News for social, fiscal & national security conservatives who believe in God, family & the USA. Upholding the rights granted by God & guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, traditional family values, "republican" principles / ideals, transparent & limited government, free markets, liberty & individual freedom. All content approval rests with the ARRA News Service Editor. Opinions are those of the authors. While varied positions are reported, beliefs & principles remain fixed. No revenue is generated for this site - no paid ads accepted - no payments for articles. Fair Use doctrine is posted & used. Editor/Founder: Bill Smith, Ph.D. [aka: OzarkGuru] - email@example.com (Pub. Since July, 2006)Home Page
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics
is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -- Plato
A bit gruesome. Sure. But it's Halloween, no? Trick or Treat time.
Anyway, the subject for today's exploration into contemporary horror is the modern city, so expensive it frightens middle-income earners away.
But wait. It's not all cities. Only some are horror shows.
Particularly, I'm referring to those in "blue" states, the ones run by "liberal" Democrats.
It's been pretty obvious for some time especially as we witness hordes of everyday folks moving to parts South, particularly to Texas's sprawling cities. But if you needed some statistics and graphs and the like, Derek Thompson provides them over at The Atlantic. His title addresses his basic question: "Why Middle-Class Americans Can't Afford to Live in Liberal Cities." Citing economist Jed Kolko, he notes the most astounding thing about housing in modern cities: "Liberal cities seem to have the worst affordability crises."
Or, as Kolko puts it, "[e]ven after adjusting for differences of income, liberal markets tend to have higher income inequality and worse affordability."
Why? Thompson contemplates the chicken-and-eggness of it all. Do liberal progressives congregate in coastal cities with limited land availability, and just happen to find themselves crunching out home growth, thus raising prices and reducing affordability? Or do they cause it?
Considering the nature of their favored policies, they almost certainly (if inadvertently) cause it.
Big government inevitably yields big bad effects. Support big government? Expect more inequality, not less. Then demand more government to "solve" the problem. Which causes yet more bad effects.
This trick-and-treat trap should horrify big government advocates.
It certainly horrifies me.
This is Common Sense. I'm Paul Jacob.
--------- Paul Jacobs is author of Common Sense which provides daily commentary about the issues impacting America — and about the citizens who are doing something about them. He is a contributing author on the ARRA News Service. Tags:Paul Jacob, Common SenseTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Before the world’s peoples can afford to purchase from us an iPhone, or a Ford pickup truck - they have to buy (hopefully our) food.
And governments are making sustenance so much more expensive.
Governments raise the prices of everything we try to buy. They do so indirectly - via hidden costs of government we can’t clearly see. Just here in the United States:America's Soaring Regulations Cost $1.8 Trillion A YearThat $1.8 trillion is added to the cost of everything we make - including everything we try to sell to the rest of the planet.
Much of that government cost-increase is in the food sector. Farm Bill, anyone? Making it harder for peoples around the world - many of them in abject poverty - to afford food.
Governments don’t just sneak up on us - they go after us directly. And tax and tariff what’s left of the daylight out of everything.
What do these government impositions do to their peoples?The scholarly economic evidence is clear that higher taxes and tariffs on ICT goods and services reduce adoption.“Adoption” means: whether or not they buy tech stuff. More government means they buy less stuff.
Including food. More government - regulations and taxes - means higher food prices. And the global food sector is loaded up with way too much government.
For instance, Americans for Limited Government (ALG) just did this:Getting Rid of Sugar Subsidies: A Look to the Future After Decades of FailureWhich broadly examines the Crony Socialist nightmare mess that is this global market sector.India is the second largest sugar producer in the world behind only Brazil. In spite of a five year glut on the worldwide sugar market, India’s government increased supports for sugar exports with a goal of increasing them from 1.3 million tons in 2013 to an average of 2 million tons in 2014 and 15….
Brazilian sugar policy matters, because the South American giant dominates the world market with 25 percent of global production and 50 percent of all exports in the world. Brazil’s dominance and influence is so great that Jonathan Kingsman, founder of the eponymous consultancy states in the Financial Times that, “This harvest, the Brazilians will continue to sell at any price and set the world price in the process.”…
Thailand is the second largest exporter of sugar in the world, and their new military government has plans to immediately and dramatically expand production by opening up new state-owned land for sugar production and encouraging some rice producers to change crops….
Twenty percent of the Mexican sugar industry is owned by the Mexican government creating the ultimate government subsidy – immunity from needing to produce a profit. To assist the rest of their domestic sugar industry, the government provides subsidies for them to export sugar and government loans with debt forgiveness features built into them.And round and round we go. This is a regulatory arms race - governments meeting governments tax for tax, subsidy for subsidy.
Which raises the price of food for everyone.
If you want to put a real dent in global hunger - put governments on a diet.
------------- Seton Motley is the President of Less Government and he contributes to ARRA News Service. Please feel free to follow him him on Twitter / Facebook. Tags:affordable food, accessible food, food, Seton Motley, Less GovernmentTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Chair of the Board of Governors,
Federal Reserve System
by Ralph Benko, Contributing Author: Janet Yellen gave a widely noted speech, Perspectives on Inequality and Opportunity from the Survey of Consumer Finances, at the Conference on Economic Opportunity and Inequality held by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston on October 17th.
The speech presented as a if ghostwritten for her by Quincy Magoo, that beloved cartoon character described by Wikipedia as “a wealthy, short-statured retiree who gets into a series of comical situations as a result of his nearsightedness compounded by his stubborn refusal to admit the problem.” What was most interesting was how political was the speech… and what Madame Yellen didn’t say.
Her omission even raised an eyebrow of one of the commentariat’s most astute Fed sympathizers, The Washington Post‘s Ylan Q. Mui. Mui: “Yellen did not address in her prepared text whether the Fed has contributed to inequality. Nor did she weigh in on whether it may actually be slowing down economic growth, an idea that is gaining traction among economists but which remains controversial.”
Yellen’s speech drew a public comment from the Hon. Steve Lonegan, director of monetary policy for American Principles Project and project director of its sister organization’s grass roots FixTheDollar.com campaign (which I professionally advise):There is a strong correlation between the post-war equitable prosperity to which Madam Yellen alluded and the post-war Bretton Woods gold-exchange standard. And there is a strong correlation between the increase in inequality under the Federal Reserve Note standard put into effect by President Richard Nixon to supplant Bretton Woods.
The monetary policy of the United States has a profound impact on wage growth and prices, both domestically and internationally. Hence the importance of a thorough, objective, and empirical look at its policies — from Bretton Woods through the era of stagflation, the Great Moderation, and the “Little Dark Age” of the past decade.
That is why the Brady-Cornyn Centennial Monetary Commission, and the Federal Reserve Transparency Act which recently passed the House with a massive bipartisan majority, are critical steps forward to ending wage stagnation and helping workers and median income families begin to rise again. As President Kennedy once said, “Rising tide lifts all boats.”Madam Yellen addresses four factors in what she calls “income and wealth inequality.” Madame Yellen stipulates that “Some degree of inequality in income and wealth, of course, would occur even with completely equal opportunity because variations in effort, skill, and luck will produce variations in outcomes. Indeed, some variation in outcomes arguably contributes to economic growth because it creates incentives to work hard, get an education, save, invest, and undertake risk.”
Even with that ostentatious stipulation, the Fed Chair’s speech is amplifying one of the Democratic Party’s foremost election themes, “income inequality.” The New York Times‘s Neil Irwin observed of this speech: “Nothing about those statements would seem unusual coming from a left-leaning politician or any number of professional commentators. What makes them unusual is hearing them from the nation’s economist-in-chief, who generally tries to steer as far away from contentious political debates as possible.”
Her speech could be read as an Amen Corner to Elizabeth Warren’s stump speech, on behalf of Sen. Al Franken’s reelection effort, that “The game is rigged, and the Republicans rigged it.” Her speech could be read as a little election-season kiss blown to Sen. Franken (D-Mn), who voted for her confirmation and then glowed on Madame Yellen very publicly.
One cringes at the thought that the Fed even might be giving the appearance of playing politics. To align the Fed, even subtly, with either party’s election themes during an election season would seem a deeply impolitic, and unwise, violation of the Fed’s existential principle of political independence. House Financial Services Committee chair Jeb Hensarling and Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Id), should he accede to the chairmanship of the Senate Banking Committee, might just wish to call up Madam Yellen for a public conversation about avoiding even the appearance of impropriety.
The Fed’s independence is as critical as it is delicate. To preserve it demands as much delicacy by the officials of the Federal Reserve System as by the Congress. As Barack Obama might say, here is a “teachable moment” for our new Fed chair.
Also troubling is the decision by the Chair to focus her mental energy, and remarks, on four areas entirely outside the Fed’s jurisdiction: resources available for children; higher education that families can afford; opportunities to build wealth through business ownership; and inheritances. These might be splendid areas for a president’s Council of Economic Advisors (which Madame Yellen chaired, commendably, under President Clinton). Good topics for a professor emerita at the University of California, Berkeley, Haas School of Business, as is Madam Yellen.
They are, however, at best mere homilies from the leader of the world’s most powerful central bank. We would like to hear Madam Yellen talk about monetary policy and its possible role in the diminishing of economic mobility. It does not seem like too much to ask.
Since Madame Yellen, rightly, is considered an eminent Keynesian (or Neo-Keynesian), why not begin with Keynes? In The Economic Consequences of the Peace, Chapter VI, Keynes addressed this very point. The brilliant young Keynes was addressing the insidious power of inflation, not now in evidence and not portended by the data. Yet let it be noted that there is more than one way to debauch a currency:Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the capitalist system was to debauch the currency. … By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. The sight of this arbitrary rearrangement of riches strikes not only at security, but at confidence in the equity of the existing distribution of wealth. Those to whom the system brings windfalls, beyond their deserts and even beyond their expectations or desires, become ‘profiteers,’ who are the object of the hatred of the bourgeoisie, whom the inflationism has impoverished, not less than of the proletariat. …
Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.America and the world needs, and rightly expects, the chair of the Federal Reserve to be that one in a million able to diagnose. Madame Yellen is called upon to step up her game and pivot from pious homilies to the heart of the matter. If Keynes could call out how bad monetary policy can strike “at confidence in the equity of the existing distribution of wealth,” perhaps so too ought his followers.
What is to be done? Wikipedia also observes of Mr. Magoo that “through uncanny streaks of luck, the situation always seems to work itself out for him, leaving him no worse than before.” We devoutly hope that Madame Yellen — and, thus, the economy — will be the beneficiary of “uncanny streaks of luck.” Hope is not a strategy. Relying on luck tautologically is a dicey way of bringing America, and the world, to a renewed state of equitable prosperity.
Rely on luck? It really is time to shift gears. An obvious place for Madame Yellen to begin would be to register active support for the Brady-Cornyn Centennial Monetary Commission designed to conduct a thorough, empirical, bipartisan study of what Fed policies have worked. What policies of the Federal Reserve have proven, in practice, or credibly portend to be, conducive to equitable prosperity and healthy economic mobility?
Should the correlation between the (infelicitously stated if technically accurate) “40 years of narrowing inequality following the Great Depression” and the Bretton Woods gold-exchange standard be ignored? Why ignore this? Should the tight correlation of “the most sustained rise in inequality since the 19th century” with the extended experiment in fiduciary dollar management be ignored? Why ignore that?
What might be learned from the successes of the Great Moderation inaugurated by Paul Volcker? Is Volcker’s recent call for a “rules-based” system, a position from which Madam Yellen staunchly dissents, pertinent? Discuss.
Madame Yellen? Let’s have a national conversation about monetary policy and its effects on economic mobility. It really is time to bring to a decisive end many decades of Magooonomics and the disorders that derive therefrom. Fire Magoo. Show the world that you are Keynes’s one in a million.
------------ Ralph Benko is senior advisor, economics, to American Principles in Action’s Gold Standard 2012 Initiative, and a contributor to the ARRA News Service. His article first appeared in Forbes. Tags:Janet Yellen, Federal Reserve, Fed, politicizing the Fed, monetary policy, economic mobility, Quincy Magoo, Magooonomics, Ralph BenkoTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
It has been the continued loss of confidence Americans have regarding various elements of the federal government. From the Centers for Disease Control, the Veterans Administration, the Secret Service, to the Department of Justice and the Internal Revenue Service, these and other agencies have been tainted in ways that have turned his two terms into a litany of scandals and failures.
Obama is a President for whom politics is the sole reason against which every decision is made.
The latest example was the naming of an Ebola Czar. “Sources confirm to Fox News that President Obama plans to name Ron Klain, a longtime political hand with no apparent medical or health background.” In the past, Klain has served as chief of staff to Al Gore and Joe Biden. Does this make you feel any better about the Ebola threat?
I think that most Americans—not the “low information” ignorant ones—are experiencing a generalized depression about the nation these days. It’s a sense of weariness because our paychecks don’t stretch enough in the supermarket where the cost of food, particularly meat and fish, is soaring.
We wonder about the quality of education our children or grandchildren are receiving. It’s poor when compared to other nations and it undermines a belief in America's exceptionalism.
In growing numbers younger Americans are choosing not to marry because of the costs involved and because we live in a society that no longer frowns on a couple living together; nearly half of marriages end in divorce. And then there’s same-sex marriage, a concept that was unthinkable not that long ago and for centuries in all societies.
We’re now six years into the Great Recession thanks to a White House that thought that, if the government spent $834 billion on top of the national debt, it would somehow “stimulate” the economy but government spending did not relieve Americans during the Great Depression, generate new jobs or achieve anything else that this tried-and-failed liberal theory was said to do. Who was in charge of Obama’s “stimulus” program? Ron Klain, the new Ebola Czar.
Cutting taxes, slowing and reducing regulations, and generally getting out of the way to allow people to start or expand their businesses works, but the White House went the other direction.
As of an October 16 Wall Street Journal editorial noted, “Millions of American families haven’t had a raise in after-inflation incomes in years, but in Washington times are flush…the U.S. federal government rolled up record revenues of $3.013 trillion.” Individual income tax receipts rose by 5.9%, along with payroll taxes and corporate income taxes—very nearly the highest in the world—increased 16% to $321 billion.
Only the naïve or ignorant believe that the government knows how to spend our money better than we do, but liberals—Democrats—do. Their answer to every problem government encounters is more money, but not to repair and expand the infrastructure, roads and bridges, on which the nation depends and not for a military that is currently at low pre-World War Two levels of personnel and old equipment of every description.
Our current Secretary of State, John Kerry, is going around echoing the President, telling people that mankind is doomed because “climate change” is coming and will destroy all life unless billions or trillions are spent in ways that will avoid it. Only no one can avoid climate change because that’s what climate does; it changes with well-known and predictable cycles tied to the Sun’s cycles.
Our military’s mission is now being redirected to addressing “climate change” at a time when, having been withdrawn from Iraq, a new, larger and far more dangerous entity, the Islamic State, has emerged, stretching into Syria as well.
The President recently gave an interview to France’s Canel+ TV Channel and said that the American people need to be better educated about Islam, claiming that the U.S. should be regarded as a Muslim country because of the number of Muslims living here. The truth is that the U.S. has one of the smallest percentages of Muslims of any Western nation, about 1.5% of the population. Americans know everything they need to about Islam. They recently watched two of their countrymen beheaded by the Islamic State.
The President appears to prefer unapologetic liars as his advisors. Consider Susan Rice who came to fame by lying on five Sunday television shows that the Benghazi attack in 2012 was the result of a video no one had seen and more recently said that Turkey had agreed to permit the U.S. to undertake military flights to attack ISIS only to have Turkey deny that within hours. She is Obama’s national security advisor and that is cause enough for concern, but guess to whom the new Ebola Czar, Ron Klain, will be reporting? Susan Rice.
While Obama has been in office the population has been growing by virtue of the millions of illegal aliens that have been entering. This year there was a dramatic virtual invasion of children and others from Guatemala and San Salvador at the invitation of the President. They were quickly dispersed throughout the U.S. and just as quickly schools around the nation began to report outbreaks of the diseases they brought. At the same time, deportations have declined this year.
The President has sent more than 4,000 of our military to Africa’s Ebola hot zone and he did so rapidly as what will be described as a humanitarian gesture, but he has never seen any necessity to dispatch our military to our southern border to stem illegal entry. Indeed, his administration has taken Arizona to court when it passed legislation to address the problem. In the meantime, we are left to wonder what will happen if our soldiers become ill with Ebola?
Indeed, his signature legislation, ObamaCare, is destroying our healthcare system and is a testament to the lies he repeatedly told before the Democrats in Congress passed it in 2009. No Republican voted for it. After the midterm elections, hundreds of thousands will learn that their employers will no longer provide them with healthcare insurance.
Americans are left to wonder how the nation can survive a President who has steadily engaged in programs that have harmed America’s economy—he is the first to have had our national credit rating reduced.
In the process he has ignored the limits imposed on his office by the Constitution. The courts have repeatedly rebuked this.
On November 4th voters will have an opportunity to go to the polls and vote out as many of his supporters, incumbent Democrats and candidates for Congress, as possible.
Our confidence in our government must be restored with new leadership.
----------------- Alan Caruba is a writer by profession; has authored several books, and writes a daily column, Warning Signs". He is a contributor to the ARRA News Service. Tags:President Obama, killing confidence, our government, Alan Caruba, Warning SignsTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
by Robert Romano: In a private meeting with Americans for Limited Government (ALG) staff, senior aides to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) promised that should Republicans reclaim a majority in the Senate on Tuesday, they would use the budget reconciliation process to go after Obamacare.
It was unclear whether that meant full or partial repeal of the law under reconciliation, but according to ALG vice president of public policy Rick Manning who was at the meeting on October 29, “Aides acknowledged the only way to get any type of repeal or even major changes to the law would be reconciliation.”
The matter was further clarified in an October 30 statement by McConnell spokesman Brian McGuire: “if Republicans are fortunate enough to take back the majority we’ll owe it to the American people to try through votes on full repeal, the bill’s most onerous provisions, and reconciliation.”
At issue were comments from McConnell, who faces reelection Tuesday, that it would take 60 votes in the Senate to get a full repeal of Obamacare.
“Well, it’s the top of my list, but remember who’s in the White House for two more years. Obviously, he’s not going to sign a full repeal,” McConnell said to Neil Cavuto on Fox News. “It would take 60 votes in the Senate. Nobody thinks we’re going to have 60 Republicans. And it would take a president — presidential signature. No one thinks we’re going to get that.”
This seemingly differed with comments on Fox News Sunday in July 2012 when, after the Supreme Court upheld the law’s individual mandate as a tax, McConnell said, “The chief justice said it’s a tax. Taxes are clearly what we call reconcilable. That’s the kind of measure that can be pursued with 51 votes in the Senate.”
The charitable explanation is, simply, there are parts of Obamacare that can be dealt with via budget reconciliation — which cannot be filibustered — and there are parts that cannot be, because of the way the rule is constructed. Under the so-called Byrd Rule, non-budgetary, “extraneous” items cannot be brought up under reconciliation.
So, a “full repeal” of Obamacare via reconciliation may not be permissible because not everything in the law is budgetary in nature.
But as McConnell noted in 2012, since the Supreme Court ruled the individual mandate penalty was a tax, it would be reconcilable under the rule. And, other items like Medicaid expansion, the insurance exchanges, the exchange subsidies, and also the employer mandate penalty — another tax by Chief Justice John Roberts’ standards — would too fall under the scope of reconciliation as budgetary items.
That’s not everything, but those are some of the most important provisions of the law itself.
If there was any issue with the budget score — the rules require that reconciliation bills not add to the deficit — Republicans could simply include offsetting cuts elsewhere in the budget to achieve a favorable Congressional Budget Office score.
Such legislation likely would be vetoed by Barack Obama. But it doesn’t matter.
Putting it on Obama’s desk, and forcing him to veto it, clearly makes the presidency the obstacle to getting rid of the health care law. This would set up the 2016 presidential election as a clear referendum on whether or not to keep the law.
But first things first, to get any type of repeal past the Senate, using reconciliation or otherwise, Republicans are going to need a majority there, which they have not had since 2006.
On Tuesday night, we’ll find out if McConnell will be the next majority leader, finally putting the wheels in motion, leading to Obamacare repeal votes in the Senate — including via reconciliation.
Some say elections don’t matter. Clearly this one does.
---------------- Robert Romano is the Senior Editor of Americans for Limited Government. Tags:Mitch McConnell, promise, Republican lead, Senate, Obamacare Reconciliation vote, Robert Romano, Americans for Limited Government, edotorial cartoon, William WarrenTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Tags:editorial cartoon, William Warren, Grim Reaper, Democrats, election forebodings, 2014 Elections, failed policies, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Senate Battleground Polls Show Republican Momentum
U.S. Rep. Tom Cotton Up A Whopping 13 Pts
Over Sen. Mark Pryor ~ Arkansas Poll
by Robert Schroeder, MarkertWatch: Here’s the good news for Republicans hoping to take over the Senate: Fresh polls released Thursday show a couple of their candidates with leads in key races.
The not-so-good news? Analysts are newly warning that control of the chamber won’t be decided next week. So it’s too early for the GOP to declare victory.
The newest surveys show a lead for Republican Cory Gardner in Colorado and for the GOP’s Tom Cotton in Arkansas, two battleground states that could help decide Senate control in the midterm elections. A Quinnipiac poll has Gardner leading incumbent Democratic Sen. Mark Udall by seven points. In the new Arkansas Poll, meanwhile, Cotton is ahead of opponent Mark Pryor by a whopping 13 points. Pryor, like Udall, is a sitting Democratic senator.
Gardner’s lead widened by two points since the last Quinnipiac poll. The Arkansas Poll is an annual survey, and is the best showing for Cotton of recent polls, including an NBC/Marist survey taken through Oct. 23 that showed the Republican congressman leading by just two points.
Republicans need a net six seats to win control of the Senate on Nov. 4, and prevailing in these two races would help clinch victory.
“While many races remain close, it’s just getting harder and harder to envision a plausible path for the Democrats to retain control of the Senate,” wrote Larry Sabato and his team on Thursday. “Ultimately, with just a few days to go before the election, the safe bet would be on Republicans eventually taking control of the upper chamber.”
Note that “eventually.” As they write, there’s a “decent chance” Senate control won’t be decided on Election Night, given likely runoffs in Louisiana and Georgia.
Meanwhile, the newest polls for a couple other battleground states show that those contests will bear watching until the last minute. A SurveyUSA poll released Wednesday puts independent Greg Orman ahead of Republican Sen. Pat Roberts in Kansas by just two points.
In Iowa, Joni Ernst leads Democrat Bruce Braley by four points in a Quinnipiac poll published Wednesday. That doesn’t spell guaranteed victory for Republican Ernst. But the poll does show momentum for the Iowa state senator. In the same survey on Oct. 23, her lead was two points.
------------ Robert Schroeder is a reporter for MarketWatch in Washington. Follow him on Twitter @mktwrobs. Tags:Robert Schroeder, MarketWatch, polls, U.S. Senate battleground, Arkansas, Tom Cotton, Mark Pryor, Colorado, Cory Gardner, Mark Udall, Iowa, Joni Ernst, Bruce Bailey, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
by Marita Noon: Last week, 28 European leaders met at a summit in Brussels to reach a climate deal that would build on previous targets of a 20 percent cut in greenhouse gases, a 20 percent boost in the use of renewable sources, and a 20 percent increase in energy efficiency—from the benchmark year of 1990—by 2020.
After the 2009 Copenhagen global climate conference failed to produce a legally binding global treaty to replace the lapsing Kyoto Protocol, climate campaigners, in desperation, want to put some kind of win on the board. Therefore, despite threats to veto the deal and discussions that ran into the wee hours, the European Union’s agreement on a new set of climate and energy goals is being heralded as “a new global standard”—though it is really more “I will, if you will.”
Prior to the meeting, countries such as Poland (which wanted to protect its coal industry) and Portugal (which has excess renewable energy that it cannot, currently, export to the rest of Europe) threatened to block the deal. Poorer states in Eastern Europe feared new cuts in carbon output would hurt them economically by slowing business growth. Industrialists complained that the new regulations would discourage business and investment in the bloc, at a time when its faltering economy can ill afford to lose it.
As predicated, a deal was struck—though the current team of commissioners steps aside in days, and the new commission will have to finesse the implementation. “It was not easy, not at all, but we managed to reach a fair decision,” European Council President Herman Van Rompuy stated.
Problems were overcome by cash. To get opposing countries, like Poland, to come on board, Van Rompuy pledged “extra support for lower-income countries, both through adequate targets and through additional funds to help them catch up in their clean-energy transition.” Reports indicate that Poland “secured a complex set of financial incentives…to soften the impact of the target on Polish coal miners and the coal-fired power stations on which its 38 million people depend.”
The “decision” calls for a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions of at least 40 percent and a 27 percent increase in renewables and energy efficiency, from 1990 levels, by 2030—though the original plan called for a 30-percent increase in renewables and efficiency.
Already complaining, environmentalists accuse Europe of abdicating its “climate policy leadership.” The EU accounts for about a tenth of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, but has generally done more than other major industrial powers to curb them.
Greenpeace claimed the compromise “pulled the handbrake on clean energy” and Oxfam called for targets of 55 percent in emissions cuts, and increases of 40 percent in energy savings (efficiency) and 45 percent for use of renewable energy.
While environmentalists are not happy, the BBC reports: “Europe’s leaders have been under heavy pressure not to impose much higher costs, especially when the economy is struggling.”
“Poland has long argued,” according to Reuters, “there is no reason for Europe …to commit to deeper emissions cuts before the rest of the world does”—and this is where “I will, if you will” comes in.
EU leaders claim to be “setting an example for the rest of the world,” yet the final text includes a “flexibility clause,” also called the “Paris review clause.” According to the EU Observer, “The EU agreement—the so-called climate and energy framework—is to be reviewed after an international summit on climate change in Paris in 2015. This means that, in theory, the European Council can change the targets if they are not matched by non-European countries.” The report continued: “Several eastern and central European countries feared that if the EU set too ambitious targets, while other nations like China or the US, slack, it could harm their competitiveness.”
The chances of a new global treaty in Paris are slim.
The 190 countries that in 2009 pledged $190 billion in aid for climate-related projects for developing countries can’t agree on a formula for their aid commitments. Without the aid, island nations won’t commit.
President Obama, according to the New York Times, looks toward an “agreement,” a “politically binding” deal, not a “legally binding treaty” — as the Senate will not ratify a new climate treaty (especially if the Republicans take control). The Timesquotes Paul Bledsoe, a top climate-change official in the Clinton administration who works closely with the Obama White House in international climate policy: “If you want a deal that includes all the major emitters, including the U.S., you cannot realistically pursue a legally binding treaty at this time.” The “agreement” would include “voluntary pledges.”
The Times reporting concurs with the “I will, if you will” approach: “unilateral action by the world’s largest economy will not be enough to curb the rise of carbon pollution across the globe. That will be possible only if the world’s largest economies, including India and China, agree to enact similar cuts.”
For more than twenty years, international discussions designed to address climate change have taken place. Treaties, pledges, agreements, and accords have been signed. Yet, carbon dioxide emissions are higher than ever and the planet hasn’t warmed.
Tags:editorial cartoon, William Warren, democrats, sunk, 2014 ElectionTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Making It Easy to Predict the Next Financial Crisis
by Alan Caruba, Contributing Author: It is a cliché, but true, that history repeats itself. This is largely due to the failure of each new generation to learn anything from the past as well as the human tendency toward the bad habits of greed and power-seeking. Only the names and faces change.
That is why the next financial crisis is entirely predictable.
On October 23, The Wall Street Journal had an article, “Relaxed Mortgage-Lending Rules Clear Final Hurdle.” The financial crisis in 2008 was the direct result of relaxed mortgage-lending rules. Indeed, it was the result of government pressure on banks to make “sub-prime” loans to people who any bank might sensibly conclude could not replay them. Those loans, in turn, were sold to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two government-sponsored enterprises, who then bundled and sold them as mortgage-backed assets.
As Wikipedia notes, the Federal National Mortgage Association, commonly known as Fannie Mae, was founded in 1938 during the Great Depression to expand the secondary mortgage market by securitizing mortgages by issuing mortgage-backed securities, allowing lenders to reinvest their assets into more lending. In 1970 the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, whose nickname is Freddie Mac, was created for the same reason. Both are overseen by the Federal Housing Finance Authority. Neither issues mortgages. As noted, they buy them from banks, bundle them as securities, and resell them.
Getting the government involved in the housing market has been a supremely bad idea, much as getting the government involved in education and, as we are learning, involved in the nation’s healthcare insurance sector. There are only a few things the Constitution authorizes the government to do and none of these are mentioned. That has never stopped politicians.
The Wall Street Journal article reported that “Three U.S. agencies signed off on relaxed mortgage-lending rules, helping complete a long-stalled provision of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial-overhaul law.” Two commissioners of the Securities and Exchange Commission “warned the rules would do little to prevent a return to the kind of lax mortgage underwriting that fueled the financial crisis.”
The Economist also took note, saying “When politicians bashed Wall Street for its reckless mortgage lending in the wake of the subprime crisis, bankers retorted that it was the politicians’ enthusiasm for expanding home ownership, even if it meant small deposits and low credit standards, that had really fomented the disaster.” Suffice to say there is plenty of blame to spread around, but the banks had to play by the rules the government had put in place.
In the wake of the financial crisis “many banks have stopped lending to riskier borrowers” but the new rules simply recreate the conditions that led to it, although “the rules only affect the tiny market for securities issued without federal backing, less than 2% of the $1.58 trillion in mortgage securities issue in 2013…”
The rule changes are being hailed as an example of the how great the “reform” implemented after the financial crisis was in the form of the Financial Stability Oversight Council and Orderly Liquidation Authority, otherwise known as the Dodd-Frank Act.
Suffice to say it is a regulatory nightmare of several thousand pages of rules, often quite vague, that are still being interpreted. That said, its purpose, to prevent predatory mortgage lending, improve the clarity of mortgage paperwork for consumers, and reduce incentives for mortgage brokers to push home buyers into more expensive loans was needed. It also changed the way credit card companies and other consumer lenders had to disclose their terms to consumers.
As The Economist noted, the agreement regarding mortgage-lending rules “would permit banks to securitize and sell mortgages without retaining a 5% stake—leaving them little incentive to maintain high lending standards.” That needs repeating: little incentive to maintain high lending standards, the very reason we had a financial crisis in 2008.
All this is largely due to the progressive notion that everyone, no matter how little they earn, should be able to purchase a home. In reality, those at the low end of the economic ladder should not be encouraged or seduced into taking on such debt. When they do and the economy goes south, leaving them unemployed, they just walk away from the debt.
Why should the rest of us—taxpayers—bail out the mortgage sector as we did in 2008 with huge loans to the banks and insurance companies that had purchased mortgage-based securities? The government had to step in with the complete government takeover of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. We got stuck with the bill.
It also drove up our national debt, leading to the first reduction in the nation’s credit rating in its history.
There is already talk on Capitol Hill that, should Republicans take control of the Senate and retain it in the House, they are likely, as Reuters reported, “to target the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and capital requirements on insurance companies.” To put it another way, the Republicans are the adults in Congress while the Democrats, liberal to the core, will never admit we are being set up for another financial crisis.
----------------- Alan Caruba is a writer by profession; has authored several books, and writes a daily column, Warning Signs". He is a contributor to the ARRA News Service. Tags:housing market, foreclosures, predicting, next financial crisis, financial crisis in 2008, relaxed mortgage-lending rules, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Alan Caruba, Warning SignsTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
What we’ve learned is that the Obamacare gains in coverage were largely a result of the Medicaid expansion and that most of the gain in private coverage through the government exchanges was offset by a decline in employer-based coverage. In other words, it is likely that most of the people who got coverage through the exchanges were already insured.
The second quarter data captures enrollments that occurred during the last two months of the open enrollment period, or which were otherwise delayed due to the numerous problems experienced by the exchanges, and so did not take effect until after the end of the first quarter.
Our analysis of the data is reported in more detail in our latest paper, but our key findings are that in the first half of 2014:
Enrollment in individual-market plans (both on and off the exchanges) increased by 6,254,564 individuals.
Enrollment in private employer-sponsored group plans declined by 3,788,978 individuals.
In the states implementing the Obamacare Medicaid expansion, enrollment in Medicaid grew by 5,716,977 individuals.
In the states not implementing the Obamacare Medicaid expansion, enrollment in Medicaid grew by 355,674 individuals.
Applying a little arithmetic to those four key data points yields the following observations:
The drop in employment-based coverage offset 61 percent of the gains in individual-market coverage, for a net increase in private-sector coverage of 2,465,586 individuals.
Total Medicaid enrollment increased by 6,072,651 individuals, with 94 percent of that growth occurring in the states that adopted the Obamacare Medicaid expansion.
The total, net increase in health insurance coverage (private-market and Medicaid combined) during the first half of 2014 was 8,538,237 individuals, but 71 percent of that coverage gain was attributable to Obamacare expanding Medicaid to able-bodied, working-age adults
Thus, while most of the attention this year focused on the new health insurance exchanges, the data indicate that a significant share of exchange enrollments were likely the result of a substitution effect—meaning that most of those who enrolled in new coverage through the exchanges already had coverage through an individual-market or employer-group plan.
Given that increased enrollment in Medicaid accounted for 71 percent of the net growth in health insurance coverage during the first half of 2014, the inescapable conclusion is that, at least when it comes to covering the uninsured, Obamacare so far is mainly a simple expansion of Medicaid.
The 2015 exchange open enrollment period is scheduled to start less than a month from now (on Nov. 15), while enrollment in state Medicaid programs occurs year round. When the resulting enrollment data for the next phase of Obamacare become available it will be interesting to learn:
The share of 2015 exchange enrollments that represent new applicants, as opposed to reenrollments by individuals who obtained exchange coverage in 2014;
Whether the number of Americans with individual market coverage continues to grow, and whether the number of those with private employer-group coverage continues to decline; and
If expanding Medicaid to able-bodied, working-age adults continues to be the principal source of coverage growth under Obamacare.
The following new video by Ben Howe explains the above numbers in just one minute:
---------------- Edmund F. Haislmaier is an expert in health care policy and markets at The Heritage Foundation -- and is frequently asked to assist federal and state lawmakers in designing and drafting health reform proposals and legislation. Drew Gonshorowski focuses his research and writing on the nation’s new health care law, including the repercussions for Medicare and Medicaid, as a policy analyst in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation. Ben Howe is a contributor to The Daily Signal, founder of Mister Smith Media, a fellow at the Moving Picture Institute and director of “Bankrupt: How Cronyism & Corruption Brought Down Detroit.” Tags:real story, facts, how much, Obmacare, second quarter, 2014, video, Heritage FoundationTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Editor's Note: I have know Paul Jacob since 2008 when he was fighting to protect the 'Right to Petition' in Oklahoma. While too long to detail here, his success was shared on this site: Free At Last & The Right to Petition Protected One More Time (1/25/2009). I am pleased that Paul is joining the ARRA News Service as a Contributing Author.
True the Vote, which combats voter fraud, sued the Internal Revenue Service because of the tax agency's deliberate obstruction of applications from Tea Party and conservative organizations like True the Vote. The long delay in approval was costly in part because many prospective contributors to TTV had been awaiting the granting of 501(c)(3) status before going ahead with their donations. True the Vote's president, Catherine Engelbrecht, was also harassed by other government agencies after submitting the application to IRS.
Nevertheless, Judge Reggie Walton has cavalierly dismissed the suit, asserting that the eventual granting of the tax-exempt status means that the IRS had taken adequate "remedial steps to address the alleged behavior."
Following the same exalted principle of jurisprudence, Walton would presumably dismiss charges against a mugger so long as at some point the arrested criminal had tossed the wallet back to his victim.
The dismissal, no matter how outrageous, is not in the tiniest bit surprising.
IRS personnel often behave as if they may assault our rights (e.g., to our bank accounts) with impunity, so long as they occasionally defer to our protests by announcing temporary or cosmetic reforms. Others in government cooperate in letting the agency run riot. Perhaps because they agree that the IRS (maybe themselves, too) should enjoy virtually unlimited power over us.
Or perhaps simply because they, like the rest of us, are scared of the IRS.
This is Common Sense. I'm Paul Jacob.
--------- Paul Jacobs is author of Common Sense which provides daily commentary about the issues impacting America — and about the citizens who are doing something about them. He is a contributing author on the ARRA News Service. Tags: IRS, re-unlished, Paul Jacob, Common SenseTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
GenOpp Responds To New Harvard Poll! Millennials Voting Against Democratic Control Of Congress
No wonder Millennials are "up-for-grabs"
Washington, DC – (10/29/14) – Today's Harvard University Institute of Politics poll revealed that over half of the young Americans who will “definitely be voting” oppose Democratic control of Congress. The results show that Millennials “care deeply about their country and are politically up-for-grabs” as President Obama’s job approval continues to dramatically decrease among young Americans age 18-29 – particularly among young Hispanics, whose disapproval of him sits at a record low.
“Conservatives seem more enthusiastic,” reads the poll.
Nearly 6 out of every 10 young Americans disapprove of Obamacare.
Our generation hates gridlock in the government – when asked "whom do you place the most blame regarding the political gridlock in Washington," 56 percent responded, "All of them."
On issues like the economy, healthcare, and the federal budget deficit, Obama’s job approval sits below 40 percent.
Generation Opportunity President Evan Feinberg issued the following remarks:
“Our generation has so much to offer, and yet everything coming out of Washington is holding us back. If today’s Harvard poll is any indicator, Millennials are very much in tune with the various ways politicians have disregarded the interests of our generation.
“Young people’s record disapproval of this administration comes as no surprise: nearly 6 out of every 10 young Americans disapprove of Obamacare, the President’s signature legislative achievement. We’re feeling the effects of this law every day, as the Affordable Care Act has increased healthcare premiums for Millennials by up to 91 percent as well as adding $1 trillion in new taxes and $1.3 trillion to the national debt.
“This White House may use emojis in an attempt to distract us, but it’s clear that our generation understands how bad policies effect our nation’s future. Through and beyond November 4th, Generation Opportunity will continue to work hard to engage young people in the political process and highlight the issues that affect Millennials.” Tags:Millennials, Harvard, poll, voting, opposing democrats, voting republican, 2014 electionTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
by Phyllis Schlafly: Control of the U.S. Senate is up for grabs on November 4, and illegal voters may tip the balance. Estimates are that more than 14 percent of non-citizens were registered to vote in the elections of 2008 and 2010, and that could now easily exceed the margin of victory in many tight Senate races.
Democrats typically win more than 80 percent of the votes cast by non-citizens, so votes cast by non-citizens produce a net bonanza of additional votes for Democrats. Democrat Al Franken won a Republican U.S. Senate seat in Minnesota by a margin of only 312 votes in 2008, and with the immense power of incumbency he is expected to cruise to reelection this time.
New non-partisan research by professors at Old Dominion University uncovered the shocking amount of voting by non-citizens, as published by the Washington Post last Friday. Their work did not choose sides in the debate over whether non-citizens should be allowed to vote, which Congress has already answered in the negative by sensibly limiting voting in federal elections to only American citizens.
This study concluded that voter ID alone will not eliminate voting by non-citizens, because voter ID does not require proof of citizenship, such as a passport or birth certificate. But that loophole is easily closed by requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote, just as one must show proof of citizenship in order to obtain a passport.
Several states enacted common-sense provisions in order to strengthen voter integrity in this year’s election. The U.S. Supreme Court denied an attempt to block voter ID from going into effect in Texas, so at least the Lone Star State will be able to limit mischief at their polls in this election.
Other states are not so fortunate. Wisconsin passed a voter ID law that was upheld by the Seventh Circuit, but the U.S. Supreme Court then blocked that good law from going into effect this November.
In July, three non-citizens were indicted for illegal voting in Ohio in the 2012 presidential election. But most illegal voting cases end in a plea bargain that results in erasure of the convictions after a year if the defendant stays out of additional trouble for that long.
In Colorado, which could decide which party controls the U.S. Senate, votes are now cast entirely by mail with little protection against voter fraud. A total of 3.6 million ballots were sent to Coloradans based on addresses as old as 2008, which is six years ago.
One Colorado state senator said he has been to households that have received as many as seven separate ballots, and the person now living there could vote all seven ballots without anyone noticing. Paid political activists, known as “harvesters,” can gather up to ten ballots of others and then dump them all in an unguarded drop box, and there is nothing that stops harvesters from gathering and voting even more.
What happens to unused ballots that people throw out after receiving them in the mail? Most people do not shred their trash, so many unused ballots inevitably end up in apartment complex garbage bins where they are available to be filled in and sent in by unscrupulous party workers.
The lack of voting integrity makes it far from clear whether the election outcome will reflect the will of the voters. The essential role played by poll watchers is impossible in Colorado’s system of mail-only balloting.
The corrupt practice of counting votes that were cast in the names of dead people reemerged in North Carolina in 2012. The executive director of that state’s election board reported that the votes of 81 dead people were counted, most of whom had died before it was possible for them to cast absentee ballots.
A shocking total of 35,570 voters in North Carolina had the same last and first names and birth dates of voters who also cast ballots in other states. Many hundreds of those voters even had the same last four digits of their Social Security numbers as people having identical names and birthdays who also voted in other states.
Reforms passed in North Carolina are not effective in time to ensure voter integrity in this election, where there is a close race for the U.S. Senate seat. No voter ID is yet in effect there.
The top priority of Obama’s Department of Justice has been to oppose voter ID laws passed by various states. But Attorney General Eric Holder has announced his resignation, and the Senate should not confirm any successor who opposes state efforts to improve voter integrity. by Phyllis Schlafly has been a national leader of the conservative movement since 1964. She founded and is president of new book. She has testified before more than 50 Congressional and State Legislative committees on constitutional, national defense, and family issues. Tags:illegal voters, 2013 Election, may decide, U.S. Senate, Eric Holder, voter ID laws, vote, Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle ForumTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Journalist: Obama Administration More ‘Restrictive’ and ‘Dangerous’ Than Any In History
Bill Smith, ARRA News Editor: The following is composition from three sources which readers may review regarding reports of the attack on the freedom of the press by the Obama administration. Two quotes to consider as you begin your review of the present ongoing situation in the Obama administration:
The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state. ~ William Blackstone
In the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection is must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. ~ U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black
While the attack on the press is of great importance, it is sorely noted that this same press has failed in its fervent defense of the other protected rights and groups identified in all the Amendments to the Constitution. The press' failure to do so has led them down the path to being open to attack and manipulation by the same administration they have failed to hold accountable because of their pandering to their own desires, wishes and social agendas verses defending the absolute rights set forth in the Constitution for others. Examples are left to your consideration as well as potential future articles.
At a White House Correspondents’ Association seminar on Saturday, Page described the Obama administration as “more restrictive” and “more dangerous” to the press than any other administration in history.
The Washington Post reports that her remarks were a “clear reference” to White House claims that Fox News’s James Rosen may be in violation of the Espionage Act.
The Post described the WHCA seminar as a means for its members “to strategize over how to open up the byways of the self-proclaimed most transparent administration in history, as well as to compare war stories on the many ways in which it is not.”
Correspondents at the seminar described briefings where no names or quotations from officials present could be released and the need to go around the White House to other federal offices in order to receive any pertinent information at all.
White House spokesman Eric Schultz told the Post:We believe in the value of transparency, and that is why we work to provide as much access as we can. That said, the press has a responsibility to always push for more access and if they didn't, they wouldn't be doing their jobs.Bloomberg White House correspondent Margaret Talev told the Post that the White House would not even tell her what type of wine was being served at state dinners.
Journalists also expressed their frustrations that the day before the seminar, when President Obama met with Nina Pham, a Texas nurse who was recently declared Ebola-free, only photographers were admitted. No print or television reporters were permitted to be in attendance.
Former ABC News White House correspondent Ann Compton told the Post she “struggled to fathom” why the White House would restrict access to the Pham meeting: “She’s been in government medical care for the last how many days? And she walks out unexpectedly looking terrific — why wouldn’t you want the world to see that the U.S. is doing what the White House has said? So today makes no sense to me.” [emphasis in original].
According to the Post, print and television reporters were also barred from a Sept. 16 meeting between Obama and another Ebola survivor, Dr. Kent Brantly.
Tags:freedom of the press, White House, press pool, journalists Obama administration, restrictive, dangerous, delaying, altering press pool reports, restricting access to information, video. Kate Sanlon, Heritage Foundation, Ameera David, RT News, Img, Jessica Desvarieux, The Real NewsTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
The Importance Of Voting On November 4 (Or Early Voting)
U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-TX: addresses the importance of voting on November 4 in the following video. Rep. Gohmert notes in the video numerous negatives that have occurred during the Obama administration. He then states, "We have deserved Barack Obama as a nation because conservatives have stayed home."
Get out and vote and if possible encourage others to vote. And consider Early voting if available in your state. Send more conservative Republican reinforcements to the Senate and House.
Tags:voting, important, Louie Gohmert, Nov 4, 2014 electionsTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
by Alan Caruba, Contributing Author: People really need to read the U.S. Constitution. It says, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.”
The Constitution makes no reference whatever to executive orders (EO). George Washington started the practice mostly because he had to. Traditionally executive orders have been treated by Congress as having the legal status of legislation, but only insofar as they apply to the management of how the government operates.
The Constitution makes it quite clear that the President has no power to enact laws, but as long as an EO does not unilaterally alter or negate existing legislation or run counter to the Constitution Congress usually accords it legitimacy. Those that do not honor the separation of powers have been struck down by the courts or by legislation that opposed them.
As is widely rumored and reported, if President Obama does attempt to issue amnesty to illegal aliens he would be over-riding or altering existing immigration law. He does not have the power to do that.
Such an executive order would be immediately challenged in the courts and if power in the Senate passes to the Republicans in the midterm elections, Congress would oppose it. With an eye on the 2016 elections, incumbent Democrats might not be willing to go along with an Obama amnesty EO.
Recent polls all demonstrate opposition to amnesty. In a September Investors Business Daily/TIPP poll 73% of the public said that Obama should work with Congress on immigration reform. After the invasion of an estimated 150,000 young people and others from Guatemala and San Salvador earlier this year, comprehensive immigration reform went from 54% approval last year to 48%.
When word leaked that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services agency had requested bids on a minimum of four million blank work permits and green cards a year for the next five years, there was an outcry in political and immigration policy circles. “There aren’t enough federal employees from here to Pluto to do adequate background checks on 34 million,” said Bob Dane, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform.
In September, the Census Bureau released new data on the U.S. population finding that the nation’s immigrant population (legal and illegal) hit a record 41.3 million in July 2013, an increase of 1.4 million since July 2010. Since 2000, the immigrant population is up 10.2 million and double the number in 1990, nearly triple the number in 1980, and guadruple that in 1970, which it stood at 9.6 million.
It’s no secret President Obama has wanted to get as many immigrants as possible, especially those from south of the border, into America. He has winked at the laws that determine immigration and citizenship. In 2011 many believed he had “enacted” the Dream Act by EO, but he had not. His administration instead adopted a policy regarding the deportation of illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as children, granting them the option of applying for two-year work permits. Even conservatives could find some merit in this, allowing them to gain legal status and apply for citizenship.
The amnesty issue would play havoc prior to the November 4 midterm elections, so Obama will wait until after them to announce his intentions. I doubt he thinks an executive order will go unchallenged, but at that point it will not matter to him since he will not be running for reelection in 2016. His indifference to constitutional restraints on his power as President is well known.
On October 22 Iowa Rep. Steve King, a Republican, predicted Obama will “violate the Constitution, break the law and grant executive amnesty.”
“If the President takes this action,” said Rep. King, “ (that) he’s threatened to take we will have abandoned every pretext of the Constitution of the United States and if the American people take that setting down or lying down, then our constitutional republic has been destroyed.”
Rep. King is right, but the Obama EO will be challenged in the courts and in Congress. If that effort is opposed by Democrats in Congress, their midterm losses will barely rival what the 2016 election will hold for them.
----------------- Alan Caruba is a writer by profession; has authored several books, and writes a daily column, Warning Signs". He is a contributor to the ARRA News Service. Tags:President Obama, Amnesty, executive order, travesty, unconstitutional, Alan Caruba, Warning SignsTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Personal Tweets by the editor: Dr. Bill - OzarkGuru
Married 48yr #Conservative #Constitution #NRALife #GunRights #USAF 22yr #military #veteran #Christian #CCOT #ProLife #TEAParty #GOP #TCOT #SGP #schoolchoice
Comments by contributors or sources do not necessarily reflect the position of ARRA, its Officers, memberships or the Editors.
Fair Use: This site/blog may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as provided for in section Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Per said section, the material on this site/blog is distributed without profit to readers to view for the expressed purpose of viewing the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. Any person/entity seeking to use copyrighted material shared on this site/blog for purposes that go beyond "fair use," must obtain permission from the copyright owner.