Thanks to reader Diana for spottingthis newsat Judicial Watch which uses the shockingly awful Ohio food stamp fraud bust I reported, herein late January, to say that the feds are taking way too long and the penalties aren’t stiff enough to deter this massive fraud.
They cite the case of the Ohio father and son who ripped off US taxpayers for nearly $3 million and also polluted a local waterway with “bodily fluids” from an illegal halal slaughter business—a story that everyone should continue to send out on social media (use the JWpost this time!).
Food Stamp Fraud on the Rise as Government Allows “Retailer Trafficking”
Weeks after a federal audit blasted the government for failing to curb rampant fraud in its multi-billion-dollar food stamp program, two Ohio men have been indicted for operating a $2.7 million scheme that spanned six years. One of the men, 59-year-old Amin Salem, is a convicted felon with a history of food stamp fraud yet the feds took six years to bust him and he remained a qualified food stamp retailer. The other man, Mohamed Salem, is his 32-year-old son and federal prosecutors say they operated a highly lucrative food stamp trafficking ring in the Cleveland area with the help of a buddy named Zahran al-Qadan.
Though this operation sticks out among others, Food stamp fraud has been pervasive for years and the alarming numbers have been well documented by the government. The USDA’s most recent figures show about $1.1 billion in food stamp fraud a year.Nearly 12% of retailers authorized by the government to accept food stamps engage in illegal practices, according to the agency. Judicial Watch has reported extensively on the rampant fraud in the program that costs American taxpayers a bewildering $64 billion annually to provide more than 20 million households with free food. Less than a year ago, nearly 200 people were arrested in Florida for operating a sophisticated ring in which 22,000 fraudulent food stamp transactions totaling $3.7 million were documented by a task force of local and federal authorities. In 2016 the feds busted the largest food stamp fraud operation in history, a $13 million enterprise run by flea market retailers in the largely black and Hispanic areas of south Florida’s Miami-Dade County known as Opa-Locka and Hialeah.
A USDA division called Food and Nutrition Services (FNS) is responsible for rooting out the type of fraud and corruption that continue plaguing the food stamp program.
“As of November 2018, FNS had not implemented this authority,” according to congressional investigators. “By failing to take timely action to strengthen penalties, FNS has not taken full advantage of an important tool for deterring trafficking.”
Go toJW here for the whole story and to follow links for more information.
Do you have a suspicious convenience store or small gas nation near you that accepts food stamps? Keep an eye on their activities. Some signs of a possible on-going fraud include large numbers of people going in and out every day with few purchases (if any!) when they come out. Also look for poorly, or nearly bare shelves as a sign that selling groceries is not a priority.
See this earlier post that includes information about the GAO study.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/usda-logo.jpg360640Ann Corcoranhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngAnn Corcoran2019-02-04 16:36:212019-02-04 16:39:39Judicial Watch: USDA Dragging its Feet in War on Food Stamp Fraud
People have been asking me as of late about holding cash, at least those that are reading the writing on the wall. Besides the fact that there is a war on cash and a cashless society coming soon, there are other reasons as to the perils of cash. With the talk of a global financial reset, coupled with the stock market gyrations and the unsustainable debt, many people have gone to cash. It used to be known as “cash is king”. Well today, I say “cash is trash”. So what are the perils of holding an excessive amount of cash?
Perils of Cash
Low Interest: Cash and cash equivalent accounts these days are paying perhaps about 1%-2% at best, often times less than that. If you are not keeping pace with the real rate of inflation, you are falling behind in purchasing power and may run out of money down the line.
Inflation: The government reports the inflation rate today to be at around 2%, but like the unemployment numbers, this is not really the case upon further inspection. You see back in the days of Bill Clinton, changes were made to just how it is that the government reports the inflation rate to the American people. It is known as the Boskin Commission. The Boskin Commission, formally called the “Advisory Commission to Study the Consumer Price Index”, was appointed by the United States Senate in 1995 to study possible bias in the computation of the Consumer Price Index (CPI), which is used to measure inflation in the United States. How To Rewrite Economic History? Here’s how.
The real rate of inflation as reported by Kirk Elliott, PhD, is at 6.12% today. Based upon Trump’s weak dollar policy and the Fed’s raising of interest rates, we can expect inflation to be on the rise. Interest rate cycles run 28 years on average. We just finished a 30-year declining interest rate environment and as of November 2016, we have embarked upon a rising interest rate cycle. So cash for now is trash. Hold some in the bank and perhaps some at home for emergencies and opportunities.
Global Financial Reset: What exactly is being reset? The debt is being reset and the value of the dollar will decline over time until sound money is restored. Easier said than done. Stay tuned. So once again excess cash may not be wise at this particular time in history. President Trump is now taking on the Federal Reserve, Rothschild World Banking Dynasty and the IMF as a move to restore sound money in order to MAGA. We will more than likely see a gold backed currency. So, buy gold (and silver). There is a reason you hear and use the expression, “it’s as good as gold”, own some. The signs are there indicating the reset is in motion.President Trump takes on the Fed.
Bank Bail-In: We learned all about the bank bail out in 2008-2009. How about the bank bail-in? A bail-inand a bailout are both designed to prevent the complete collapse of a failing bank. With a bank bail-in, the bank uses the money of its unsecured creditors, including depositors and bondholders, to restructure their capital so it can stay afloat. How much of your funds do you want caught in the bail-in? Again, right now cash is trash. Oh yeah, FDIC barely covers a fraction of the trillions on deposit. Take note. So what to do?
Get Out of the System: Well you cant really get out of the system unless you leave the planet. But there are alternative asset classes to consider in this paradigm shift of global economic and monetary policy to consider. I have a proprietary model which is truly a paradigm shift in thinking offering a new sound, superior, proactive approach to protecting and preserving wealth, utilizing both alternative paper assets as well as tangible assets. Follow the trend. The trend is your friend. The goal as wise and prudent investors is to identify and minimize risks and maximize returns keeping pace with inflation.
Does Wall Street have Main Street’s best interest in mind? I think we know the answer to this. While so many others will continue to operate in the deceitful and flawed modalities being advised by an industry they no longer trust. A great change is now upon us. The time for action is now. Better a day early than a day late. Request a copy of the Global Financial Reset Report here. To be continued…
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/money-3-e1549106065292.jpg368609John Michael Chambershttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJohn Michael Chambers2019-02-02 06:14:482019-03-06 17:48:50The Perils of Cash
I’m pleased to announce that I’ve been invited to serve as a FoxNews.com column contributor on matters of faith and family. My first column published yesterday highlights how the spiritual discipline of fasting has been ushered into the spotlight by one of the most unlikely places — Hollywood. Here is an excerpt from the column with a link to read the rest on FoxNews.com:
Actor Chris Pratt, a Christian, posted on Instagram that he was on a 21-day Daniel Fast. The Guardians of the Galaxy star, who recently got engaged to Arnold Schwarzenegger’s daughter Katherine, created a lot of interest in “taking his health regimen to biblical proportions.” No doubt this had some curious folks turning to the infomercial channels looking for details on this latest fad in dieting. While I won’t rule out that some creative marketer will capitalize upon the attention created over Pratt’s post, the Daniel Fast is not new, and it’s so much more than a diet.
The Daniel Fast, named for the Old Testament prophet Daniel and his meal plan described in the first chapter of Daniel, is a deliberate and disciplined effort to place a higher priority on our spiritual well-being and growth rather than our physical wants and needs. The goal is to set aside the momentary pleasures of rich food to simplify life, allowing time and mental energy to focus on what’s really important. While fasting does have tangible benefits, the focus of fasting is spiritual; it’s about setting ourselves apart for spiritual focus and nourishment.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/020119_pratt_770x400-e1549102059893.jpg377640Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2019-02-02 05:08:112019-02-02 05:14:44Chris Pratt's Bible-inspired diet highlights a discipline from a spiritual dimension
Former Special Olympian Frank Stephens spoke out about abortion on “Fox & Friends” Friday, after his video on the sanctity of life went viral on actor Ashton Kutcher’s Facebook page.
“I’d like to thank my friend Ashton Kutcher for bringing back my testimony,” he said. “It’s like the walking dead because it just won’t stay down.”
Stephens said he doesn’t want to make abortion illegal, but instead wants to make it “unthinkable.”
“About abortion, I don’t want to make it illegal,” he said. “I want to make it unthinkable. Politicians change laws. I want to change people’s hearts. I want to change people’s hearts by changing people’s minds and hearts together.”
Co-host Ainsley Earhardt asked Stephens why his life is worth living and he said he’s gotten to travel all across the world and enjoys the strong love of his family and friends.
“My life is worth living because it is fantastic,” he replied. “I’ve gotten to travel all over the world. I get to workshop a play in New York. I’m going to be in two documentaries, which will be on next month. And I have a lovely girlfriend, friends, and a wonderful family.”
EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column with images is republished with permission. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email email@example.com. Photo: Screenshot from “Fox & Friends.”
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Screen-Shot-2019-02-01-at-2.00.56-PM-1250x650-e1549066710698.jpg333640The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2019-02-01 19:18:392019-02-01 19:36:06VIDEO: Man With Down Syndrome Says He Wants to Make Abortion ‘Unthinkable’
Florida’s long Common Core nightmare is coming to an end.
For years students, parents and teachers suffered under the pressure and misguided effects of Common Core. Thanks to Executive Order Number 19-32 issued by Governor DeSantis, Common Core will be eliminated, and the burden lifted from Florida’s students.
By January 1, 2020 the Commissioner of Education must provide recommendations to the Governor that will eliminate Common Core standards, increase the quality of the instructional curriculum and streamline testing.
When we first started fighting to improve K-12 education in Florida, Florida Citizens’ Alliance identified Common Core as standards, curriculum and testing. Four years ago, we actually were successful in getting a bill filed to address all of these elements. Sadly, many legislators ignored parent concerns and the damage being done by Common Core.
Two years ago, we convinced the legislature to pass and the governor to sign a bill giving parents and residents of Florida a louder voice in the discussion. Now the governor has listened to the people and provided a framework for permanently solving each of these interlocking pieces of the Common Core puzzle.
We commend the governor for his insight and courage in addressing these vital issues. He is actually listening to the people and putting our children first.
We also commend Commissioner of Education Richard Corcoran for his contribution and leadership to this bold initiative. Commissioner Corcoran has an established track record of putting Florida’s children first as well. We look forward to supporting his innovative efforts to find solutions that improve student learning.
This is truly a day to celebrate. When we started this fight, no one would listen. Common Core was a toxic topic. Legislators and educators closed ranks and told all of us that they knew what was best for our children. Now our Governor and Commissioner of Education are listening. Now Common Core is evaporating before our eyes.
We at Florida Citizen’s Alliance also want to thank our many partners in this fight all across Florida. You did not grow weary in well doing. You did not give up in the face of seemingly insurmountable obstacles. You did not and would not remain silent when our children needed advocates.
You endured. You persevered. You overcame. You refused to surrender your children to Common Core.
You are the champions for our children. You earned this victory.
There is much work to be done. We will do our part to help carry the load.
There will be many people trying to sidetrack what the governor has started.
Of that there is little doubt.
Let there also be no doubt that Florida Citizens’ Alliance and our partners across Florida will continue to work and, when necessary fight, for our children. We will never quit. Our work will not be finished until every parent in Florida is satisfied with the educational options available for their children. We will press on until every child has every opportunity to achieve his or her highest aspirations.
Today we celebrate and celebrate and celebrate.
Tomorrow we start fresh. Our continuing mission: real solutions that improve student learning. Because Florida Kids Deserve Better!
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/floridaedu.jpg360640Florida Citizens Alliancehttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFlorida Citizens Alliance2019-02-01 14:54:062019-02-01 14:54:07Responding to Governor Ron DeSantis’ Executive Order Committing to Eliminate Common Core in Florida
Timing is everything. Congress is currently in the midst of debating the construction of a “border wall” or “border barrier” to protect the dangerous U.S./Mexican border as the clock ticks down to another possible partial shutdown of our government if an agreement cannot be reached.
Meanwhile, on Tuesday, January 29, 2019 the Senate Intelligence Committee conducted a hearing on Worldwide Threats that was predicated on a just-released paper, “World-Wide Threat Assessment,” that was issued by Daniel Coats, the Director of the Office of National Intelligence, which oversees the U.S. intelligence community.
As we will see, elements of that report addressed issues that have a clear nexus to border security and immigration law enforcement.
However, the leaders of the Democratic Party have thus far made it clear that they will oppose any and all efforts to construct a barrier to block the uninspected entry of aliens and cargo into the United States while simultaneously claiming that they don’t oppose border security — even as some Democrats call for disbanding Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
While the Democratic Party leaders claim that a wall or barrier on the southern border is a waste of money and find all sorts of other absurd excuses to oppose it, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi outrageously and infamously claiming that any such structure would be “immoral,” the leaders of the U.S. Border Patrol as well as the leaders of the Border Patrol Council, the union that represents our valiant Border Patrol agents, have publicly and repeatedly stated that a wall or barrier is essential to help them to secure our nation’s borders.
Clearly the Democrats have no interest in actually securing our borders or in the enforcement of our immigration laws.
Now we come to that hearing conducted by the Senate Intelligence Committee and the report that served as the predication for that hearing.
Inasmuch as the report contains material furnished by all of the elements of the U.S. Intelligence Community, the leaders of these agencies were witnesses at the hearing.
This is the Witness List:
Director Daniel Coats Office of the Director of National Intelligence ODNI
Director Christopher Wray Federal Bureau of Investigation FBI
Director GinaHaspel Central Intelligence Agency CIA
Director General Robert Ashley Defense Intelligence Agency DIA
Director General PaulNakasone National Security Agency NSA
Director Robert Cardillo National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency NGA
Several areas of concern about national security vulnerabilities addressed in the report have a clear and unmistakable nexus to immigration, border security and related issues.
Page 4 of the report included this paragraph:
Migration is likely to continue to fuel social and interstate tensions globally, while drugs and transnational organized crime take a toll on US public health and safety. Political turbulence is rising in many regions as governance erodes and states confront growing public health and environmental threats.
Page 10 included the following excerpt:
Sunni Violent Extremists
Global jihadists in dozens of groups and countries threaten local and regional US interests, despite having experienced some significant setbacks in recent years, and some of these groups will remain intent on striking the US homeland. Prominent jihadist ideologues and media platforms continue to call for and justify efforts to attack the US homeland.
Page 18 of the report focuses on Transnational Criminal Organizations and provided vital information about drug trafficking and human trafficking.
Here is an excerpt of the material provided in this chapter of the report:
TRANSNATIONAL ORGANIZED CRIME
Global transnational criminal organizations and networks will threaten US interests and allies by trafficking drugs, exerting malign influence in weak states, threatening critical infrastructure, orchestrating human trafficking, and undermining legitimate economic activity.
The foreign drug threat will pose continued risks to US public health and safety and will present a range of threats to US national security interests in the coming year. Violent Mexican traffickers, such as members of the Sinaloa Cartel and New Generation Jalisco Cartel, remain key to the movement of illicit drugs to the United States, including heroin, methamphetamine, fentanyl, and cannabis from Mexico, as well as cocaine from Colombia. Chinese synthetic drug suppliers dominate US-bound movements of so- called designer drugs, including synthetic marijuana, and probably ship the majority of US fentanyl, when adjusted for purity.
Approximately 70,000 Americans died from drug overdoses in 2017, a record high and a 10-percent increase from 2016, although the rate of growth probably slowed in early 2018, based on Centers for Disease Control (CDC) data.
Increased drug fatalities are largely a consequence of surging production of the synthetic opioid fentanyl; in 2017, more than 28,000 Americans died from synthetic opioids other than methadone, including illicitly manufactured fentanyl. The CDC reports synthetic opioid- related deaths rose 846 percent between 2010 and 2017, while DHS reports that US seizures of the drug increased 313 percent from 2016 to 2017.
Other Organized Crime Activities
Transnational criminal organizations and their affiliates are likely to expand their influence over some weak states, collaborate with US adversaries, and possibly threaten critical infrastructure.
Mexican criminals use bribery, intimidation, and violence to protect their drug trafficking, kidnapping-for-ransom, fuel-theft, gunrunning, extortion, and alien-smuggling enterprises.
Gangs based in Central America, such as MS-13, continue to direct some criminal activities beyond the region, including in the United States.
Transnational organized crime almost certainly will continue to inflict human suffering, deplete natural resources, degrade fragile ecosystems, drive migration, and drain income from the productive—and taxable—economy.
Human trafficking generates an estimated $150 billion annually for illicit actors and governments that engage in forced labor, according to the UN’s International Labor Organization.
This is not the first report or the first hearing to provide clear evidence that the porous U.S./Mexico border creates national security, public safety, and public health vulnerabilities for Americans.
I have written a number of articles about this issue; one of my recent articles took on the bogus claim that technology is better than a wall: “Why Trump’s Wall Is A Must” – And why a “virtual fence” will stop no one.
A failure to stop the flow of illegal alien workers also undermines the U.S. economy, and costs American and lawful immigrant workers jobs and suppresses their wages. That fundamental fact was the basis for my commentary, “OPEN BORDERS FACILITATE AMERICA’S RACE TO THE BOTTOM” – “Cheap labor” is anything but cheap.
As I have noted ever so many times in my articles and in my Congressional testimony, simply securing the problematic border against the illegal (uninspected) entry of aliens won’t end the immigration crisis but would close one of the major holes in what I have come to refer to as the Immigration Colander. I have come to conceptualize the wall on the U.S./Mexican border as the equivalent of a wing on an airplane. Without a wing the airplane will not fly, but the wing by itself would go nowhere.
The immigration system has never had a meaningful program to enforce the immigration laws from within the interior of the United States. The need to enforce the immigration laws from within the interior of the United States is commonsense and was noted as an important issue by the 9/11 Commission. The dirty secret is that our political leaders understand just how important interior enforcement is but have intentionally never provided the resources to enforce those laws from within the interior. Consider that, in the wake of the terror attacks of 9/11 President George W. Bush created the Department of Homeland Security (DHS ) and in so doing, broke the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) into multiple components that then blended immigration with other agencies such as Customs.
However, while the leadership of neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have been willing to take the necessary measures to finally save the immigration crisis through effective but fair law enforcement, unhinged members of the Democratic Party are now calling for dismantling ICE altogether. They are calling for immigration anarchy even as yet another hearing, involving the leaders of the U.S. intelligence community, are clear about the nexus between threats confronting America and border security and immigration law enforcement.
Meanwhile cities and states that are controlled by the Democrats have created “Sanctuary Cities” and “Sanctuary States” that shield illegal aliens from detection from ICE including criminals, members of transnational gangs and drug trafficking organizations. These jurisdictions also shield international fugitives and terrorists and, in shielding aliens who were smuggled into the United States, protect the human traffickers who smuggled them here.
If these politicians were really concerned about the plight of trafficked aliens, they could cooperate with ICE and make certain that ICE provides these aliens with visas that are available for aliens who cooperate with investigations into human trafficking and major crimes.
As we have seen with the trial of Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, New York City — the American city with the largest, best-trained and -equipped police department in the United States — became the hub for the Mexican Sinaloa Drug Cartel that purportedly moved hundreds of tons of drugs including heroin, cocaine, meth, fentanyl, and marijuana into the U.S. across the Mexican border.
The only rational reason that NYC would have been selected as the hub, given the nature and reputation of the NYPD is the fact that NYC is a “Sanctuary City.” This was the focus of my article, “NEW YORK CITY: HUB FOR THE DEADLY DRUG TRADE” – “Sanctuary” policies attract foreign drug traffickers, fugitives and terrorists.
For far too long America has been bleeding red (blood) and green (money). Truly secure borders wold represent a giant step on the road to resolving the immigration crisis. Failure to secure the border costs innocent lives, each and every day.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/bp-e1549034008675.jpg360640Michael Cutlerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMichael Cutler2019-02-01 10:13:382019-02-02 18:44:08World-Wide Threat Assessment Makes Powerful Case For Border Security
On Friday, relatively unexpectedly, President Trump announced a deal that would temporarily end the partial federal government shutdown. Under the terms of the deal, Congress would pass a continuing resolution funding the government for three weeks. During that time, according to the President, Democrats and Republicans would work out a deal bringing about a solution to border security inclusive of erecting a wall at the United States’ southern border.
The plan, of course, assumes that the Democrats would faithfully negotiate a solution to America’s border security issues. But we know, of course, that the Democrats neither desire a wall nor negotiate in good faith. Moreover, the President made a tactical error in signaling that if an appropriate resolution were not made in the next three weeks he may use his emergency powers to build the wall anyway.
We can safely predict that the Democrats would relish cornering the President into employing his emergency powers for the construction of a southern wall because they know that a hostile judiciary would kill the President’s wall project even if the Supreme Court leans conservative.
In the eyes of the Democrats, the long road towards killing the President’s wall is now wide open, and they intend to take it.
So what should the President do? Truth is, the President has a path that likely leads to building the wall, and almost certainly, to his reelection, and he too must take it.
Now, I acknowledge that President Trump does look a little tired, like a prizefighter in the eighth round that has taken his share of body punches and a few too many jabs to the face. The President is tired from seven rounds of abuse, and he is wondering if he can take another eight rounds. Suffice it to say, that the President needs a couple of days to recharge his batteries and remind himself of the immeasurably noble reasons he has undertaken this venture and the incredible accomplishments he has already realized.
What’s more, the President is right; border security is a matter of fundamental importance to the nation’s stability and safety, and it is proper for him to expend whatever energies necessary to solving a problem regarding which Congress has been negligent for decades.
President Trump’s strength lies in the grassroots. This President is backed by a slew of patriotic, hard-working people who have been begging for a fight. In fact, the only reason the President was elected is because that group wanted to fight. The President therefore needs to let them.
Just like in the midterm elections, the President needs to hold a series of rallies (at least three times a week) in stadiums all across the country where the multitudes enthusiastically and continuously chant, “Build the wall! Build the wall!!”
Second, during these rallies, the President needs to explain that he has done everything the Democrats have asked to solicit their cooperation. He needs to tell of all the deals he has worked, all the offers he has made, and how he has reopened the government for the purposes of making sure Congress accomplishes the mission of addressing border security, since after all, that’s exactly what the Democrats, and even some Republicans in Congress, said needed to happen.
Next, at every rally, he must blame the Democrats for any future government shutdown. Remember, the media have hung the shutdown albatross around President Trump’s neck. But this argument is no longer applicable. By reopening the government, Trump has also reset the culpability analysis, and in this sport, whoever can blame the other more effectively wins.
President Trump must come out of the gates saying that if this deal does not happen, then the consequences of their negligence is completely on the Democrats’ back. He must explain that we have seen the deleterious effects of a government shutdown. We have seen the suffering of those furloughed workers who, by the way, the Democrats never cared enough to allow back to work. We have seen, he must tell them, of the dilapidated state of our national parks and the disruption to our airports. We have also seen the humanitarian crisis that the continuing dereliction in Congress’s duties in solving the nation’s immigration problem has caused.
The Democrats know this, he must explain, and they have it in their power to solve the immigration problem and the issue of funding the government. And if they don’t, then it will be 100% on the Democrats.
And lastly, if the Democrats fail to come to terms, under no circumstances does the President reopen the government nor does he use his emergency powers to build the wall, because after all, the erection of a wall through the Presidential emergency powers will be insufficient to solve the calamity that exists at our southern border nor will it address the thousands of people that reside in this country illegally through visa overstays.
The President has done a great job at bringing the problem of our border security to the forefront of the American psyche, and with that has come a brilliant opportunity to permanently solve this blemish on our nation and its policies.
As far as the President is concerned, if the Democrats do not deliver, he rides their failure all the way to his re-election. And then we’ll see what strength-of-will the American people, and more importantly, that subgroup of Americans who fundamentally care about the future of our country, possess.
RELATED VIDEO: Why Trump Won.
EDITORS NOTE: This Revolutionary Act column is republished with permission. The featured image is by Pixabay.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/donald-2911302_640.jpg360640Dr. Julio Gonzalezhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Julio Gonzalez2019-01-31 19:22:442019-01-31 19:59:31The President’s Unconventional Path To A Wall And Electoral Victory
Congressman Mo Brooks (R-AL) asked the Under Secretary for Policy John Rood several key questions that confirm that President Trump can build the wall without declaring a state of emergency or the need for Congress to pass any bill. The answer is 10 U.S.C. § 284.
BROOKS: I want to direct your attention to 10 United States Code § 284 which authorizes President Trump to deploy the United States military to the southern border to build fences and to do a lot of other things, and for clarity, if you look it up in the dictionary the word fence includes the word barrier and the word barrier includes walls made of a wide variety of different materials.
So that having been said, it seems to me that 10 U.S. Code § 284 can be used by the President of the United States to direct the United States military to build a wall. Now as of today, you’ve mentioned military forces along the southern border, have any of them been deployed pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 284?
ROOD: Congressman, I don’t believe any of our forces have been deployed pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 284. You are correct, however, that that use of authority would authorize the secretary of defense to erect barriers, roads, fencing, those types of materials to disrupt drug smuggling.
BROOKS: Does 10 U.S.C. § 284 as you understand it, require the declaration of a national emergency before it is implemented?
BROOKS: It does not?
BROOKS: Has President Trump, to your knowledge, ever used 10 U.S.C § 284 to direct the military to build the wall that is necessary for border security?
ROOD: No, not to my knowledge, Congressman.
BROOKS: If President Trump were to direct the Pentagon and the United States military pursuant to 10 U.S.C § 284 to build such barriers as are necessary to secure our southern border from drug trafficking and international crime cartels would the United States military obey that order?
ROOD: If we judge it to be a lawful order, yes sir. And I assume it would be.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/dorian-hurst-660666-unsplash-e1548948508970.jpg470640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2019-01-31 10:28:552019-01-31 10:42:3210 U.S.C. § 284: The Law That Will Build The Wall
Many across the nation are rightfully outraged by the signing of the abortion expansion bill in New York. In response to fears that the Supreme Court may overturn Roe v. Wade, the New York legislature, and Governor Andrew Cuomo, teamed up with the abortion industry to further tighten their grip on the Empire state following the 2018 midterms.
The bottom line is that the recently signed “Reproductive Health Act” goes way beyond a simple expansion of abortion in New York. As is typical with the Left, it takes some digging to bring the true intentions of this ghastly bill to light. It turns out that existing common-sense protections for women and children are stripped away in the name of late-term abortion expansion. This bill fulfills every wish that a late-term abortionist could have, and I have no doubt it will set the stage for the next Kermit Gosnell.
The new law expands the list of medical professionals able to commit abortions (including late-term abortions) from physicians to practically any healthcare professional authorized under New York’s education law (physician assistants, nurses, nurse practitioners, and midwives, for example). This endangers women by allowing less experienced, less trained, and less qualified medical professionals to commit abortions.
The new law also removes requirements related to late-term abortions. Specifically, it repeals a requirement that abortions after 12 weeks be done in hospitals, thus increasing the likelihood that late-term abortions are done in less than safe facilities. The bill also removes a requirement that an additional physician be present in the event that an unborn child survives an abortion, as well as legal protections for born alive infants in the state’s social services law, civil rights law, and penal code. Eliminating these common-sense and popular protections for abortion survivors means that abortion survivors can be denied life-saving treatment in the moments following their live birth.
What is most disturbing is that the new law also eliminates the authority previously granted to coroners to examine the cause of death in criminal abortions. Earlier this year, Dr. Robert Rho plead guilty to criminal negligence after his actions resulted in the death of a 30-year-old woman who bled out following a botched abortion. Even more disturbing is the fact that this bill strips “personhood” out of the penal code, which means if a pregnant woman is assaulted and it results in the death of her unborn child, the perpetrator can no longer be charged with murder. By preventing coroners from investigating deaths as a result of botched abortions and assault, it is not only women’s health that is in danger, but it is a travesty of justice for the loved ones of patients who are killed by abortionists and of mothers whose unborn children are killed by an attacker.
The new year has brought a new level of desperation for the abortion lobby. They’re demonstrating a willingness to go beyond simply defending Roe v. Wade. Long gone are the days when their abortion mantra was “safe, legal, and rare.” It seems “abortion, on demand, without apology” is even giving way to a new mantra for big abortion. They now want license to strip away any and all protections meant to ensure women aren’t harmed in late-term abortions, as well as eliminate rights for abortion survivors and assault victims.
Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.
EDITORS NOTE: This FRC column with images is republished with permission.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/012919_newyork_770x400-e1548845415510.jpg373640Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2019-01-30 05:50:282019-01-30 05:50:29The True Depravity of NY's New Abortion Law
Gordon Gekko missed the mark with his famous Wall Street monologue about American capitalism. It is not greed but economic growth that is, for lack of a better word, good. Growth is right. Growth works. Growth clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Growth has marked the upward surge of mankind. And growth—you mark my words—will save that malfunctioning corporation called the USA.
This is probably pretty obvious to most Americans. Strong economic growth means more jobs and higher wages. Just take a look at the current expansion. It has only been moderate as goes the pace of growth, but it has been sustained. And month after month of a growing economy has brought down the unemployment rate to its lowest level since 1969, even as real wages continue to grow for all income levels. That’s especially true for working-class Americans. The 3.5 percent unemployment rate for Americans with only a high school diploma is the lowest since 2000. Indeed, despite all the debate about income inequality, earnings have been growing faster for those at the bottom than at the top.
Or look at it this way: In their research paper “Productivity and Pay: Is the link broken?” Harvard’s Anna Stansbury and Lawrence Summers find that higher productivity growth is associated with higher average and median compensation growth. The economists show that if productivity growth had been as fast from 1973 to 2016 as it was from 1949 to 1973—about twice as high—median and mean compensation would have been around 41 percent higher.
Yet a growing number of policymakers and pundits on the left and right are questioning the primacy of growth as the key objective of national economic policy. Democrats and progressives are focused on new policies to redistribute wealth, such as Medicare for all, a federal jobs guarantee, or a universal basic income. Meanwhile, Republicans and conservatives, grappling with a president who questions the value of free trade and immigration, have grown publicly skeptical of market capitalism. “The free market has been sorting it out for a while, and America has been losing,” said Vice President Mike Pence. And they have become skeptical of the core goal of increasing economic growth.
Leading the charge among the wonks is Oren Cass, a Manhattan Institute scholar and former policy director for the 2012 Mitt Romney presidential campaign. In his new book, The Once and Future Worker, Cass writes that although “economic growth and rising material living standards are laudable goals … they by no means guarantee the health of a labor market that will meet society’s long-term needs.”
The criticisms of growth skeptics range from the ahistorical to the utopian. Of course, a fast-rising tide of economic growth does not guarantee all boats will rise at the same pace or at a pace that society deems sufficient. “Guarantee,” after all, is a strong word. Depending on the strength one attributes to it, it’s possible nothing can “guarantee” the outcome that some growth critics want: all winners, no losers, no trade-offs, no disruption. But if by guarantee we don’t mean “ensure with ironclad certainty” but only “approximate more closely than any available alternative,” economic growth remains society’s best bet. Indeed, this very urge to undervalue growth’s benefits is the surest sign that growth in America has become a victim of its own success.
G.K. Chesterton famously noted how modern types of reformers see institutions or practices and think, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the wise reply, “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away.” Institutions and policies that endure decade after decade often serve a useful purpose even if that purpose isn’t immediately apparent, and we should be cautious before shrugging them off as unimportant. Our growth-oriented economic policy is a perfect example. It brings tremendous benefits, yet we now risk taking it for granted.
And what an odd time to question the benefits. The Obama administration was much derided for its apparently self-serving claim, made in the 2013 Economic Report of the President, “that in the 21st Century, real GDP growth in the United States is likely to be permanently slower than it was in earlier eras.” But it was a perfectly reasonable baseline forecast that continues to reflect the economic consensus from Wall Street to Washington. For instance: The Federal Reserve’s long-term, real GDP forecast stands at 1.8 percent, about half the average pace from 1947 to the start of the Great Recession. And even that reduced pace of growth seems a tad too optimistic for JP Morgan, which pegs the economy’s long-term growth potential at 1.5 percent.
Obstacles to Growth
There are good reasons why the experts seem so gloomy. The most important—and, perhaps, most inescapable—is demographics. The aging of the labor force, lower birth rates, and a slowing rate of immigration suggest a slowdown in the growth of the American labor force to around 0.5 percent annually going forward—as compared with roughly 2 percent in the 1960s and 1970s. The U.S. economy expanded at a 4.1 percent annual pace during the ’60s—a decade that today’s nationalist populists look back on with great nostalgia. But growth would have been less than 3 percent if the labor force had been growing as slowly back then as it is currently.
The other big obstacle to faster growth is weak productivity, which downshifted just before the Great Recession and has yet to rebound. For the American economy to grow as fast in the future as it has overall since World War II, output per worker will need to rise sharply. Indeed, that is a big goal of the 2017 Republican-pushed corporate tax cuts. They are supposed to increase business investment and eventually productivity growth. But there are no signs either is happening yet, much to the dismay of many conservative economists. The only other hope lies beyond Washington’s tinkering: The private sector continues to innovate. Maybe Silicon Valley will eventually come to the rescue, as innovation in areas such as artificial intelligence and robotics eventually spreads throughout the non-tech economy. The history of radical technological advances, such as electrification, suggest that it can take some time before businesses figure out how to effectively employ them.
The Tangible Benefits of Growth
It can be easy to dismiss all this talk of growth rates as the abstract muttering of economists far removed from the everyday concerns of the average American. As a corrective, George Mason economist Tyler Cowen poses a useful thought experiment in his latest book, Stubborn Attachments. Imagine we redo U.S. history, he says, “but assume the country’s economy had grown one percentage point less each year between 1870 and 1990. In that scenario, the United States of 1990 would be no richer than the Mexico of 1990.”
Michael Strain, my colleague at the American Enterprise Institute, makes a similar point when he writes:
Imagine the world in the year 1900. There was no air travel, no antibiotics, no iPhone, no Amazon Prime, no modern high school and no air conditioning. … Anyone who played down growth a century ago wouldn’t have known they were arguing against any of these things, because none of these growth-enabled features of modern life had been invented yet. But they would have been putting the existence of all these at risk by stifling, even marginally, the economic engine that allowed for their creation.
Sustained and solid growth is what makes these advances possible and is what separates the median American today from the median residents of the world’s developing economies. Sacrificing a tenth of a percentage point here and two-tenths there to, say, protect favored industries from foreign competition or levy punitive taxes on obscenely rich entrepreneurs may seem like a worthwhile tradeoff in the moment. But because of how growth compounds over time, in the long-term such trade-offs aren’t just unappealing but inexplicable. As the Nobel Laureate in economics Robert Lucas wrote, “Once one starts to think about [exponential growth], it is hard to think about anything else.” Marginally slowing down economic growth to achieve other policy goals might cause little harm to us, but it seems both less fair and less wise when the welfare of ensuing generations are accounted for. In Strain’s words, “What in the world of tomorrow doesn’t yet exist? We need growth in order to find the answer, both for ourselves, and for posterity.”
It is strange that intellectuals are dismissing the importance of economic growth at just the point when it is becoming harder to generate—and doubly weird after a long stretch of sluggish growth that has almost certainly played a role in the surge of populist politicians such as President Trump. And these populist leaders are pushing the sorts of policies that make a future of slow growth even more likely.
Trump looks back to the immediate decades after World War Two as the golden age of the American economy. His presidential campaign, for instance, made a point of promising the return of mass employment in the industrial-age industries of steel and coal. Cass, too, has pointed to those decades as an alternate model of economic growth. As he said during a recent think-tank event:
The period of time when productivity growth was really booming most in the American economy was a time when tax rates were much higher, immigration rates were much lower, there was virtually no international trade by the standards of the 1920s or today, and there was a much smaller or non-existent safety net. The idea that what we currently call the pro-growth agenda is actually what has aligned with high growth isn’t true.
That is a wrong-headed interpretation of economic history. While it is true that the so-called golden age era is known for fast economic and productivity growth, economists generally do not credit the lack of trade or immigration. Rather, notes the Congressional Budget Office in a review of research literature on the subject, “the golden age may be more accurately interpreted as the full final exploitation of an earlier burst of innovations through electrification, suburbanization, completion and increasing exploitation of the highway system, and production of consumer appliances.” In other words, huge technological advances in the 1920s and 1930s reaped benefits for decades.
Unfortunately, those productivity gains, along with American industrial superiority over its war-ravaged competitors, have created a myth about the postwar American economy—a myth that populists continue to spread. Yet Fortress America entered the 1970s ill-prepared for the inevitable global competition as the rest of the world’s advanced economies finally recovered.
Both Trump and Cass, therefore, have it backward. It wasn’t too much globalization and economic openness that undermined large swaths of the manufacturing economy, but too little. As Adrian Wooldridge of The Economist and former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan write in Capitalism in America:
The 1970s was the decade when Americans finally had to grapple with the fact that it was losing its leadership in an ever widening range of industries. Though the best American companies such as General Electric and Pfizer powered ahead, a striking number treaded water. They had succeeded during the long postwar boom not because they had any particular merit, but because Europe and Japan were still recovering from World War Two and they collapsed at the first sniff of competition.
The last thing the American economy needs today is a reduction in competitive intensity, whether achieved by shielding industries with tariffs or keeping out the immigrants that help grow the workforce and provide expertise to key industries, especially technology. Nearly half of our “unicorn companies,” another name for U.S. startups worth over $1 billion dollars, were founded by immigrants. Immigrant scientists and entrepreneurs play a disproportionate role in driving the tech progress necessary for sustained productivity growth. Forty percent of Fortune 500 companies have a first- or second-generation immigrant founder. Immigrants may compete with other Americans, but they also employ them.
The Only Viable Solution
The critics of a growth-above-all approach might grant that no other national policy is better at generating material prosperity. But, they say, life requires more than mere materialism. We crave community, beauty, and a certain degree of stability. It is this objection that Harvard’s Benjamin Friedman sought to address in his 2006 book, The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth. True, capitalism and the creative destruction that drive it can disrupt traditional cultures or degrade the environment. And from the Old Testament to the present, men have fretted over usury’s effects on one’s soul (today we might say finance’s effects on one’s morals). But growth doesn’t only erode individual and societal morality. Besides improving material conditions, growth improves moral ones, as well.
Friedman notes how sustained growth “shapes the social, political and, ultimately, the moral character of a people” and “more often than not fosters greater opportunity, tolerance of diversity, social mobility, commitment to fairness, and dedication to democracy.” Slow growth, on the other hand, leads to ugly consequences, especially if voters begin to feel it is inevitable. In times of stagnation, economic policy tilts toward dividing up a fixed pie rather than enlarging everyone’s share. It could mean a society that is less willing to entertain the benefits of international trade, more hostile toward immigration and immigrants, and more comfortable with regulating business.
In fact, “could” is putting it mildly. The tariffs, legislative efforts to reduce immigration, and frequent threats to regulate America’s most successful companies, such as Google and Amazon, already show some of the consequences of the sluggish recovery from the Great Recession—and this from what is supposed to be America’s pro-growth party.
Growth is, and remains, good. Growth is right, staving off a zero-sum politics defined more by group conflict than productive cooperation. Growth works, improving everyone’s standard of living, if not always equally, at least steadily. Growth clarifies, exposing business to competition, and prevents industrial calcification. Growth signifies the evolutionary and upward surge of mankind, evident in everything from modern medicine to interstellar space travel. And a policy geared toward increasing economic growth—pursued attentively and unapologetically—will save the United States of America. All other national economic strategies are but pale imitations.
James Pethokoukis is a columnist and blogger at the American Enterprise Institute. Previously, he was the Washington columnist for Reuters Breakingviews, the opinion and commentary wing of Thomson Reuters.
RELATED VIDEO: Who Gets the Credit for the Booming Economy?
EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column with images is republished with permission. Image credit: Image by geralt on Pixabay.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/growth-e1548783455131.jpg384640Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2019-01-29 12:37:502019-03-06 17:52:11Only Economic Growth Will Save the United States of America
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/may-issue-nra-ila.jpg338600NRA Institute for Legislative Actionhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngNRA Institute for Legislative Action2019-01-26 20:23:192019-01-26 20:23:21VIDEO: In a Plot To Blast Trump, the AP Accidentally Exposes the Failures of "May Issue" Permits
This week, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a Second Amendment challenge to a gun control law for the first time in nearly 10 years. Arguments in the case will likely be heard during the court’s next term, which starts in October.
During the opening decade of the 21st Century, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two landmark rulings that many hoped would revitalize the Second Amendment, which had been all but read out of the Constitution by activist lower judges that favored banning or heavily restricting firearms.
District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) made abundantly clear that the Second Amendment is a fundamental civil right and should be respected as such by the nation’s courts and public officials.
That did not happen.
Instead, the rulings seemed mainly to energize the resistance to the right to keep and bear arms both within and without the judicial system.
Billionaires turned social engineers – most notably Michael Bloomberg – created a new industry around more sophisticated and organized anti-gun efforts.
Elite universities created research departments entirely devoted to engineering empirical support for gun control and rewriting American history as it pertains the Second Amendment and gun ownership.
The same judges with their same lifetime appointments who refused to acknowledge the obvious import of the Second Amendment’s history and text refused to acknowledge the obvious import of the Heller and McDonaldopinions.
Throughout it all, the high court seemed to have turned its back on the Second Amendment, refusing review in case after case. This sometimes provoked impassioned dissents from justices who believed the Second Amendment was being treated as a “disfavored right” and a “constitutional orphan.”
Only once in all this time did the U.S. Supreme Court revisit the Second Amendment in an unsigned opinion that summarily reversed, without argument, a Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court opinion that upheld the state’s ban on electrically-powered “stun guns.”
That changed on Tuesday when the high court granted review to the NRA-backed case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York. This case concerns a challenge under the Second Amendment and other constitutional provisions to New York City regulations that effectively ban law-abiding handgun owners from traveling outside the city with their own secured and unloaded handguns.
The bizarre and unique nature of this regulation – apparently the only one of its kind in the nation – and the exceedingly thin “public safety” justification for it potentially make the case low-hanging fruit for another positive Second Amendment ruling.
But whether the Supreme Court will use the occasion to bring lower court defiance of the Second Amendment to heel or simply to rule narrowly on this particular regulation remains to be seen.
The development does, however, underscore the importance to gun owners of President Trump’s appointments to the high court, including Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brent Kavanaugh.
The latter replaced Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was considered the crucial swing vote in the Heller and McDonald cases. Yet Kennedy’s sustained commitment to a robust Second Amendment was always in question, leading to speculation that neither the court’s pro- or anti-gun blocs had the confidence to take another case.
Unlike Kennedy, however, Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are committed originalists, the same mode of judicial interpretation that the late Justice Antonin Scalia used in authoring the Heller opinion. Fidelity to that method and to the court’s opinions in Heller and McDonald are the surest guarantees we can have that the Second Amendment will get the respect it is due by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Left-leaning pundits are already issuing hysterical predictions about what this development means for gun control in the United States.
May they be right and then some.
The more sober and mature outlook, however, is a wait-and-see attitude, along with a healthy appreciation of how President Trump’s appointments to the court may finally reenergize a Second Amendment that has been neglected for too long.
Those appointments would not have happened without the steadfast work of NRA members who understand the importance of the U.S. Supreme Court as the final backstop against infringements of our Second Amendment rights. We may now be on the threshold of realizing the fruits of that labor.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/sofia-sforza-90360-unsplash-1-e1548498414397.jpg427640NRA Institute for Legislative Actionhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngNRA Institute for Legislative Action2019-01-26 05:29:012019-01-26 05:29:03U.S. Supreme Court (Finally) Takes Another Second Amendment Challenge to a Gun Control Law
Airbnb, which lists more 45,000 Florida properties on its vacation rentals website, has lobbied hard to remove its “home-sharing” offerings from hotel/motel regulations and unshackle the state’s $31 billion short-term rental industry from local regulations.
Several bills, including last year’s Vacation Rental Act, gained momentum during the last two legislative sessions before falling short.
If Airbnb is to have any hope in 2019 of achieving its legislative goals in Florida, however, it must first deal with a new problem—the wrath of its new governor.
Gov. Ron DeSantis declared state of Florida employees will no longer be reimbursed for Airbnb stays while traveling and said further sanctions will be imposed if Airbnb doesn’t reverse its November decision to delist properties in the Israeli-occupied West Bank.
DeSantis said Airbnb’s actions violate Florida law—House Bill 545, adopted last year—which imposes penalties, including divestment, on companies involved in the “Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement” against Israel.
“We have a moral obligation to oppose the Airbnb policy,” DeSantis said. “It does target Jews specifically. When you target Jews for disfavored treatment, that is the essence of anti-Semitism. In Florida, as long as I’m the governor, BDS will be D.O.A.”
DeSantis issued his comments during a press conference at the Jewish Federation of South Palm Beach County in Boca Raton.
He said the State Board of Administration will determine if Airbnb’s West Bank policy warrants further sanctions from the state.
The board—comprised of DeSantis, Attorney General Ashley Moody, and Chief Financial Officer Jimmy Patronis—oversees investments of the state’s pension program.
Airbnb is a private company “but they are trying to be publicly-traded and they are trying to do an initial public offering,” DeSantis said. “That would not be good if you’re already on Florida’s hit list before you’ve even gotten off the ground.”
DeSantis also instructed Moody to determine if the policy violates the civil rights of any Floridian Jews who own property in the West Bank.
Other states will follow Florida’s lead, he said. “That will end up getting [Airbnb] where they need to be. But you know what they say, if you can’t make them see the light, make them feel the heat.”
Airbnb responded in a statement that it “unequivocally rejected” the “BDS movement” against Israel and that it has “worked with the Florida State Board of Administration on this matter” and will continue to do so.
Its decision to delist about 200 properties in “the settlements in the West Bank” is not unique to Israel, the company said.
“Airbnb has previously prevented hosts from accepting reservations in other lands with unique dynamics, including Crimea—where the decision impacted more than 4,000 listings,” according to the statement.
Earlier Tuesday, Airbnb reported short-term rentals offered through its digital platform drew 4.5 million guests to Florida and generated more than $810 million in rental income for hosts in 2018.
The company will release how much it will pay in state and local bed taxes in February. Last year, it remitted $33 million to the state and $12.7 million to counties it has tax collection contracts with, including $3.3 million to Miami-Dade, $1.9 million to Broward, $1.9 million to Pinellas, and $1.8 million to Orange counties.
Ten Florida counties saw at least 100,000 Airbnb guests and at least $22 million in Airbnb rental revenues in 2018, according to the company’s report.
The Vacation Rental Act—Senate Bill 1400 and House Bill 773—proposed removing short-term vacation rentals from hotel and motel regulations, and establishing a uniform inspection program conducted by the state’s Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR).
SB 1400 passed the Senate Regulated Industries Committee, but never made it out the chamber’s appropriations and community affairs committees for a floor vote. HB 773 also never made it out of committee. Similar 2017 bills shared the same fates.
As of Tuesday, a 2019 iteration of the Vacation Rental Act had not been filed.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/governor-ron-desantis-us-embassy-jerusalem-e1548159192167.jpg503639Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2019-01-22 07:15:462019-01-22 07:17:37Florida Governor DeSantis Sanctions Airbnb for West Bank Policy
President Donald Trump offered to expand amnesty for certain young illegal immigrants in exchange for money to pay for a border barrier as a compromise to end the partial government shutdown.
“This is a commonsense compromise both parties should embrace,” Trump said Saturday in a nationally televised speech from the White House.
Democratic leaders have already said they would oppose the Trump compromise, so the partial shutdown of 25 percent of the federal government will likely continue for a while.
“The radical left can never control our borders. I will never let it happen. Walls are not immoral,” the president continued during the speech. “In fact, they are the opposite of immoral, because they will save many lives and stop drugs from pouring into our country.”
During the remarks, Trump laid out a plan that would include the $5.7 billion he requested for construction of additional 230 miles of a steel border wall.
His offer to Democrats is three years of relief for recipients of the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program and another three-year extension for those for whom DACA protection is about to expire. DACA recipients are illegal immigrants brought to the United States by their parents.
Trump talked about the crimes, murder, drugs, and rape that result from illegal immigration, as well as the humanitarian crisis among migrants traveling to reach the United States.
“It’s got to end now. These are not talking points, these are the heartbreaking realities that are hurting innocent, precious human beings every single day on both sides of the border,” Trump said. “As a candidate for president, I promised I would fix this crisis, and I intend to keep that promise.”
Trump’s remarks come as another migrant caravan from Central America is moving toward the U.S. southern border. It also came moments after he spoke to an Oval Office naturalization ceremony that was held for legal immigrants that became citizens on Saturday.
Trump said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., will bring the proposal up for a vote next week.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., issued a statement opposing the Trump proposal before the president delivered the speech. However, she said the House would vote on its own counter proposal in the next week that did not include a wall—or DACA—to reopen the government.
Trump framed the wall as a reasonable project.
“This is not a 2,000-mile concrete structure from sea to sea,” the president said. “These are steel barriers in high-priority locations.”
Trump deserves credit for trying to security the border, but his proposed compromise is not the best way forward, said James Carafano, vice president for national security and foreign policy at The Heritage Foundation.
“Amnesty encourages further illegal immigration, incentivizes the tragedy of human trafficking, and undermines our citizens’ confidence in the rule of law,” Carafano said in a statement. “Amnesty should not be part of any border security deal, especially given that many who today oppose a wall have publicly supported and even voted for physical barriers in the recent past.”
Trump’s proposal also includes $800 million for humanitarian assistance at the border, $805 million for drug detection technology to help secure our ports of entry, 2,750 new border agents and law enforcement professionals, and 75 new immigration judges to handle the backlog of almost 900,000 cases.
“It is unlikely that any one of these provisions alone would pass the House, and taken together, they are a non-starter,” Pelosi said in her statement. “For one thing, this proposal does not include the permanent solution for the Dreamers and TPS [Temporary Protected Status] recipients that our country needs and supports.”
Pelosi said Democrats support increasing the number of immigration judges and new technology to stop drugs and weapons from coming across the border.
“Next week, Democrats will pass a package of six bills agreed to by House and Senate negotiators and other legislation to re-open government so that we can fully negotiate on border security proposals.” Pelosi said.
The government partial shutdown continues. There are approximately 800,000 non-essential personnel who have been furloughed due to the shutdown. The Washington Post chart below lists the percentage of individuals by department who have been furloughed.
A growing chorus of alarmist voices decries the rising economic inequality in the Western world, especially in the United States. Surprisingly enough, the same mainstream analysts complain about the anemic growth of labor productivity without seeing the correct link between the two.
[ … ]
For the United States, the failed economic policy is the exponential growth of government intervention in the economy in the 20th century, which stifled entrepreneurship and capital accumulation. This is obvious in the rise of both government spending that redistributes away economic resources from their originators and the amount of regulatory burden.
The U.S. Congress and previous presidents have allowed government intervention to expand exponentially.
President Trump recognized that it is government intervention at every level (the swamp) that harms economic growth. Regulations by tens of thousands of un-elected government bureaucrats have keep America from being great.
Given the current shutdown and the growing realization that its impact on individual Americans has been negligible, gives the Trump administration a golden opportunity to “trim the fat.”
Fewer government bureaucrats means greater productivity and income equality.
Two goals of Making America Great Again and Keeping America Great!
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/joshua-j-cotten-1111201-unsplash-1-e1547991684389.jpg406640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2019-01-20 08:42:092019-01-21 19:52:45How To Drain The Swamp: Fire All 'Non-Essential' Government Personnel