This blog will examine most of the inequities involving the law, immigrations, education, employment, political, health care. It will showcase current news events concerning US and world economic, Middle-eastern revolt issues while trying to explain and resolve those issues.
Assistant Secretary State Jacob Wallesand Mahmoud Abbas
.
The Obama administration on Tuesday defended the U.S. aid to the Palestinian Authority, telling Congress the assistance is critical to peace and stability in the Mideast.
Testifying before a House panel, officials from the State Department said Tuesday that helping to build Palestinian governmental institutions and an economy is essential to the security of both Israel and the Palestinians.
How much money can I give you this time Mahmoud
Last week, the House overwhelmingly backed a resolution calling on the Obama administration to consider suspending aid to the Palestinian Authority in light of the deal between the government and Hamas, considered a terrorist group by Israel and the U.S.
Peter Welch (D-VT)
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Jacob Walles said the administration will closely monitor whether a new government emerges and will reassess the aid.
After the state department announced its opposition to the Palestinian statehood bid at the United Nations, the leaders of the leftist pro-Israel group recently launched a new campaign lobbying members of Congress to support a new Congressional letter urging President Barack Obama to ensure that the U.S. will not cut off aid to the Palestinian Authority
Rep. David Price D-NC
The letter to Obama was initiated by Representatives David Price (D-NC) and Peter Welch (D-VT), in which they express their concern about recent proposals to cut assistance to the Palestinian Authority, saying that such a step “would diminish prospects for peace and regional stability in the Middle East".
Take that Be Be
The two wrote they are concerned about "the possible emergence of a Palestinian government that refuses to recognize Israel’s right to exist or to renounce violence against innocent civilians", but argue that "these legitimate concerns must be weighed against the essential role that U.S. assistance to the PA plays in providing security and stability for Palestinians and Israelis as well as critical humanitarian relief to the Palestinian people—and the potential consequences if this assistance were terminated. “
The letter stressed that suspending U.S. aid to the Palestinians would undo the progress that has been made over the past years to strengthen the Palestinian Authority’s governance institutions, and warned that it would “increase the likelihood of instability and violence, and in turn threaten Israel’s security.”
Recently, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly backed a resolution calling on the Obama administration to consider suspending aid to the Palestinian Authority in light of the deal between the government and Hamas, considered a terrorist group by Israel and the U.S.
In 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt sold Social Security as a program in which employees would pay into a government fund that would invest their money over that person’s lifetime. Once that individual hit retirement age, the fund would, over time, return the initial sum plus the accumulated growth. The reality is that money-grubbing politicians immediately raided the flush accounts to bankroll big government. Social Security taxes on employee wages are transferred straight to the checks of current retirees, and the “fund” is just a pass-through account and past supluses were replaced with IOUs.
Charles Ponzi
Fifteen years earlier, Charles Ponzi had a similar idea. The Italian immigrant convinced thousands of Boston residents to hand over their wages in exchange for a guaranteed return. Instead of being paid over a lifetime, Ponzi promised 40 percent dividends within 90 days. The initial payouts were supposed to be backed by exchange-rate arbitrage involving international postage, but once the money began flowing, the planned trades never happened. As long as new, willing investors were at Ponzi’s door, he could make good on his payments. The Boston Post ended that by revealing Ponzi’s vaults had more IOUs than cash. The house of cards collapsed.
Today, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) enforces laws meant to prevent this from ever happening again. As the agency defines the practice, “Ponzi-scheme organizers often solicit new investors by promising to invest funds in opportunities claimed to generate high returns with little or no risk.” That’s exactly what the Social Security law does when it guarantees seniors the full amount in benefits, no matter what happens with the markets. The SEC adds, “With little or no legitimate earnings, the schemes require a consistent flow of money from new investors to continue.” Thanks to the baby boomers hitting retirement, Social Security has more retirees receiving benefits than workers needed to meet payments. Consequently, Social Security was in the red last year - $49 billion more than came into the fund.
A Ponzi scheme always collapses. The question is whether the American people will elect a president who has the courage to rebuild FDR’s Ponzi scheme into something that can last.
In the Social Security system, the money you pay into the system gets immediately paid back out to the people who are currently getting Social Security checks. This arrangement came into being because of the way the system started. In 1935, when Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law, there were a lot of people who needed benefits (because of the Great Depression), but there was no money to pay those benefits with. The idea at the time was that people currently working would pay into the system, and their money would immediately go back out in the form of benefit checks. Each generation of retiring workers would get paid by the people currently working, and therefore the system would fund itself forever despite the fact that the system had no money to start with.
This clever idea worked great in 1935 (and for many years after that), but it is going to have a problem in the future for two reasons:
In 1935, there were many more people paying into the system than those receiving benefits. The ratio of workers to retirees meant that workers did not have to pay much into the system in 1935 to support retirees up through 1950, only 2% of income (1% employee, 1% employer) was withheld for Social Security, compared to 15.30% (7.65% employee, 7.65% employer) today). In the future, the retirement of millions of baby boomers will hurt the ratio -- there will be so many retired people that the working people will not be able to support them. If the population had grown steadily this would not have been a problem, but there is no good way for the design of the Social Security System to handle a population spike like the baby boomers.
Many people have become so used to the idea of a 401(k) plan (where your money belongs to you and grows to a large sum over time through investment compounding), that the idea behind the Social Security system becomes hard to swallow. Currently a worker pays 7.65% of his or her gross income into the Social Security system (with a cap at a gross income of around $70,000), and the employer pays another 7.65% for the worker as well. If you could take that 15.30% of gross income and invest it in a 401(k) plan for the same period of time, it would generate an immense sum of money based on historical returns -- far more than a person with average income (or greater) would get from Social Security. A retiree's Social Security benefit is calculated using a complex formula rather than an account balance, because there is no "account" in the traditional sense.
You might have heard that the Social Security system currently takes in more money than it pays out in order to try to handle the baby boomer problem. What happens with the excess money the system collects? The Social Security system buys U.S. Treasury bonds with the surplus. Essentially, the government (in the form of the Social Security Administration) loans the surplus to itself.
In future decades, when it comes time to start drawing on the collected surplus, the government will pay itself back through tax revenue (or additional borrowing). The Social Security system will start cashing in the bonds, and the government will have to make good on them with tax revenue. That sounds weird because, It is weird -- Whether or not it will work is a source of significant debate right now. The effect it will have is that it will shift the payment of Social Security benefits over to the government as a whole. The government as a whole, rather than the Social Security system, will have to repay the treasury bonds that the Social Security system will be cashing in. It will certainly be interesting to see what happens!
As the Social Security Administration's history of the constitutional question makes clear, even this may not have been enough to get the Social Security Act passed by the Supreme Court without a little bit of presidential intimidation. Prior to the Social Security case, Roosevelt threatened to “pack the Court” with additional justices more to his liking. Roosevelt’s plan failed but, as the SSA history notes,
The Court, it seemed, got the message and suddenly shifted its course. Beginning with a set of decisions in March, April, and May 1937 (including the Social Security Act cases) the Court would sustain a series of New Deal legislation, producing a "constitutional revolution in the age of Roosevelt."
In other words, the Supreme Court ruling validating Social Security's constitutionality isn’t exactly how any of us would like court rulings to happen. Nevertheless, as Rick Perry has noted, this is water under the bridge now. He isn’t (and shouldn’t be) seeking to re-fight a 65-year-old constitutional battle. But to think Perry’s constitutional claims are wrong is, well, wrong.
Rick Perry
But now to the Ponzi comparisons. To be clear, these aren’t a Perry original. As Perry’s campaign pointed out, Romney himself wrote that Social Security resembles a “fraudulent criminal enterprise.” Which enterprise might he have been thinking of? Likewise, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called borrowing from the Social Security trust fund “embezzlement, thievery,” saying that if he had done this in the private sector “I could be criminally prosecuted by the district attorney.” So the Texas governor is far from alone in his comments.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
But why a Ponzi scheme? The distinguishing characteristic of a Ponzi scheme is its intent to defraud. Charles Ponzi, and his modern cousin Bernie Madoff, meant to rip people off. Whatever disagreements we may have over policy, no one believes that FDR meant to rip people off, and neither do modern liberals who wish to maintain the program.
But most of those who refer to Social Security as a Ponzi scheme are not thinking intent so much as effect. What makes the Social Security/Ponzi references so common is the similarity in the way they are financed. In both cases, early participants receive payments, not from interest on their own investments, but directly from inflows from later participants. If you were describing the mechanics of how Social Security’s financing works, it wouldn’t be illogical to refer to a Ponzi scheme.
Bernie Madoff
And, also like a Ponzi scheme, Social Security paid early participants incredible returns on their money, because they contributed to the system for only a few years but received a full retirement’s worth of benefits. A person who retired in 1950 received around a 20 percent annual return on the taxes he paid (which happens to be exactly the same return that Madoff promised to his investors). Put another way, that person received around 12 times more in benefits than he’d paid in taxes. That helps explain why Social Security became so popular: it was simply an incredibly good deal.
If you were born in 1950 and heard your grandparents say how much they liked Social Security, you’d be tempted to think you’ll get the same sort of deal. But you won’t: an average wage earner born in 1950 will receive around a 2.2 percent return from the system, which is less than what you could earn on guaranteed government bonds. A person entering the workforce today will receive only around a 1.7 percent return. In effect, Social Security’s reputation is based off a deal that it can no longer deliver. Whatever good it did in the past—and it did do a lot of it, in terms of reducing poverty and helping the disabled and survivors, in the process undercutting Perry’s claims that Social Security was “by any measure” a failure—it will do less of it in the future.
Similarly, like a Ponzi scheme, there really isn’t any actual investment going on with Social Security. While the trust fund has a $2.5 trillion balance it can call on to pay benefits, this fund won’t be of any help to the taxpayer. When Social Security goes to redeem bonds in the trust fund, the Treasury must raise taxes, cut other programs, or borrow the money—exactly the same steps as if there weren’t a trust fund at all. The trust fund records how much we have borrowed from Social Security but, as the Congressional Budget Office points out, “trust fund balances convey little information about the extent to which the federal government has prepared for future financial burdens.” While legally important, the CBO says, the trust fund has “little economic meaning.”
The biggest difference may be that Social Security can go on forever while a Ponzi scheme can’t, but that’s mostly because Social Security can force you to participate. If Madoff could find enough people willing to accept a 2 percent return rather than a 20 percent return, his plan could keep going indefinitely. With Social Security participation mandated, the program can go on forever, so as long as Congress makes the changes necessary to keep the system from going broke.
While the top Republican presidential candidates are trying to bash each other in debates with the club of Social Security, what they support is almost identical -- and mathematically impossible.
Social Security has, since its founding in the mid-1930s, been a system in which each generation of workers pays the benefits of older retirees. We don't fund our own benefits, we fund our parents' and grandparents' benefits, and expect the same from our children and grandchildren.
If the contributions of young workers went into their own private accounts rather than the Social Security coffers, there soon wouldn't be any money left to pay current recipients.
There are more debates coming up, and Republicans will talk about Social Security plenty. It would be good if the conversation were rooted in real-world solutions rather than politically expedient but mathematically impossible fantasies.
Turkey has developed a new identification system for its U.S.-made F-16 fighter jets, which will now allow them to fire at Israeli targets, a Turkish newspaper as reporting on Tuesday. According to the report, the new technology will allow Turkey to identify its enemies itself, as opposed to the old U.S. system which automatically identified all Israeli targets as a "friend," preventing Turkish fighter jets from firing at them, even when Turkish pilots were ordered to do so.
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan
The new Identification “Friend or Foe” will be put into place on all Turkish fighter jets and military vessels. The orders to modify the system reportedly came directly from Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's office. The new radar system – Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) – is a defensive command and control system developed by Turkey's Military Electronics Industry (ASELSAN) for the nation's air force and navy. It is slated to replace a similar US version which is in use today.
The US system is comprised of lists of "friends" and "foes." The system's settings are designed to prevent pilot error as well, to an extent, disabling the ability to fire at "friendly" targets even by mistake.
The move, whose timing coincides with a prolonged period of unprecedented diplomatic tensions between Ankara and Jerusalem, has received extensive media coverage in Iran, as well. According to foreign media sources, the Israeli Air Force has a fleet of 1,964 aircraft, including 689 advanced assault helicopters and F-15 and F-16 fighter jets. And Israel's aerial superiority will soon receive a significant boost, in the form of the US-made F-35 fighter jet.
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
The Turkish Air Force is said to have a fleet of "just" 1,940 aircrafts, including F-16s and F-4 Phantoms, as well as 874 assault helicopters.
Like Israel, Turkey has also been promised the F-35. It is slated to receive it by 2015.
The move comes at the height of the Israeli-Turkish diplomatic crisis, after Ankara expelled the Israeli ambassador in a feud over an Israeli raid last year that killed nine Turks on a flotilla bound for the Palestinian enclave of Gaza. Israel has said it would not apologize, which Turkey has demanded.
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyep Erdogan has demanded Israel apologizes, and recently embarked on a visit to Egypt in an attempt to re-establish diplomatic and military ties with Cairo.
In part of the interview published by Al-Shorouk, an Egyptian daily, on Monday, Erdogan said Israel had "not fully grasped the reality of changes that happened in the Arab world."
Last week, Erdogan warned that the Turkish navy will strengthen its presence in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, and that Turkish warships will accompany any aid vessels wishing to transfer aid to the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
The bloodshed in Syria shows no signs of abating; proud cities like Homs and Hama, Deraa and Deir Az-Zour have become cities of death and sorrow, where daily life has become infused with the grief of funeral processions and the fear of confrontations with the security forces. Even the holy month of Ramadan saw no let-up in the regime’s brutality.
The revulsion for the actions taken by the Assad regime as it seeks to crush peaceful, popular and legitimate protests demanding freedom and political reform. Indeed, here in America I find that this country — whose long tradition of freedom of speech often encourages political disagreement — is united in its condemnation of the violence in Syria. Forthright speeches have been made by various agencies; journalists have reported clearly the bloodshed on Syria’s streets. The UN has temporarily withdrawn its ambassador from Damascus and has candidly spoken out in the GCC, Arab League and at the UN Human Rights Council.
U.S. Ambassador to Syria Robert S. Ford
The U.S ambassador to Syria too have joined in the chorus of condemnation against the Syrian regime, and expressed His support for the people of Syria. The concepts of Arab solidarity and dignity are alive and well in this corner of the Gulf.
In Europe, They have made clear their condemnation of the repression in Syria. On Sept 3, the EU took further decisive action against the regime by imposing a ban on the purchase, import and transport of crude oil and petroleum products from Syria. In addition, Europe-wide asset freezes and travel bans were announced against a further four Syrian businessmen and three entities.
Maher al-Assad
This followed similar action taken previously against fifty individuals and nine entities supporting the regime. Those targeted include President Assad himself and his brother Maher, Commander of the Syrian Army’s Fourth Division. The EU has also banned arms sales to Syria and suspended all aid funding to the country.
Despite this international condemnation, and in flagrant disregard of the legitimate aspirations of the people of Syria, the regime staggers on and takes ever more bloody steps to ensure its own survival. The UK Government is clear that the international community needs to act together to try and prevent further bloodshed and to protect the Syrian people from their brutal rulers. That is why they're focussed on getting agreement in the UN Security Council for a tough resolution on Syria. In Europe, as in many other countries in the region and across the world, they're speaking with one voice on the issue. The same voice as the people across the Arab world.
Syrians remain skeptical
Unfortunately, not all are convinced that action such as sanctions is warranted in Syria. They argue that national sovereignty is paramount, that President Assad’s wholly inadequate statements on ‘reform’ mean he retains the legitimacy to govern. This is strenuously unacceptable. Their task now is to counter the arguments of those members of the international community trying to block steps towards greater international action against the Assad regime. Their actions are indirectly prolonging the suffering of the Syrian people and as such are morally indefensible. If we succeed, I hope someday soon to pick up my morning paper and read about a bright future for the Syrian nation — a future its brave people so richly deserve.
Obama’s jobs speech Thursday night did not present many opportunities for fact checking. He did not try to boast about what he had accomplished, (rightly so) given our grim economic situation, that would have been a bad move, nor did he try to place the blame for the current situation on his predecessor.
Obama says all Americans should pay their fair share in taxes, and he argues that most wealthy Americans and CEOs will be doing just that to helps the economy grow and gets the country's fiscal house in order.
The president says that to help pay for his new jobs plan, he wants to eliminate loopholes for oil companies and tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires and use that money to give tax breaks to small-business owners and put teachers back to work. This is for all intence and purpose is "Wealth re-distribution".
The president says the tax code is, in his words, a "monument to special interest influence in Washington," and if it's reformed, corporate tax rates can come down.
Obama says the approach isn't class warfare or grandstanding - but simple math.
Mitch McConnell
Many details about his jobs bill are still sparse. He tossed out various claims about how much Americans or businesses would receive in tax cuts, and the numbers sounds reasonable, but that’s why the details matter. I was amused that one specific construction project he cited — a bridge between Ohio and Kentucky — just happened to be the states of his two chief nemeses — House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)
Certainly, Republicans might object to the way Obama framed some of the choices — “tax loopholes for oil companies” or “tax credits for small businesses.” Or “tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires” or “teachers back to work.” (Note: I've generated some controversy some months back when I criticized the president for the “millionaires and billionaires” taxation phrase.)
I noticed that Obama changed his language on stalled trade bills. I've recently called him a Pinocchio for saying it was Congress’s fault, but in the speech he used more neutral language, saying “it’s time to clear the way for a series of trade agreements.” But his claim that regulatory reform will save “billions of dollars in the next few years” is dubious. Every president promises that.
“Over the next two years, this plan will save or create 3.5 million jobs,” Obama proclaimed in a speech to a similar joint session of Congress on Feb. 24, 2009. We’re not sure about the jobs saved part, but the country has certainly not created jobs since then — there are almost 2 million fewer jobs since he made those remarks 2 1/2 years ago. That gives a sense of the economic burden he will carry into his reelection campaign.
Obama's speech given on Feb. 24, 2009
So here’s a pop quiz. What of the following quotes came from the 2009 speech, and what quotes came from the speech this week?
1. “More than 90 percent of these jobs will be in the private sector — jobs rebuilding our roads and bridges; constructing wind turbines and solar panels; laying broadband and expanding mass transit.” (Did you hear it?)
2. “It will lead to new jobs for construction workers, teachers, veterans, first responders, young people and the long-term unemployed.”
3. “It’s a plan that won’t help speculators or that neighbor down the street who bought a house he could never hope to afford, but it will help millions of Americans who are struggling with (key word) declining home values — Americans who will now be able to take advantage of the lower interest rates that this plan has already helped bring about. In fact, the average family who re-finances today can save nearly $2,000 per year on their mortgage.”
4. “We’re going to work with federal housing agencies to help more people refinance their mortgages at interest rates that are now near 4 percent — a step that can put more than $2,000 a year in a family’s pocket, and give a lift to an economy still burdened by the drop in housing prices. But I'll again go out on a limb and warn that your $2000 will be taxed.
5. “Ask yourselves — where would we be right now if the people who sat here before us decided not to build our highways and our bridges; our dams and our airports? What would this country be like if we had chosen not to spend money on public high schools, or research universities, or community colleges? Millions of returning heroes, including myself , had the opportunity to go to school because of the Old GI Bill. Where would we be if they hadn’t had that chance?”
6. “History reminds us that at every moment of economic upheaval and transformation, this nation has responded with bold action and big ideas. In the midst of civil war, we laid railroad tracks from one coast to another that spurred commerce and industry. From the turmoil of the Industrial Revolution came a system of public high schools that prepared our citizens for a new age. In the wake of war and depression, the GI Bill sent a generation to college and created the largest middle-class in history. And a twilight struggle for freedom led to a nation of highways, an American on the moon, and an explosion of technology that still shapes our world.”
7. “It also charges this Congress to come up with an additional $1.5 trillion in savings.”
8. “We have already identified 2 trillion dollars in savings over the next decade.”
9. “The only way to fully restore America’s economic strength is to make the long-term investments that will lead to new jobs, new industries, and a renewed ability to compete with the rest of the world.”
10. “If we provide the right incentives and support — and if we make sure our trading partners play by the rules — we can be the ones to build everything from fuel-efficient cars to advanced biofuels to semiconductors that are sold all over the world.”
11. “To preserve our long-term fiscal health, we must also address the growing costs in Medicare and Social Security.”
12. “But with an aging population and rising health care costs, we are spending too fast to sustain the program. And if we don’t gradually reform the system while protecting current beneficiaries, it won’t be there when future retirees need it. We have to reform Medicare to strengthen it.”
These two speeches, given years apart are identical, So I'll put the question to you, America, Do you think he's tell the truth? or is this just more of the same?
Employers added no net jobs in August, while unemployment rate was unchanged at 9.1 %.” The New York Times blasts: “U.S. Showed 0 Job Growth in August; Rate Stays at 9.1%.” But equally apt would be: “Obama’s reelection prospects nose-dive.” Given that we are, for the first time in 11 months, not creating any new jobs, the outlook for a double-dip recession is real. And, moreover, even if we do not slip into consecutive quarters of negative growth (the technical definition of “recession”), we are certainly heading in the wrong direction. According to Matt McDonald, a former Bush official and now a business consultant, in order to get to 8 percent unemployment by Election Day we would need 270,000 new jobs each month. To get to 8.5 percent we would need to create 215,000 jobs monthly. Just to inch down to 9 percent would require 159,000 jobs every month. But, given Obama's anti-jobs policies, getting back down to 9% will be an impossibility.
Employment Hopes
Mitt Romney
Not surprisingly, the GOP contenders pounced. Mitt Romney put out this:
Today’s disappointing unemployment report is further proof that President Obama has failed. President Obama oversaw an economy that created zero jobs last month and that is unacceptable. In order to change the direction of this country, we need to change presidents. Americans need a conservative businessman to get this economy moving again, not career politicians. That is why I am running. Next week, I will lay out my specific plan to put America back to work.”
Rick Perry
A spokesman for Texas Gov. Rick Perry sent out an e-mailed saying: “Today’s unemployment numbers continue to demonstrate the failed leadership of President Obama in turning our economy around and creating jobs. Governor Perry has a track record of job creation and he will continue talking about his ideas to get America working again.”
Jon Huntsman
Jon Huntsman has this: “Two days after I offered a plan with serious solutions that would create jobs and get our economy going, we learn of yet another month with zero job growth. There is no clearer sign that the President has failed and the theatrics around his far-too-late jobs speech tonight demonstrates that he has no real plan to change course. In a country with 307 million people, zero job growth is unfathomable. It’s time for America to compete again and it’s time for a new President.”
Which One Do I Vote For
You do get the sense that anyone of these guys would be better at this than the president. And, in fact, the policy differences among the GOP contenders, I suspect, will be small. It will come down to a contest as to who is the most authentic, the most electable and most capable free-market conservative.
And frankly, if the GOP can’t win back the White House with unemployment at 9 percent, a mammoth deficit and the threat of tax hikes coming from the incumbent president, the party might want to go fishing. It will take skill to mangle this race. That is still, of course, a distinct possibility.
Overall U.S. unemployment is 9.1 percent. For white adults, it's 8 percent, and for white teens, 23 percent. Black adult unemployment stands at 17 percent, and for black teens, it's 40 percent, more than 50 percent in some cities, for example, Washington.
Some might find it puzzling that during times of gross racial discrimination, black unemployment was lower and blacks were more active in the labor force than they are today. Up until the late 1950s, the labor force participation rate of black teens and adults was equal to or greater than their white counterparts.
In fact, in 1910, 71 percent of black males older than 9 were employed, compared with 51 percent for whites. As early as 1890, the duration of unemployment among blacks was shorter than it was among whites, whereas today unemployment is both higher and longer-lasting among blacks than among whites.
How might one explain yesteryear's lower black unemployment and greater labor force participation? The usual academic, civil rights or media racial discrimination explanation for black/white socio-economic differences just wouldn't hold up.
I can't imagine even the most harebrained professor, civil rights leader or media "expert" arguing that there was less discrimination a century ago and that explains why there was greater black labor market participation. Racial discrimination or low skills can explain low wages but not unemployment.
During the 1930s, there were a number of federal government interventions that changed the black employment picture. The first was the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931, which mandated minimum wages on federally financed or assisted construction projects. During the bill's legislative debate, the racial objectives were clear.
John Cochran
Rep. John Cochran, D-Mo., said he had "received numerous complaints ... about Southern contractors employing low-paid colored mechanics getting work and bringing the employees from the South."
Rep. Clayton Allgood, D-Ala., complained: "Reference has been made to a contractor from Alabama who went to New York with bootleg labor. ... That contractor has cheap colored labor that he transports, and he puts them in cabins, and it is labor of that sort that is in competition with white labor throughout the country."
Rep. William Upshaw, D-Ga., spoke of the "superabundance or large aggregation of Negro labor." American Federation of Labor President William Green said, "Colored labor is being sought to demoralize wage rates." For decades after Davis-Bacon enactment, black workers on federally financed or assisted construction projects virtually disappeared.
The Davis-Bacon Act is still on the books, and tragically today's black congressmen, doing the bidding of their labor union allies, vote against any effort to modify or eliminate its restrictions.
Good intentions motivate most Americans in their support for minimum wage laws, but for compassionate public policy, one should examine the laws' effect. That's seen by putting oneself in the place of an employer and asking, "If I must pay $7.25 an hour to no matter whom I hire, does it pay me to hire a worker who's so unfortunate as to have skills that enable him to produce, say, only $4 worth of value an hour?" Most employers would view hiring such a worker as a losing economic proposition; therefore, a minimum wage law discriminates against low-skilled workers by reducing employment opportunity.
Being unemployed has significant negative social consequences, one of them noted in the 1960s by Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who raised the alarm about the link between joblessness and the decline of the black family, saying that men without work become less attractive as marriage partners. Between 1890 and 1940, a slightly higher percentage of black adults had married than white adults. Today black marriage rates have fallen precipitously, where 72 percent of black children are born to unwed mothers.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan
So consider for one moment the impack the increased numbers of overall unemployment has on those living under the poverty line. The withering recession pushed the number of Americans who are living in poverty to a 51-year high in 2010 and left a record 54.7 million people without health insurance last year.
The 48.6 million Americans who were poor in 2010 - up from 39.8 million the year before - was the most since poverty estimates were first published in 1959. The national poverty rate of 17.4 percent, up from 13.2 percent in 2008, is the highest since the great depression.
Food stamp benefits is dulded out to more than 47.3 million people, also another record the current administration has achived.
Most of that decline stemmed from a loss in the percentage of people who have private and job-based coverage. The number of people with either fell from 201 million in 2008 to 140.5 million last year. The percentage with job-based coverage fell from 58.5 percent in 2008 to 51.8 percent last year, the lowest coverage rate since 1987.Massive job losses and work reductions for hourly employees led the number of uninsured Americans to rise from 46.3 million people in 2008 to 59.7 million in 2010. The number of Americans who have health coverage decreased - from 255 million in 2008 to 248.6 million in 2010 - for the first time since the data began to be measured in 1987.
What Else Can I Say?
As more people lost jobs and were unable to afford private coverage, enrollment spiked in government insurance programs such as Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program. In all, the number of people with government-sponsored coverage went from 87.4 million in 2008 to 99.2 million last year.
These statistics are more than alarming, nearly impossible to comprenhend. this is the raw data and number the Obama Presidency has produced, and he wants another four years to make thes numbers here pale by comparison.
So, before you pull that lever and vote in the national election next years, the numbers don't lie, and this path WILL destroy any chance of economic recovery.
