important part in giving the tottering markets a final push- a push that may have triggered the fall in fact.
“We dodged a recession (at least through most of 2007) despite a dramatic housing downturn,” wrote economist James Hamilton in June of 2008. “The modern American economy could perhaps also continue to grow through the kind of effects we saw from the oil price spike of 1990. But what if we have to deal with both sets of problems at the same time? I'm afraid we're about to find out.”
Yes, find out we did. The combination of the housing crash and an oil spike was really what killed us.
So in March of 2011, the country, especially Obama allies, were hungry to hear the rookie tell us all how the largest, most competitive and ingenious economy in the history of the world was going to secure its energy future and it's economy from future shocks.
For a week, the White House played up the speech, promoting it as a big thing, breathless and broad. And the rest of us waited for the man himself to deliver some audacity- or at least some energy.
So finally at 11:36 AM Eastern Time, the lanky president stepped out before the assembled elite at Georgetown University, cleared his throat, and began to speak.
"I want to start with a difficult subject,” said the president, “The Hoyas had a tough loss, Coach. Coach is here, too, and I love Coach Thompson. I love his dad and the great tradition that they’ve had. And it turned out VCU was pretty good. I had Georgetown winning that game in my bracket, so we’re all hurting here. But that's what next year is for. "
Ha, ha, ha!
Thus concluded the most meaningful part of Obama's remarks.
The rest of what he said on that occasion does not matter.
It rarely does.
Obama says lots of things. There is never more meat than flax when he talks.
Fortunately, however, the New York Times neatly summed up Obama's speech for the rest of us, so we needn't repeat it here. Like Catholic school beef stew, it was bad enough going down, without having to regurgitate it.
Near the end of the review of the speech, in an editor's correction, the Grey Lady made sure we knew at least this much; in truth, it was about all we really needed to know, regarding the drift of Obama's "new" energy policies:
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: March 30, 2011
A previous version of this article misstated how many of the president's proposals to reduce the country's reliance on imported oil were new in his speech on Wednesday. None of them were, not one of them.
The remarkable thing about the Times' sideswipe at Obama's energy speech wasn't that it went beyond a media ally shaming The One in public. No, the remarkable thing was that these allies expected new ideas from Barack Hussein Obama.
As I mentioned before, Obama says a lot of things. But rarely does he say or promote anything new.
In fact, most of Obama's philosophy is cribbed from a time when steam power was the motive power behind the developing economies of the Western world. That is, most of his ideas are 100 years old or older. The ideas were made for a time before universal education, public works, and public health. The ideas that animate Obama were made for workers who worked in lamplight, could be thrown into debtors prison, lived scarcely past the age of 50 and owned few, if any books.
And what Mr. Obama and his progressive allies are trying to accomplish by Hope and “Change,” is to graft those steam powered ideas to the technology of today and create a steampunk society, as I call it; a society that's not modern, not open and will fail to take advantage of the revolution going on that today is providing people around the world one of the most dynamic periods of prosperity the world has known.
Because, despite the malaise in the world economy in the last few years, the trend is very positive, very encouraging.There is more access to information worldwide, more opportunity, more potential for liberty than any time, ever.
The fight for liberty, indeed, has gone global.
And this is what threatens elites like Obama, and the UN, and the World Bank and that Old Hobbit, John McCain- who, not incidentally, is also empty of any new ideas.
So they seek to create a world that for all intents and purposes comes out of a Jules Vern novel, or the Wild, Wild West movie of Will Smith and Kevin Kline, with impossibly powered contraptions, wasteful, inefficient and grandiose like the Nautilus in 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea.
They use obsolete ideas painted with a patina of technology and stylized effects.
And because steampunk has a certain style, many are gulled into thinking that these stylized ideas are new.
But not only are they not new, they are so old and ratty that our grandparents rejected them long ago. Indeed, much of the history of the last 100 years was of civilization being saved by the wholesale rejection of this old-fashioned philosophy that was born, literally, when kings ruled the world.
So I guess in regards to royalty, things haven’t changed that much.
But in what Obama offers, knowingly or not, he's steampunk'd not just the United States, but also the world.
Monday, July 29, 2013
For The Sake Of The Economy, Obama Should Keep His Eye Off Of The Ball
Forbes ^ | 07/28/2013 | John Tamny
Last Wednesday in Illinois, President Obama unwittingly explained how economies grow. Our 44th president asserted without a hint of irony that “Washington has taken its eye off the ball.” Exactly!
Economies aren’t living, breathing blobs, rather they’re a collection of individuals. Because we individuals have infinite wants, economic growth is as simple as the government getting out of the way of our production. What we produce constitutes our demand, so if we’re not restrained by government policy, we tend to be productive.
Considering government policy, from an economic perspective it’s best to break it down to four policy areas. Specifically, if governments get taxes, trade, regulation, and monetary policy mostly right, the economy booms. It’s as simple as that.
Taxes are a price, or a penalty placed on work and investment, so if the price isn’t too high, individuals have an incentive to get up and work each day. Trade is of course why we work, we’re all free traders at heart, so when politicians aren’t erecting barriers to trade, they’re not taxing the purpose of our labor. Regulations by definition don’t work, but they do inhibit the profit motive, so when they’re not increasing, companies can focus on producing for others rather than pleasing bureaucrats.
If we then analyze the U.S. economy in light of Obama’s largely correct statement that “Washington has taken its eye off the ball,” we can easily understand why the latter has coincided with a somewhat promising stock market rally alongside rising optimism among Americans about the health of the economy. To put it very plainly, too much government had been strangling the economy thanks to Washington keeping its eye on the ball. But with Washington and Obama happily distracted, growth has picked up.
Last Wednesday in Illinois, President Obama unwittingly explained how economies grow. Our 44th president asserted without a hint of irony that “Washington has taken its eye off the ball.” Exactly!
Economies aren’t living, breathing blobs, rather they’re a collection of individuals. Because we individuals have infinite wants, economic growth is as simple as the government getting out of the way of our production. What we produce constitutes our demand, so if we’re not restrained by government policy, we tend to be productive.
Considering government policy, from an economic perspective it’s best to break it down to four policy areas. Specifically, if governments get taxes, trade, regulation, and monetary policy mostly right, the economy booms. It’s as simple as that.
Taxes are a price, or a penalty placed on work and investment, so if the price isn’t too high, individuals have an incentive to get up and work each day. Trade is of course why we work, we’re all free traders at heart, so when politicians aren’t erecting barriers to trade, they’re not taxing the purpose of our labor. Regulations by definition don’t work, but they do inhibit the profit motive, so when they’re not increasing, companies can focus on producing for others rather than pleasing bureaucrats.
If we then analyze the U.S. economy in light of Obama’s largely correct statement that “Washington has taken its eye off the ball,” we can easily understand why the latter has coincided with a somewhat promising stock market rally alongside rising optimism among Americans about the health of the economy. To put it very plainly, too much government had been strangling the economy thanks to Washington keeping its eye on the ball. But with Washington and Obama happily distracted, growth has picked up.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
Middle class has been left behind by Obamanomics
Washington Examiner ^ | July 26, 2013 | Timothy P. Carney
"Even though our businesses are creating new jobs and have broken record profits," President Obama said in his economics address last week, "nearly all the income gains of the past 10 years have continued to flow to the top 1 percent."
It's odd that Obama touts these facts, because the facts indict his policies. This is even stranger: Many Republicans want to downplay these facts, even though they provide the GOP with an opening.
Obama's first term, with all its tax hikes, regulations, mandates, subsidies and bailouts, saw stock markets rise, corporate earnings break records and the rich get richer, while median income stagnated and unemployment remained stubbornly high.
Obama rightly calls the last few years "a winner-take-all economy where a few are doing better and better and better, while everybody else just treads water."
Median household income has fallen by 5 percent since 2009 — when the recession ended and Obama came into office — as the Wall Street Journal pointed out after Obama's speech. But corporate profits and the stock market keep hitting record highs.
How does Obama think these are points in his favor?
If he's using this data to prove he's no Marxist, fine. Point granted. But Obama seems to think that middle-class and working-class stagnation under Obamanomics somehow calls for more Obamanomics.
The unstated premise is this: More government means more equality, while the free market favors the rich and tramples on the rest.
Liberals and mainstream journalists believe this, but so do some Republicans. When Mitt Romney dismisses the lower 47 percent of earners as hopelessly liberal, he's buying the notion that free enterprise is a system for the wealthy.
But Obama's own facts help undermine that: Government grows, the wealthy, the big, and the well-connected pull away, and the rest of us struggle.
One reason: Obamanomics leans heavily on trickle-down economics. How does Obama promise to create jobs? With more loan guarantees to sell jumbo jets and more subsidies to make solar panels — taxpayer transfers to the big companies with the best lobbyists, with some crumbs hopefully falling to the working class.
Also, Obama's regulations crush small businesses, protecting the big guys from competition. This hurts Mom & Pop and would-be entrepreneurs, but it also hurts the working class. New businesses are the engine of job growth, but new business formation has accelerated its decline in the last few years, hitting record lows.
This gives Republicans an opening to explain that they can deliver on Obama's promises of helping the middle class and the working class, but they can do it by reversing Obamanomics — cutting everyone's taxes, undoing the most onerous regulations, ending trickle-down corporate welfare and so on.
Call it free-market populism, or libertarian populism.
Trig's Supermarkets, in Wisconsin, is an emblematic victim of Obamanomics. Trig's employs about 1,100 people, with about two-thirds working part-time, according to local TV station WJFW. Under Obamacare, anyone who works more than 30 hours per week is considered full time, though, and Trig's will be forced to provide health-care coverage for them.
The company crunched the numbers and decided this would spell bankruptcy. So, they told their workers their hours would be cut to below 30 per week. Nobody is happy with this, but the alternative was laying off all 1,100.
In a couple of ways, this story shows how Obamanomics undermines its stated goals and creates an opening for free-market populism.
Big-government regulations are supposed to hold big business accountable. But Trig's story shows how they often do the opposite. Recall Walmart loudly supported Obamacare's employer mandate, and Costco's founder — who also spent at least $180,000 trying to elect Obama — publicly lobbied for Obamacare.
Walmart and Costco can afford the costs of government — and Costco even got a shout-out from Obama in his economics speech. Smaller employers aren't so lucky.
Government tends to benefit the big and well-connected, and that's not Mom & Pop. Every small-business owner is a potential Republican if the GOP becomes the party of free-market populism.
More important, though — and more numerous — are the hundreds of Trig's employees seeing a reduction in hours. Obamacare was supposed to help them. Obama, on his economic-policy tour, suggests more government intervention will help them. But Obamacare is hurting them. Why should more of the same help?
Obama is right about the middle class being left behind. The working class is faring even worse. This doesn't call for more Obamanomics. It calls for unrigging the game that Washington has rigged.
Timothy P. Carney, The Washington Examiner's senior political columnist, can be contacted at tcarney@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears Sunday and Wednesday on washingtonexaminer.com.
"Even though our businesses are creating new jobs and have broken record profits," President Obama said in his economics address last week, "nearly all the income gains of the past 10 years have continued to flow to the top 1 percent."
It's odd that Obama touts these facts, because the facts indict his policies. This is even stranger: Many Republicans want to downplay these facts, even though they provide the GOP with an opening.
Obama's first term, with all its tax hikes, regulations, mandates, subsidies and bailouts, saw stock markets rise, corporate earnings break records and the rich get richer, while median income stagnated and unemployment remained stubbornly high.
Obama rightly calls the last few years "a winner-take-all economy where a few are doing better and better and better, while everybody else just treads water."
Median household income has fallen by 5 percent since 2009 — when the recession ended and Obama came into office — as the Wall Street Journal pointed out after Obama's speech. But corporate profits and the stock market keep hitting record highs.
How does Obama think these are points in his favor?
If he's using this data to prove he's no Marxist, fine. Point granted. But Obama seems to think that middle-class and working-class stagnation under Obamanomics somehow calls for more Obamanomics.
The unstated premise is this: More government means more equality, while the free market favors the rich and tramples on the rest.
Liberals and mainstream journalists believe this, but so do some Republicans. When Mitt Romney dismisses the lower 47 percent of earners as hopelessly liberal, he's buying the notion that free enterprise is a system for the wealthy.
But Obama's own facts help undermine that: Government grows, the wealthy, the big, and the well-connected pull away, and the rest of us struggle.
One reason: Obamanomics leans heavily on trickle-down economics. How does Obama promise to create jobs? With more loan guarantees to sell jumbo jets and more subsidies to make solar panels — taxpayer transfers to the big companies with the best lobbyists, with some crumbs hopefully falling to the working class.
Also, Obama's regulations crush small businesses, protecting the big guys from competition. This hurts Mom & Pop and would-be entrepreneurs, but it also hurts the working class. New businesses are the engine of job growth, but new business formation has accelerated its decline in the last few years, hitting record lows.
This gives Republicans an opening to explain that they can deliver on Obama's promises of helping the middle class and the working class, but they can do it by reversing Obamanomics — cutting everyone's taxes, undoing the most onerous regulations, ending trickle-down corporate welfare and so on.
Call it free-market populism, or libertarian populism.
Trig's Supermarkets, in Wisconsin, is an emblematic victim of Obamanomics. Trig's employs about 1,100 people, with about two-thirds working part-time, according to local TV station WJFW. Under Obamacare, anyone who works more than 30 hours per week is considered full time, though, and Trig's will be forced to provide health-care coverage for them.
The company crunched the numbers and decided this would spell bankruptcy. So, they told their workers their hours would be cut to below 30 per week. Nobody is happy with this, but the alternative was laying off all 1,100.
In a couple of ways, this story shows how Obamanomics undermines its stated goals and creates an opening for free-market populism.
Big-government regulations are supposed to hold big business accountable. But Trig's story shows how they often do the opposite. Recall Walmart loudly supported Obamacare's employer mandate, and Costco's founder — who also spent at least $180,000 trying to elect Obama — publicly lobbied for Obamacare.
Walmart and Costco can afford the costs of government — and Costco even got a shout-out from Obama in his economics speech. Smaller employers aren't so lucky.
Government tends to benefit the big and well-connected, and that's not Mom & Pop. Every small-business owner is a potential Republican if the GOP becomes the party of free-market populism.
More important, though — and more numerous — are the hundreds of Trig's employees seeing a reduction in hours. Obamacare was supposed to help them. Obama, on his economic-policy tour, suggests more government intervention will help them. But Obamacare is hurting them. Why should more of the same help?
Obama is right about the middle class being left behind. The working class is faring even worse. This doesn't call for more Obamanomics. It calls for unrigging the game that Washington has rigged.
Timothy P. Carney, The Washington Examiner's senior political columnist, can be contacted at tcarney@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears Sunday and Wednesday on washingtonexaminer.com.
Cruz: We Have 60 Days to Defund Obamacare
The PJ Tatler ^ | 7/29/13 | Bryan Preston
Sen. Ted Cruz told Andrea Tantaros today that the next 60 days will be crucial to defunding Obamacare.
Tantaros opened her interview with the Texas Republican with a question about New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s recent criticisms of Sen. Rand Paul. Christie recently said that the libertarian principles that Paul and some other Republicans stand for are “esoteric” and even “dangerous.” Christie’s comments come in the context of the debate over the National Security Agency’s widespread surveillance of Americans’ phone and online communications, and have been widely interpreted as an opening salvo in the 2016 GOP presidential primary.
Tantaros asked Cruz “So Chris Christie is attacking your friend — are you gonna take that, senator?”
“Well, Gov. Christie is certainly entitled to his opinions and he does not seem shy about sharing those,” Cruz replied. “What I can tell you is that I think the principles of liberty are the foundation of this country.” Cruz cited the Declaration of Independence. “Frankly, one of the reasons for the deep frustration that so many Americans have with career politicians both Republican and Democrat, is they’ve lost sight of liberty. They’ve lost sight of the free market principles of our Constitution. And I think there’s an incredible hunger to get back to the principles that made this nation strong.”
Tantaros asked Cruz if he thinks Christie is wrong. Cruz reiterated that Christie is entitled to his opinions and will continue sharing them. He added that most people don’t care about squabbles between politicians, but about how to turn the country around.
Turning to the subject of Obamacare, Tantaros asked Cruz if it can be stopped.
“I believe that we have a moment, in the next 60 days
Sen. Ted Cruz told Andrea Tantaros today that the next 60 days will be crucial to defunding Obamacare.
Tantaros opened her interview with the Texas Republican with a question about New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s recent criticisms of Sen. Rand Paul. Christie recently said that the libertarian principles that Paul and some other Republicans stand for are “esoteric” and even “dangerous.” Christie’s comments come in the context of the debate over the National Security Agency’s widespread surveillance of Americans’ phone and online communications, and have been widely interpreted as an opening salvo in the 2016 GOP presidential primary.
Tantaros asked Cruz “So Chris Christie is attacking your friend — are you gonna take that, senator?”
“Well, Gov. Christie is certainly entitled to his opinions and he does not seem shy about sharing those,” Cruz replied. “What I can tell you is that I think the principles of liberty are the foundation of this country.” Cruz cited the Declaration of Independence. “Frankly, one of the reasons for the deep frustration that so many Americans have with career politicians both Republican and Democrat, is they’ve lost sight of liberty. They’ve lost sight of the free market principles of our Constitution. And I think there’s an incredible hunger to get back to the principles that made this nation strong.”
Tantaros asked Cruz if he thinks Christie is wrong. Cruz reiterated that Christie is entitled to his opinions and will continue sharing them. He added that most people don’t care about squabbles between politicians, but about how to turn the country around.
Turning to the subject of Obamacare, Tantaros asked Cruz if it can be stopped.
“I believe that we have a moment, in the next 60 days
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
The Worst States to Be Unemployed
Wall Street 24X7 ^ | 07/29/2013
As a result of the sequester, which went into effect in early 2013 to help cut the U.S. budget deficit, a federal program intended to lengthen the amount of time jobless residents can receive unemployment benefits will be substantially reduced. Cutting Emergency Unemployment Compensation will mean an end to an important source of income for many out-of-work Americans.
Unemployment rates have fallen nationwide, but there are still nearly 12 million active job seekers who cannot find work. While unemployment is rarely a favorable situation, in certain parts of the country, the unemployed can expect to find a job more easily because of a favorable job market or at least receive good benefits. In other areas, job growth is slow, competition is high, and benefits are relatively poor.
Based on unemployment insurance benefits data and employment statistics from the Department of Labor, 24/7 Wall St. identified the states where residents had the worst chances of finding work and also received the worst benefits while they were looking for it.
Click here to see the worst states to be unemployed
Click here to see the best states to be unemployed
One of the biggest indicators of how difficult it is to find work is the unemployment rate. A low jobless rate in a given state usually means the area’s economy is doing relatively well, competition is limited, and workers have the skills necessary to qualify for available jobs. In all of the best states to be unemployed, the unemployment rate was well below the national rate of 7.6% for June. In North Dakota, one of the best states to be unemployed, just 3.1% of the workforce did not have a job.
In the worst states to be unemployed, job growth was relatively slow, and new opportunities to work took longer to materialize. In most of the these states, the number of nonfarm jobs grew slower than the 1.3% national rate between June 2012 and June 2013. In three of these states — Kentucky, Ohio, and Illinois — the total number of jobs grew by less than 1%.
Not surprisingly, it is far better to be unemployed in a state with healthy job growth. According to Rebecca Dixon, policy analyst at the National Employment Law Project, “in some of these states, people go back to work really quickly.”
However, even if employers are hiring and local economies are doing well, workers may still need time to find a job. This may mean relying on unemployment insurance benefits while looking for work. Nationally, unemployment benefits covered an average of 33% of the average weekly wages in the area. In six of the best states to be unemployed, this figure, known as the replacement rate, was more than 40% of average wages, with Hawaii covering a nation-leading 53%.
Dixon pointed out that a high replacement rate is not enough on its own to make benefits available to the unemployed. “A state can have a great program, but if they make it really, really hard for people to qualify for benefits, then it’s just a great program sitting there that no one can use,” said Dixon.
Known as the recipiency rate, just 45% of all unemployed workers received such benefits over the 12 months going through the first quarter of 2013. In five of the better states to be unemployed, a higher percentage of jobless residents received these benefits. In some of the worst states to be unemployed, these rates were even lower. In Louisiana and Tennessee, the two worst states to be unemployed, just 30% of unemployed workers received these benefits.
To determine the worst states to be unemployed, 24/7 Wall St. reviewed figures published by the Department of Labor’s Office of Unemployment Insurance (OUI) and Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The recipiency rate and recovery rate from the OUI are for the 12 months running through the end of the first quarter of 2013. Unemployment rate from the BLS are for June 2013, with job growth numbers reflecting changes in the nonfarm payrolls measure from the year before. The final rank reflects a composite score of these four measures weighted equally. Data on change in Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) benefits comes from NELP. Dixon noted that since the data was put together, North Carolina has made changes in its UI program to cut weekly benefits. Those changes are not reflected in our data.
These are the worst states to be unemployed.
10. Mississippi
> Pct. unemployed getting benefits: 37% (18th lowest)
> Pct. average weekly wage covered: 28.8% (10th lowest)
> Unemployment rate: 9.0% (3rd highest)
> 1-yr. job growth: 2.5% (5th highest)
Unemployment insurance is not very generous in Mississippi when compared to most other states. The average weekly benefit was just $193, making Mississippi the only state to offer an average of less than $200. This only comprised 28.8% of weekly wages, lower than all but nine other states. In addition to having limited unemployment insurance benefits, Mississippi is struggling with high unemployment, which at 9% as of June 2013 was higher than every state except Nevada and Illinois. Between June 2012 and June 2013, nonfarm employment rose by just 0.3%, lower than all but three other states, while manufacturing, one of the state’s largest industries by employment shed jobs.
Also Read: America’s Worst Companies to Work For
9. Kentucky
> Pct. unemployed getting benefits: 38% (19th lowest)
> Pct. average weekly wage covered: 38.2% (17th highest)
> Unemployment rate: 8.4% (12th highest)
> 1-yr. job growth: 0.8% (12th lowest)
In June 2012, Kentucky had an unemployment rate of 8.3%, barely above the national rate of 8.2%. The state also had a 1.9% increase in nonfarm employment from the year before, slightly faster than the national pace. But as of June 2013, job growth had slowed to just 0.8% over the year before. The unemployment rate was also higher, at 8.4%, than in the year before, even as the national rate fell to 7.6%. The job market has been especially difficult for workers in eastern Kentucky, where 4,000 mining jobs have been lost, according to The Columbus Dispatch. Senator Mitch McConnell recently published an editorial in the Louisville Courier-Journal critiquing President Obama’s environmental policy as “a war on Kentucky jobs.”
8. Florida
> Pct. unemployed getting benefits: 32% (8th lowest)
> Pct. average weekly wage covered: 28.5% (8th lowest)
> Unemployment rate: 7.1% (22nd highest)
> 1-yr. job growth: 1.7% (14th highest)
The $232 that Florida offers in average weekly unemployment benefits is lower than all but four other states. This average benefit comes out to just 28.5% of weekly wages, lower than all but a few other states. For a while, Florida made it more difficult than in other states to collect these benefits. The state enacted a law in 2011 that required unemployment recipients to take math, reading and research tests before receiving benefits. However, the U.S. Department of Labor nixed the plan in April over concerns that it may violate civil rights laws for the disabled and those for whom English is not their first language. The good news for those still out of work is that the unemployment rate, while one of the highest in the nation at the height of the economic downturn, now has fallen below the national rate.
7. Ohio
> Pct. unemployed getting benefits: 37% (18th lowest)
> Pct. average weekly wage covered: 37.2% (20th highest)
> Unemployment rate: 7.2% (21st highest)
> 1-yr. job growth: 0.3% (4th lowest)
Between June of 2012 and 2013, the number of nonfarm jobs in Ohio rose by just 0.3%. The state’s unemployment rate also barely budged, falling from just 7.3% to 7.2%, higher than the majority of states, although below the national rate of 7.6%. Out-of-work individuals, on average, received unemployment insurance benefits covering 37.2% of the state’s average weekly wage, more than the 33% nationwide. But just 37% of all unemployed workers actually were able to receive these benefits, versus 45% across the country. Recently, two neighboring states, Indiana and Michigan, enacted “right to work” laws, which are designed to attract employers and prohibit unions from collecting payments by non-members at companies in which they operate. While such a law has not been passed in Ohio, unions remain concerned the issue could be brought up in their state.p>
6. Indiana
> Pct. unemployed getting benefits: 35% (12th lowest)
> Pct. average weekly wage covered: 34.3% (22nd lowest)
> Unemployment rate: 8.4% (12th highest)
> 1 yr. job growth: 1.4% (23rd highest)
In Indiana, the unemployed accounted for 8.4% of the labor force as of June, more than the 7.6% nationwide and unchanged from the year before. Only 35% of unemployed workers received benefits during the 12 months ending with the first quarter of 2013, versus 45% across the nation. Job growth also has slowed considerably, from 2.5% between June 2011 and June 2012, then the fourth highest rate in the nation, to 1.4% between June 2012 and June 2013. But not all job news out of the state is negative. Almost all the state’s job growth in June came from the manufacturing industry, according to the Indiana Department of Workplace Development. Indiana has a proportionally higher number of manufacturing jobs than any other state.
5. Arizona
> Pct. unemployed getting benefits: 33% (9th lowest)
> Pct. average weekly wage covered: 24.9% (2nd lowest)
> Unemployment rate: 8.0% (15th highest)
> 1 yr. job growth: 2.0% (7th highest)
Arizona experienced 2% employment growth over the 12 months ending in June, a faster pace than all but a half dozen states. However, skilled job opportunities may be scarce, with three-quarters of all job openings in Arizona requiring only a high school diploma or less. The state also was unable to significantly reduce unemployment during the past year. From June 2012 to June 2013, the unemployment rate fell just 0.4 percentage points from 8.4% to 8.0%. Just one-third of jobless workers received unemployment insurance benefits during the 12 months ending with the first quarter of 2013, well below the 45% of the unemployed nationwide. Also, the average weekly benefit received was just $214, or less than 25% of the average weekly wage in the state, worse than in any other state except Louisiana.
Also Read: Ten Cities Where the Poor Can’t Get Rich
4. Alabama
> Pct. unemployed getting benefits: 32% (8th lowest)
> Pct. average weekly wage covered: 26.2% (6th lowest)
> Unemployment rate: 6.5% (18th lowest)
> 1 yr. job growth: 1.2% (22nd lowest)
Alabama’s unemployment rate rate fell from 7.6% in June 2012 to 6.5% in June 2013. But despite these improvements, being unemployed likely is still very difficult for Alabama workers. Just 32% of unemployed job seekers received unemployment benefits, with these payments averaging just 26.2% of the average weekly wage, both among the lowest figures in the nation. Governor Robert Bentley has made reducing joblessness in the state a top priority and has pledged not to take any salary until the state’s unemployment rate reaches 5.2%.
3. Illinois
> Pct. unemployed getting benefits: 43% (25th highest)
> Pct. average weekly wage covered: 32.1% (16th lowest)
> Unemployment rate: 9.2% (2nd highest)
> 1 yr. job growth: 0.8% (12th lowest)
While the $987 in average weekly wages in Illinois was higher than all but six other states, the average unemployment benefit of about $317 was just the 17th highest in the nation. Illinois has struggled with job growth as well, with the number of nonfarm jobs growing just 0.8% between June 2012 and June 2013, well below the 1.7% growth across the country. The number of jobs in both the public sector and manufacturing industry, which both have a sizable presence in the state, actually decreased during that time. The Illinois unemployment rate of 9.2% in June was higher than that of any other state except for Nevada.
2. Louisiana
> Pct. unemployed getting benefits: 30% (tied-5th lowest)
> Pct. average weekly wage covered: 24.6% (the lowest)
> Unemployment rate: 7.0% (25th lowest)
> 1-yr. job growth: 1.1% (19th lowest)
Jobless individuals in Louisiana should not expect generous unemployment insurance benefits. The average weekly payout in the state for the year ending in first quarter of 2013 was just $201, lower than any other state except for Mississippi. When taken as a percentage of the average weekly wage, Louisiana’s benefits become the stingiest in the country, paying out less than 25% of the average. Fortunately for those out of work, the unemployment rate was 7.0% as of June 2013, below the national rate, indicating less competition for jobs. However, the state is one of a minority where the unemployment rate actually rose from the previous year.
Also Read: The Best States to Be Unemployed
1. Tennessee
> Pct. unemployed getting benefits: 30% (tied-5th lowest)
> Pct. average weekly wage covered: 28.6% (9th lowest)
> Unemployment rate: 8.5% (10th highest)
> 1-yr. job growth: 1.2% (22nd lowest)
As a result of the sequester, which went into effect in early 2013 to help cut the U.S. budget deficit, a federal program intended to lengthen the amount of time jobless residents can receive unemployment benefits will be substantially reduced. Cutting Emergency Unemployment Compensation will mean an end to an important source of income for many out-of-work Americans.
Unemployment rates have fallen nationwide, but there are still nearly 12 million active job seekers who cannot find work. While unemployment is rarely a favorable situation, in certain parts of the country, the unemployed can expect to find a job more easily because of a favorable job market or at least receive good benefits. In other areas, job growth is slow, competition is high, and benefits are relatively poor.
Based on unemployment insurance benefits data and employment statistics from the Department of Labor, 24/7 Wall St. identified the states where residents had the worst chances of finding work and also received the worst benefits while they were looking for it.
Click here to see the worst states to be unemployed
Click here to see the best states to be unemployed
One of the biggest indicators of how difficult it is to find work is the unemployment rate. A low jobless rate in a given state usually means the area’s economy is doing relatively well, competition is limited, and workers have the skills necessary to qualify for available jobs. In all of the best states to be unemployed, the unemployment rate was well below the national rate of 7.6% for June. In North Dakota, one of the best states to be unemployed, just 3.1% of the workforce did not have a job.
In the worst states to be unemployed, job growth was relatively slow, and new opportunities to work took longer to materialize. In most of the these states, the number of nonfarm jobs grew slower than the 1.3% national rate between June 2012 and June 2013. In three of these states — Kentucky, Ohio, and Illinois — the total number of jobs grew by less than 1%.
Not surprisingly, it is far better to be unemployed in a state with healthy job growth. According to Rebecca Dixon, policy analyst at the National Employment Law Project, “in some of these states, people go back to work really quickly.”
However, even if employers are hiring and local economies are doing well, workers may still need time to find a job. This may mean relying on unemployment insurance benefits while looking for work. Nationally, unemployment benefits covered an average of 33% of the average weekly wages in the area. In six of the best states to be unemployed, this figure, known as the replacement rate, was more than 40% of average wages, with Hawaii covering a nation-leading 53%.
Dixon pointed out that a high replacement rate is not enough on its own to make benefits available to the unemployed. “A state can have a great program, but if they make it really, really hard for people to qualify for benefits, then it’s just a great program sitting there that no one can use,” said Dixon.
Known as the recipiency rate, just 45% of all unemployed workers received such benefits over the 12 months going through the first quarter of 2013. In five of the better states to be unemployed, a higher percentage of jobless residents received these benefits. In some of the worst states to be unemployed, these rates were even lower. In Louisiana and Tennessee, the two worst states to be unemployed, just 30% of unemployed workers received these benefits.
To determine the worst states to be unemployed, 24/7 Wall St. reviewed figures published by the Department of Labor’s Office of Unemployment Insurance (OUI) and Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The recipiency rate and recovery rate from the OUI are for the 12 months running through the end of the first quarter of 2013. Unemployment rate from the BLS are for June 2013, with job growth numbers reflecting changes in the nonfarm payrolls measure from the year before. The final rank reflects a composite score of these four measures weighted equally. Data on change in Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) benefits comes from NELP. Dixon noted that since the data was put together, North Carolina has made changes in its UI program to cut weekly benefits. Those changes are not reflected in our data.
These are the worst states to be unemployed.
10. Mississippi
> Pct. unemployed getting benefits: 37% (18th lowest)
> Pct. average weekly wage covered: 28.8% (10th lowest)
> Unemployment rate: 9.0% (3rd highest)
> 1-yr. job growth: 2.5% (5th highest)
Unemployment insurance is not very generous in Mississippi when compared to most other states. The average weekly benefit was just $193, making Mississippi the only state to offer an average of less than $200. This only comprised 28.8% of weekly wages, lower than all but nine other states. In addition to having limited unemployment insurance benefits, Mississippi is struggling with high unemployment, which at 9% as of June 2013 was higher than every state except Nevada and Illinois. Between June 2012 and June 2013, nonfarm employment rose by just 0.3%, lower than all but three other states, while manufacturing, one of the state’s largest industries by employment shed jobs.
Also Read: America’s Worst Companies to Work For
9. Kentucky
> Pct. unemployed getting benefits: 38% (19th lowest)
> Pct. average weekly wage covered: 38.2% (17th highest)
> Unemployment rate: 8.4% (12th highest)
> 1-yr. job growth: 0.8% (12th lowest)
In June 2012, Kentucky had an unemployment rate of 8.3%, barely above the national rate of 8.2%. The state also had a 1.9% increase in nonfarm employment from the year before, slightly faster than the national pace. But as of June 2013, job growth had slowed to just 0.8% over the year before. The unemployment rate was also higher, at 8.4%, than in the year before, even as the national rate fell to 7.6%. The job market has been especially difficult for workers in eastern Kentucky, where 4,000 mining jobs have been lost, according to The Columbus Dispatch. Senator Mitch McConnell recently published an editorial in the Louisville Courier-Journal critiquing President Obama’s environmental policy as “a war on Kentucky jobs.”
8. Florida
> Pct. unemployed getting benefits: 32% (8th lowest)
> Pct. average weekly wage covered: 28.5% (8th lowest)
> Unemployment rate: 7.1% (22nd highest)
> 1-yr. job growth: 1.7% (14th highest)
The $232 that Florida offers in average weekly unemployment benefits is lower than all but four other states. This average benefit comes out to just 28.5% of weekly wages, lower than all but a few other states. For a while, Florida made it more difficult than in other states to collect these benefits. The state enacted a law in 2011 that required unemployment recipients to take math, reading and research tests before receiving benefits. However, the U.S. Department of Labor nixed the plan in April over concerns that it may violate civil rights laws for the disabled and those for whom English is not their first language. The good news for those still out of work is that the unemployment rate, while one of the highest in the nation at the height of the economic downturn, now has fallen below the national rate.
7. Ohio
> Pct. unemployed getting benefits: 37% (18th lowest)
> Pct. average weekly wage covered: 37.2% (20th highest)
> Unemployment rate: 7.2% (21st highest)
> 1-yr. job growth: 0.3% (4th lowest)
Between June of 2012 and 2013, the number of nonfarm jobs in Ohio rose by just 0.3%. The state’s unemployment rate also barely budged, falling from just 7.3% to 7.2%, higher than the majority of states, although below the national rate of 7.6%. Out-of-work individuals, on average, received unemployment insurance benefits covering 37.2% of the state’s average weekly wage, more than the 33% nationwide. But just 37% of all unemployed workers actually were able to receive these benefits, versus 45% across the country. Recently, two neighboring states, Indiana and Michigan, enacted “right to work” laws, which are designed to attract employers and prohibit unions from collecting payments by non-members at companies in which they operate. While such a law has not been passed in Ohio, unions remain concerned the issue could be brought up in their state.p>
6. Indiana
> Pct. unemployed getting benefits: 35% (12th lowest)
> Pct. average weekly wage covered: 34.3% (22nd lowest)
> Unemployment rate: 8.4% (12th highest)
> 1 yr. job growth: 1.4% (23rd highest)
In Indiana, the unemployed accounted for 8.4% of the labor force as of June, more than the 7.6% nationwide and unchanged from the year before. Only 35% of unemployed workers received benefits during the 12 months ending with the first quarter of 2013, versus 45% across the nation. Job growth also has slowed considerably, from 2.5% between June 2011 and June 2012, then the fourth highest rate in the nation, to 1.4% between June 2012 and June 2013. But not all job news out of the state is negative. Almost all the state’s job growth in June came from the manufacturing industry, according to the Indiana Department of Workplace Development. Indiana has a proportionally higher number of manufacturing jobs than any other state.
5. Arizona
> Pct. unemployed getting benefits: 33% (9th lowest)
> Pct. average weekly wage covered: 24.9% (2nd lowest)
> Unemployment rate: 8.0% (15th highest)
> 1 yr. job growth: 2.0% (7th highest)
Arizona experienced 2% employment growth over the 12 months ending in June, a faster pace than all but a half dozen states. However, skilled job opportunities may be scarce, with three-quarters of all job openings in Arizona requiring only a high school diploma or less. The state also was unable to significantly reduce unemployment during the past year. From June 2012 to June 2013, the unemployment rate fell just 0.4 percentage points from 8.4% to 8.0%. Just one-third of jobless workers received unemployment insurance benefits during the 12 months ending with the first quarter of 2013, well below the 45% of the unemployed nationwide. Also, the average weekly benefit received was just $214, or less than 25% of the average weekly wage in the state, worse than in any other state except Louisiana.
Also Read: Ten Cities Where the Poor Can’t Get Rich
4. Alabama
> Pct. unemployed getting benefits: 32% (8th lowest)
> Pct. average weekly wage covered: 26.2% (6th lowest)
> Unemployment rate: 6.5% (18th lowest)
> 1 yr. job growth: 1.2% (22nd lowest)
Alabama’s unemployment rate rate fell from 7.6% in June 2012 to 6.5% in June 2013. But despite these improvements, being unemployed likely is still very difficult for Alabama workers. Just 32% of unemployed job seekers received unemployment benefits, with these payments averaging just 26.2% of the average weekly wage, both among the lowest figures in the nation. Governor Robert Bentley has made reducing joblessness in the state a top priority and has pledged not to take any salary until the state’s unemployment rate reaches 5.2%.
3. Illinois
> Pct. unemployed getting benefits: 43% (25th highest)
> Pct. average weekly wage covered: 32.1% (16th lowest)
> Unemployment rate: 9.2% (2nd highest)
> 1 yr. job growth: 0.8% (12th lowest)
While the $987 in average weekly wages in Illinois was higher than all but six other states, the average unemployment benefit of about $317 was just the 17th highest in the nation. Illinois has struggled with job growth as well, with the number of nonfarm jobs growing just 0.8% between June 2012 and June 2013, well below the 1.7% growth across the country. The number of jobs in both the public sector and manufacturing industry, which both have a sizable presence in the state, actually decreased during that time. The Illinois unemployment rate of 9.2% in June was higher than that of any other state except for Nevada.
2. Louisiana
> Pct. unemployed getting benefits: 30% (tied-5th lowest)
> Pct. average weekly wage covered: 24.6% (the lowest)
> Unemployment rate: 7.0% (25th lowest)
> 1-yr. job growth: 1.1% (19th lowest)
Jobless individuals in Louisiana should not expect generous unemployment insurance benefits. The average weekly payout in the state for the year ending in first quarter of 2013 was just $201, lower than any other state except for Mississippi. When taken as a percentage of the average weekly wage, Louisiana’s benefits become the stingiest in the country, paying out less than 25% of the average. Fortunately for those out of work, the unemployment rate was 7.0% as of June 2013, below the national rate, indicating less competition for jobs. However, the state is one of a minority where the unemployment rate actually rose from the previous year.
Also Read: The Best States to Be Unemployed
1. Tennessee
> Pct. unemployed getting benefits: 30% (tied-5th lowest)
> Pct. average weekly wage covered: 28.6% (9th lowest)
> Unemployment rate: 8.5% (10th highest)
> 1-yr. job growth: 1.2% (22nd lowest)
Tennessee is the worst state in the country to be unemployed. The average weekly unemployment insurance payout totaled just 28.6% of the average weekly wage, lower than all but eight other states. Meanwhile, just 30% of the unemployed received those benefits, also among the lowest in the country.The state enacted a new law in 2012 that required the unemployed to make “a reasonable effort to secure work” by demonstrating they have reached out to at least three employers per week. In addition, the law requires people receiving benefits to take any job offering 100% of prior wages in the first 13 weeks. After this, to continue receiving benefits they may not turn down any job offering 75% of past wages. By the 38th week of unemployment, this standard falls to 65% of past wages. The state’s unemployment rate of 8.5% in June 2013 was the 10th highest in the country and up from 8.2% in June 2012, despite a decline across the country.
Obama Questions Job Numbers from Keystone XL Pipeline
Rig Zone ^ | July 29, 2013 | Rigzone Staff|
U.S. President Barack Obama has called into question the number of jobs that would be provided from the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline in a New York Times interview over the weekend.
Republicans have frequently stated that there would be a large number of jobs created if the pipeline is approved for construction, Obama said, adding that he disputes their premise.
“Republicans have said that this would be a big jobs generator,” Obama said in the interview. “There is no evidence that that’s true. The most realistic estimates are this might maybe 2,000 jobs during the construction of the pipeline, which might take a year or two, and then after that we’re talking about somewhere between 50 and 100 jobs in an economy of 150 million working people.”
The president noted that even the temporary increase of 2,000 jobs that might be created during the construction of the pipeline, which would cost about $5.3 billion to build, was “a blip relative to the need.”
Republicans and business groups have pressured Obama to approve the pipeline, emphasizing that the approval and construction of the pipeline would produce economic benefits, including a drop in gasoline prices.
Democrats and environmental groups have opposed the approval and construction of the pipeline primarily on environmental grounds, saying that the burning of fossil fuels contributes to climate change.
Obama said that if the pipeline allowed the Midwest to export more of its oil to other countries, it could actually cause gasoline prices in the region to increase.
Obama said last month that the pipeline would serve U.S. interests only if it did not “significantly exacerbate” carbon pollution.
The president is expected to make a final decision later this year or in 2014.
U.S. President Barack Obama has called into question the number of jobs that would be provided from the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline in a New York Times interview over the weekend.
Republicans have frequently stated that there would be a large number of jobs created if the pipeline is approved for construction, Obama said, adding that he disputes their premise.
“Republicans have said that this would be a big jobs generator,” Obama said in the interview. “There is no evidence that that’s true. The most realistic estimates are this might maybe 2,000 jobs during the construction of the pipeline, which might take a year or two, and then after that we’re talking about somewhere between 50 and 100 jobs in an economy of 150 million working people.”
The president noted that even the temporary increase of 2,000 jobs that might be created during the construction of the pipeline, which would cost about $5.3 billion to build, was “a blip relative to the need.”
Republicans and business groups have pressured Obama to approve the pipeline, emphasizing that the approval and construction of the pipeline would produce economic benefits, including a drop in gasoline prices.
Democrats and environmental groups have opposed the approval and construction of the pipeline primarily on environmental grounds, saying that the burning of fossil fuels contributes to climate change.
Obama said that if the pipeline allowed the Midwest to export more of its oil to other countries, it could actually cause gasoline prices in the region to increase.
Obama said last month that the pipeline would serve U.S. interests only if it did not “significantly exacerbate” carbon pollution.
The president is expected to make a final decision later this year or in 2014.
Is Eric Holder Is President Obama’s ‘Inner Nigger’?
President Obama‘s powerful speech on the aftermath of Trayvon Martin‘s unpunished killing has spawned a panoply of reactions, but one Salon writer’s review of the President’s remarks is drawing molten-hot criticism on Twitter. Demos Senior Fellow and sometime Up panelist Richard Benjamin blasted the speech as a tepid shadow of Attorney GeneralEric Holder‘s advocacy, and declared that “Some of us have an Inner Child. Others have an Inner Nigger. Is Holder the president’s conscience? Or his Inner Nigger?”
From Salon‘s Richard Benjamin:
Finally the president has spoken about George Zimmerman’s acquittal. Even as the country waited for his singular response – the nation’s leader and a law professor who once looked like Trayvon Martin – the president danced around the issues. And what a dramatic anti-climax, listening to the president refuse to say anything insightful or profound about the acquittal. In signature professorial style, the president gave us the “context” to the episode and to black people’s “pain.” But he didn’t offer a meaningful opinion on the episode’s hot molten core: racial profiling, vigilantism, and “Stand Your Ground” laws.Meanwhile, Attorney General Eric Holder delivered trenchant thoughts on the acquittal, demanding action. Before an audience of supporters, Holder recently called for a full investigation of Martin’s death after Zimmerman’s acquittal. Holder vowed that the Justice Department will act “in a manner that is consistent with the facts and the law. We will not be afraid.”“We must stand our ground,” he told supporters.Some of us have an Inner Child. Others have an Inner Nigger. Is Holder the president’s conscience? Or his Inner Nigger?Is Holder the president’s aggressive internal mind and voice — willing to speak truth to power, but unbothered with appearing like an angry black man?
The President has faced harsh provocations from other black commentators, but this is a whole different level. The post drew swift criticism from the This Week In Blackness tag team of Elon James White and Angry Black Lady Imani Gandy, including sharp rebukes of Salon‘s editors:
@elonjames Seriously @RichBenjaminUSA. What the fuck dude? Of all the framing around this you would use “Inner Nigger” to make this argument?@elonjames Whether you thought that Obama’s speech is lacking or not, deliberate link bait like this is cheap and problematic at best.@AngryBlackLady When I said publish more voices of color, this wasn’t what I had in mind, @Salon.@AngryBlackLady I can’t. i can’t. RT @tommyxtopher: @AngryBlackLady @Salon @elonjames cue Rush Limbaugh “satire.” Maybe a parody Stevie Wonder album cover?@elonjames Wow. And @Salon–do you guys not have editors? What editor in their right mind sees “Inner Nigger” and thinks “Publish this ASAP.”@elonjames Fuck your career. This isnt about how many hits you can get. This is so much bigger than that and muthafuckas out here trying to be popular.@elonjames Dear White People & Organizations: having negroes make dumbass arguments does not shield you from critique. CC: @Salon@elonjames At this point @Salon should rename itself “White Liberal Bullshit Weekly.”@AngryBlackLady And @Salon published that nonsense by @RichBenjaminUSA with Trayvon’s name spelled incorrectly in the photo caption — so that’s delightful.
MSNBC’s Goldie Taylor was also not amused:
@goldietaylor I don’t even know what to say. Why would a progressive site publish a piece re: POTUS’ “inner n-word”?
Following the barrage of criticism, Benjamin tweeted “What black person doesnt understand duality/double consciousness? Legit Q: Does Holder embody PBOs complex double consciousness? @Salon”
I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that it’s not the Jungian psychology that’s tripping people up. He later added “ive admired PBO & Holder publicly & privately. still, leaders’ approaches to race merits reflection. @Salon”
I always liked Benjamin as a panelist on Up, and I hope he doesn’t get fired for this. My feeling is that the best response to problematic speech is more speech, not less. In this case, I’d be especially interested to know what Benjamin was trying to accomplish with his word choice, beyond blunt provocation, and if he’s prepared to have his words parroted by the likes of Rush Limbaugh on Monday morning. That’s a sound that hurts, no matter how accustomed you get to it.
Benjamin’s provocation is something he’ll have to wrestle with, but on the substance, he’s got half a point. Eric Holder has been much more vocal and active on issues of race during this administration, but the speech the President gave today was as unflinchingly far from a Beer Summit as anyone could reasonably expect. Yes, President Obama could have given this speech as a candidate, and enjoyed a nice, long career as a Senator.
Update: Rich Benjamin added an update Saturday morning, in response to the uproar. You canread that here. For what it’s worth, I think people understood the point he was reaching for, but after reading his explanation, I still don’t understand how the term “inner n*gger” helped him get there.
Twitter user @dvnix has a thorough aggregation of tweets on the subject here.
Obama Vineyard vacation at $7.6m private resort; more than 75 rooms booked for staff
Washington Examiner ^ | July 29, 2013 | Paul Bedard
The Massachusetts island of Martha's Vineyard, the exclusive playground for presidents and their families, is about to get its annual summer infusion of cash and attention as President Obama and his family prepare to arrive August 10 for an eight-day vacation.
Local reports indicate that the first family will likely be staying at a $7.6 million resort home on southern edge of the island in the town of Chilmark where homes feature water access to Chilmark Pond, tennis courts and swimming pools.
The Massachusetts island of Martha's Vineyard, the exclusive playground for presidents and their families, is about to get its annual summer infusion of cash and attention as President Obama and his family prepare to arrive August 10 for an eight-day vacation.
Local reports indicate that the first family will likely be staying at a $7.6 million resort home on southern edge of the island in the town of Chilmark where homes feature water access to Chilmark Pond, tennis courts and swimming pools.
Still No WH Tours, but Parade of Special Visitors Continues
White House Dossier ^ | July 29, 2013 | Keith Koffler
The White House continues to bar average Americans from touring “The People House” but nevertheless lavishes spending on all sorts of special invitees – from diners at last week’s Iftar dinner breaking the Muslim fast to sports teams and foreign diplomats.
Soon after the outcry over the cancellation of tours due to the sequester, the White House promised to see what could be done to allow some visits to resume. But nothing was done and no one can visit – unless President Obama finds you useful or amusing.
Favored guest have poured in this month, even though Obama was traveling in Africa for part of it.
The White House continues to bar average Americans from touring “The People House” but nevertheless lavishes spending on all sorts of special invitees – from diners at last week’s Iftar dinner breaking the Muslim fast to sports teams and foreign diplomats.
Soon after the outcry over the cancellation of tours due to the sequester, the White House promised to see what could be done to allow some visits to resume. But nothing was done and no one can visit – unless President Obama finds you useful or amusing.
Favored guest have poured in this month, even though Obama was traveling in Africa for part of it.
Scientists power mobile phone using urine
Phys.Org ^ | July 16, 2013 | Staff
British scientists on Tuesday reported they had harnessed the power of urine and were able to charge a mobile phone with enough electricity to send texts and surf the internet. Researchers from the University of Bristol and Bristol Robotics Laboratory in south west England said they had created a fuel cell that uses bacteria to break down urine to generate electricity, in a study published in the Royal Society of Chemistry journal Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics.
"No one has harnessed power from urine to do this so it's an exciting discovery," said engineer Ioannis Ieropoulos.
"The beauty of this fuel source is that we are not relying on the erratic nature of the wind or the sun; we are actually reusing waste to create energy.
"One product that we can be sure of an unending supply is our own urine," he added.
The team grew bacteria on carbon fibre anodes and placed them inside ceramic cylinders.
The bacteria broke down chemicals in urine passed through the cylinders, building up a small amount of electrical charge which was stored on a capacitor.
Ieropoulos hoped that the cell, which is currently the size of a car battery, could be developed for many applications.
"Our aim is to have something that can be carried around easily," he explained.
"So far the microbial fuel power stack (MFC) that we have developed generates enough power to enable SMS messaging, web browsing and to make a brief phone call.
"The concept has been tested and it works - it's now for us to develop and refine the process so that we can develop MFCs to fully charge a battery."
They hope the technology will eventually be used to power domestic devices.
Mobile phones are displayed on May 20, 2013. British scientists on Tuesday reported they had harnessed the power of urine and were able to charge a mobile phone with enough electricity to send texts and surf the Internet.
British scientists on Tuesday reported they had harnessed the power of urine and were able to charge a mobile phone with enough electricity to send texts and surf the internet. Researchers from the University of Bristol and Bristol Robotics Laboratory in south west England said they had created a fuel cell that uses bacteria to break down urine to generate electricity, in a study published in the Royal Society of Chemistry journal Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics.
"No one has harnessed power from urine to do this so it's an exciting discovery," said engineer Ioannis Ieropoulos.
"The beauty of this fuel source is that we are not relying on the erratic nature of the wind or the sun; we are actually reusing waste to create energy.
"One product that we can be sure of an unending supply is our own urine," he added.
The team grew bacteria on carbon fibre anodes and placed them inside ceramic cylinders.
The bacteria broke down chemicals in urine passed through the cylinders, building up a small amount of electrical charge which was stored on a capacitor.
Ieropoulos hoped that the cell, which is currently the size of a car battery, could be developed for many applications.
"Our aim is to have something that can be carried around easily," he explained.
"So far the microbial fuel power stack (MFC) that we have developed generates enough power to enable SMS messaging, web browsing and to make a brief phone call.
"The concept has been tested and it works - it's now for us to develop and refine the process so that we can develop MFCs to fully charge a battery."
They hope the technology will eventually be used to power domestic devices.
Mobile phones are displayed on May 20, 2013. British scientists on Tuesday reported they had harnessed the power of urine and were able to charge a mobile phone with enough electricity to send texts and surf the Internet.
Who Serves in the Military? (Military enlistment to population ratios by region and income)
Powerline ^ | 07/29/2013 | Paul Mirengoff
Peter Robinson at Ricochet directs attention to a study by the Heritage Foundation of military enlistment to population ratios by region. It tells us that, generally speaking, folks from Red States are much more inclined to serve in the military than folks from Blue States.
The most over-represented region consists of Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana. The most under-represented region is the Northeast from Pennsylvania upwards.
The Mountain West — Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico — is over-represented. So is Southeast.
The Pacific West and the Midwest are underrepresented. The Midwest’s short-fall in the military surprised me. But the much of that region has been trending Democratic for some time.
The Heritage Foundation study also explodes the myth that military service disproportionately attracts men and women from disadvantaged backgrounds. To the contrary, the study shows that U.S. military service disproportionately attracts enlisted personnel and officers who do not come from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Moreover:
The most over-represented region consists of Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana. The most under-represented region is the Northeast from Pennsylvania upwards.
The Mountain West — Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico — is over-represented. So is Southeast.
The Pacific West and the Midwest are underrepresented. The Midwest’s short-fall in the military surprised me. But the much of that region has been trending Democratic for some time.
The Heritage Foundation study also explodes the myth that military service disproportionately attracts men and women from disadvantaged backgrounds. To the contrary, the study shows that U.S. military service disproportionately attracts enlisted personnel and officers who do not come from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Members of the all-volunteer military are significantly more likely to come from high-income neighborhoods than from low-income neighborhoods. Only 11 percent of enlisted recruits in 2007 came from the poorest one-fifth (quintile) of neighborhoods, while 25 percent came from the wealthiest quintile.
Moreover:
American soldiers are more educated than their peers. A little more than 1 percent of enlisted personnel lack a high school degree, compared to 21 percent of men 18-24 years old, and 95 percent of officer accessions have at least a bachelor’s degree.Generally speaking, then, people don’t volunteer for the military because they lack employment opportunities. They volunteer because they want to serve their country. And those with that level of patriotism tend to come from “Red America.”
Ex-Clinton Aide: The Clintons Want Weiner Sexting Scandal Story To ‘Go Away’
CBS ^
NEW YORK — President Bill Clinton’s former aide says Anthony Weiner’s continuing sexting scandal has been “very painful” for the Clintons, who are close to the New York mayoral candidate’s wife.
Ex-press secretary Dee Dee Myers said Sunday on CBS’ “Face the Nation” it wasn’t a story anybody, particularly the Clintons, were happy to see dominate the news.
Weiner’s wife, Huma Abedin, was adviser to former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Myers later said she hadn’t spoken to the Clintons. She said she meant to say that like many others, the Clintons “would like to see the whole story go away.”
NEW YORK — President Bill Clinton’s former aide says Anthony Weiner’s continuing sexting scandal has been “very painful” for the Clintons, who are close to the New York mayoral candidate’s wife.
Ex-press secretary Dee Dee Myers said Sunday on CBS’ “Face the Nation” it wasn’t a story anybody, particularly the Clintons, were happy to see dominate the news.
Weiner’s wife, Huma Abedin, was adviser to former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Myers later said she hadn’t spoken to the Clintons. She said she meant to say that like many others, the Clintons “would like to see the whole story go away.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washington.cbslocal.com ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Army Times ^ | May 7, 2017 | Todd South After carrying the M16 or one of its cousins across the globe for more than half a century, sol...
