Taxes Archives - Page 80 of 105

Assault of 13-year old by Syrian Muslim exposes ‘secretive nature’ of refugee program

July 13, 2016/in Commentary, Culture War, Immigration, Policy, Politics, Taxes/by Ann Corcoran

The lack of transparency that surrounds the resettlement of third world refugees through the UN/US Refugee Admissions Program is likely the single-most important factor in why I have been writing about it for nine years. Almost nothing makes me so angry as the arrogant treatment of citizens in towns across the country as refugees are placed in communities with no advance warning in most cases and certainly no thoughtful discussion and planning.

Lavinia Limon

For decades the only way citizens learned of the program was when it was already up and running and problems had occurred and here we learn from the Lowell, Massachusetts city manager that they have had the same experience.

Lavinia Limon is the woman making the decisions about which refugees go to Lowell. USCRI is also in charge of Twin Falls, Idaho and is opening new offices in Rutland, VT and Reno, NV. Go to our extensive archive on Limon (formerly Bill Clinton’s director of the ORR) to learn more here.

BTW, controversies like the one on-going in Rutland, VT actually started the same way—a mayor secretively worked with the federal government to ‘welcome’ Syrians to town, and when the residents found out all hell broke loose directed mostly at the mayor for acting secretively.

Here is the latest news from Leo Hohmann at World Net Daily who tells us about some excellent reporting from the Lowell Sun on that case from last week where a Syrian man was arrested for allegedly making advances at a 13-year-old at a public swimming pool.

The secrecy of the federal refugee-resettlement program has once again been highlighted by a local official who has seen the dark side of the program play out in living color.

In Lowell, Massachusetts, a 13-year-old girl was twice groped at a public pool last week by a 22-year-old man freshly imported into the community from Syria as a “refugee.”

The city manager of Lowell told his local newspaper Tuesday that he was not even notified by the U.S. State Department or its resettlement contractor that Syrians were being delivered to his community.

Emad Hasso, 22, of Syria pleaded not guilty Friday to inappropriately touching the girl at the state-run Raymond Lord Memorial Pool in Lowell, according to the Lowell Sun.

This marks the second high-profile sexual assault on an American girl in the past month by a refugee. On June 2, a 5-year-old girl in Twin Falls, Idaho, was reportedly raped by an Iraqi refugee boy while an older refugee from Sudan filmed and coached him during the assault.

Hasso is one of 18 Syrians, all of them most likely Sunni Muslims, who have been secretly planted in the Lowell community since May, according to the State Department’s Refugee Processing Center online database.

City Manager Kevin Murphy said he’d like to receive regular numbers from the federal contractor that resettles refugees in the city. The International Institute subcontracts with the main federal contractor, U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, or USCRI, to deliver refugees to Lowell.

The city does not know when or from where refugees come to Lowell, Murphy said, and is only made aware of them in instances like this one where a refugee gets arrested or otherwise singled out for bad behavior.

“I think we’ll reach out to the International Institute to see if they could cooperate with us in the future by letting us know when they relocate individuals to Lowell,” Murphy said.

Good luck with that!

There is much more here, including a list of the cities where large numbers of Syrian Muslims (yes, they are 99% Muslim and mostly Sunnis) have been placed this year, continue here.

By the way USCRI is the primary federal contractor and the International Institute is a sub-contractor. Be sure to see this older post when USCRI’s office was ultimately closed in Waterbury, CT (they weren’t caring properly for the refugees they had placed). See why I referred to Limon for years as ‘whoop-de-do.’

One more thing that will interest you folks in Idaho. Click here to view a copyrighted photo of Lavinia Limon with the CEO of Chobani Yogurt at the Clinton Global Initiative last September. They are all in this together—MONEY!

RELATED ARTICLES:

Minnesota ‘sharia law’ billboard causing a stir

Number of Active TB cases in Colorado has gone up

The Concorde Coalition says it’s the Budget Stupid!

July 13, 2016/in Budget and Finance, Economy, Policy, Politics, Taxes/by Dr. Rich Swier

WASHINGTON, D.C. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Sobering 30-year projections that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released today underscore the need for the 2016 presidential and congressional candidates to provide voters with credible plans to put the federal budget on a more responsible course, according to The Concord Coalition.

“If current laws remained generally unchanged, the United States would face steadily increasing federal budget deficits and debt over the next 30 years—reaching the highest level of debt relative to GDP ever experienced in this country” – Congressional Budget Office.

“Americans like to think we put a high priority on strengthening the country and looking out for the next generation, but the CBO’s latest long-term projections show once again that we are falling far short on both counts,” said Robert L. Bixby, Concord’s executive director. “Those who aspire to national leadership should take a good look at these projections and explain to the public how they intend to avoid the intense budget pressures and grave economic consequences toward which current policies are leading us.”

Bixby added:

“If candidates for federal office over the next few months ignore the CBO’s warnings of severe trouble ahead, whoever wins in November will not have a clear mandate for the reform measures needed to rein in the federal debt, strengthen the economy and protect our children’s future.”

The federal deficit has been dropping in recent years, creating a sense of complacency in Washington about the need for such reforms. Yet under current law the deficit is rising again this year and the debt will continually grow more quickly than the economy — a trend that is ultimately unsustainable.

Today’s CBO report looks out over the next three decades and projects even greater government debt and fiscal pressures after 2026.

The federal debt held by the public, which was only 39 percent of GDP at the end of Fiscal 2008, has climbed to 75 percent. That is already high by historical standards. The budget office projects that under current law, that debt would rise to 86 percent of GDP in 2026 and to 141 percent in 2046 — far exceeding the historical peak of 106 percent shortly after World War II.

As the CBO points out, such high levels of public debt would reduce national savings and income, increase interest costs that would put more pressure on the rest of the budget, limit the nation’s ability to respond to unforeseen problems and increase the likelihood of a fiscal crisis in which investors would demand extremely high interest rates on further loans to the government.

“The changes needed to bring about a sustainable fiscal policy are substantial and the costs of delay are profound, yet so far the 2016 presidential candidates have said nothing that comes close to addressing the challenges identified in CBO’s report,” Bixby said.

According to CBO, simply keeping the debt-to-GDP ratio from rising above its current level, would require spending cuts and/or tax increases totaling 1.7 percent of GDP in every year through 2046. That would amount to $330 billion in 2017.

Waiting until 2022 would require annual changes totaling 2.1 percent of GDP, and procrastinating until 2027 would require annual changes totaling 2.7 percent of GDP.

The choice about when to make policy decisions also has different generational impacts. As CBO says: “Reducing deficits sooner would probably require today’s older workers and retirees to sacrifice more and would benefit today’s younger workers and future generations. By contrast, reducing deficits later would require smaller sacrifices by older people and greater sacrifices by younger workers and future generations.”

An aging population and rising health care costs are key factors in the government’s growing financial problems. As more people retire, the government must spend more just to maintain current levels of service. Health care costs rise as more treatments become available and demand for them increases.

CBO says federal spending on Social Security, the government’s major health problems and other “mandatory” programs would rise from 13.2 percent of GDP today to nearly 16.9 percent in the decade starting in 2037.

The budget office also warns that interest payments on the federal debt are expected to rise rapidly as government borrowing continues and low interest rates return to normal levels. Net interest costs now amount to only 1.4 percent of GDP but that figure is expected to rise to 5.1 percent after 2037.

The CBO report shows other areas in the federal budget — even those that may prove critical to the nation’s future — being squeezed harder and harder in the coming years. CBO projects that over the next 30 years spending on national defense, infrastructure, research and development, and everything else other than health care, Social Security and interest payments would drop to 5.2 percent of GDP, down from 6.5 percent today.

In addition to more thoughtful spending decisions in Washington, reasonable reforms in the federal tax system could help boost the economy and reduce federal borrowing.

“As in past years, CBO’s long-term projections are a valuable reminder that the federal budget is not on a sustainable course,” Bixby said. “Interest payments and a few spending programs, no matter how important, cannot be allowed to squeeze other national priorities out of existence. Voters this year would do well to look for candidates who understand this and are prepared to do something about it.”

ABOUT THE CONCORD COALITION

The Concord Coalition is a nationwide, non-partisan, grassroots organization advocating generationally responsible fiscal policy. The Concord Coalition was founded in 1992 by the late former Senator Paul Tsongas (D-Mass.), late former Senator Warren Rudman (R-N.H.), and former U.S. Secretary of Commerce Peter Peterson. Former Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA) serves as co-chair of the Concord Coalition.

Hillary’s 65,000 Syrians would cost U.S. over $400 Billion over their lifetimes

June 28, 2016/in Immigration, Must Read, National Security, Policy, Politics, Taxes, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Ann Corcoran

That is the estimate the highly respected Heritage Foundation expert on welfare, Robert Rector, has estimated.

Hillary got the 65,000 number from her pal, former British Foreign Secretary David Miliband, who is now the head honcho at the financially largest U.S. refugee resettlement contractor (International Rescue Committee).

The Daily Caller has the story, here.

Hillary Clinton’s proposal to accept an additional 65,000 Syrian refugees annually could potentially cost $403 billion in lifetime costs if implemented all four years in a hypothetical first term.

David Miliband with Hillary Clinton.

That’s according to a new analysis released Monday by the Senate subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest.

Currently, the Obama administration is planning to take in 10,000 Syrian refugees in fiscal year 2016, which ends September 30.

In total, the Obama administration is planning to take in 85,000 refugees, while the original plan was to take in 100,000 refugees. Clinton’s proposal would potentially increase that number to 155,000 refugees entering the United States annually.

Robert Rector, a scholar at the Heritage Foundation, estimated the costs of local, state, and federal benefits for refugees and found that the lifetime cost of admitting 10,000 refugees is $6.5 billion.

It is extremely hard to estimate the cost of the massive welfare that refugees receive so we have never even tried here at RRW, but Rector has put pencil to paper to do the calculations. Continue reading here for more.

Where does this 65,000 number come from? Well initially it came from David Miliband, Hillary’s pal who runs the International Rescue Committee. The other nine federal contractors followed suit and then the Senate Jihad Caucus (our name!) sent a letter to Obama telling him that they want 65,000 Syrians ASAP. We addressed the demand here in a YouTube video last year.

The resettlement contractors subsequently upped their demand to 100,000 Syrians.

Galling isn’t it to think that you pay for the resettlement of third worlders who will ultimately out-populate you and your posterity.

Florida: 143 Agencies received over $4.2 Billion to Resettle Unaccompanied Alien Children

June 18, 2016/in Immigration, Must Read, Policy, Politics, Taxes, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Dr. Rich Swier

Many taxpayers want to know where their money is going. Is, for example, the federal government using tax dollars wisely or not. One are that has garnered great interest is the bringing of refugees to the United States funded by federal agencies.

One such agency is the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Using information within the TAGGS system for Health and Human Services we were able to identify the recipients for Grants specifically designated for “Unaccompanied Alien Children”, or UAC’s.

HHS Tracking Spending, Increasing Accountability logo.

Readers may go to the HHS Tracking Spending, Increasing Accountability website and click on the TAGGS link. We selected the state of Florida and typed into the search box Unaccompanied Alien Children.

The search resulted in 143 agencies, at the city, county and state levels that received $4,268,376,198 to resettle unaccompanied alien children.

We also learned that in 2016 Florida is number 4 of the top 50 recipients of HHS funds receiving over $9.8 billion.

2016

FL ST FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION

TALLAHASSEE

9,880,125,626

FAIR has previously reported that the Sunshine State spends approximately $5 billion to educate, medicate and incarcerate illegal aliens.

Perhaps every taxpayer should do their own analysis of the costs of resettling unaccompanied alien children and ask: Could these funds be put to better use?

You may do a search for your state by clicking here.

The cost of allowing illegals to freely come to the United States has become a cornerstone of the presidential political debate. The Department of Health and Human Services is just one of many agencies dealing with the illegal alien issue. HHS TAGGS is just the tip of the iceberg.

Oppose Common Core? You may be on the IRS Hit List!

June 12, 2016/in Education, Policy, Politics, Taxes/by Dr. Mary Grabar

This week, Dissident Prof had the honor of being among such luminaries as the Wetumpka (Alabama) Tea Party and NorCal Tea Party Patriots, as well as tea parties in such places as Clark Valley, Clinton County, Dallas, Dayton, Dupage, and with the Conservative Roundtable of Texas, and Conservative Women for a Better Future, a total of 426 organizations designated by the IRS as having the wrong “viewpoint” for non-profit status. Our applications for 501(c)(3) status were “flagged” and held up. We were subjected to extra scrutiny when the IRS did respond. Dissident Prof is a plaintiff in the class action lawsuit against the IRS.

After being stonewalled for over a year, we at Dissident Prof were asked to jump to and justify our stance on, among other things, but primarily, Common Core. I had to account for every penny spent since I started with my own funds while working as a college instructor. The IRS did everything short of scouring the files in my office in the basement of my house where I spent hours and hours writing and setting up the organization.

In the meantime, liberal groups like Better Georgia were inundating my inbox with appeals to turn Georgia “blue.”

Turns out that the list released this week is much longer than the original 298 identified by the IRS inspector general in May 2013. Lo and behold, Better Georgia is on the list! According to PJ Media, “Lawyer Edward D. Greim said the list may have added some liberal targets as it came to light the agency was being investigated for singling out suspected right-wing groups.”

So nice to add Better Georgia and a sprinkling of Occupy groups. Doesn’t look as bad.

As a Dissident Prof who had taught college English for nearly 20 years and had been researching and writing about Common Core from almost the time since the “standards” were dangled to the states in competition for stimulus money, I testified about its detrimental effects. I also wrote about the disadvantage posed to volunteers, citizens, and tea party groups as public employees and Chamber of Commerce-funded pro-Common Core groups were allowed to speak and offer workshops at publicly funded “parental engagement” conferences on the wonders of Common Core.

At a state board of education meeting, after spending three minutes testifying as a giant clock ticked down the seconds, I listened incredulously as one board of education member congratulated herself and colleagues for allowing me and parents and volunteers three minutes to present our case without being “thrown in jail.” It was a display of the wonder of “democracy” she declared, after allowing a state employee to wax on for 20 minutes about the upcoming “parental engagement” conference where Dana Rickman, of the Chamber of Commerce funded nonprofit floundered about, bamboozling parents about the wonders of Common Core.

IRS concern? For the privilege of addressing the state school board in the state in which I lived about how I thought Common Core would not prepare students for freshman composition and for daring to express my opinion in writing, I was presented by the IRS, 18 months after my application had been submitted and my $850 application check cashed, with the first information request (to be completed in about 2 weeks pronto!). Item 5 from Carly Young in the notorious Cincinnati office demanded:

It appears that a substantial portion of your website is devoted to your opposition to Common Core, including discussions of its negative impact and legislation intended to withdraw states from Common Core. You also provided a direct link to a website that engages in legislative and/or political activities. (See attached pages from your website.)

This activity appears to influence legislation, however [sic] you checked no to Part VIII, line 2a on your Form 1023. Provide the following information.

a. Describe these activities in greater detail, including the percentage of your total expenditures and total time you intend to spend on these activities in the future. For purposes of calculating the percentage of expenditures, allocate salaries, administrative, overhead, and other general expenditures to these activities using a reasonable method. For purposes of calculating the percentage of time, include volunteer as well as employee hours.

b. Submit representative copies of the materials you prepare or distribute in furtherance of these activities.

Hmm, okay, let’s see. I took the train to the state capitol and board of education headquarters in downtown Atlanta ($5.00 round trip). I did not have at my disposal the school buses that were parked around the Georgia state capitol during a hearing on an anti-Common Core bill and that had been ordered by a school superintendent. Nor did I have job-fearing public school teachers testifying for my viewpoint.

As I described in several articles, I and parents, teachers, and tea party members were told we should be glad for the privilege of having our freedom after being allowed to address our representatives in increments of one to three minutes. Of course, after the self-congratulations on the “democratic process” and after being ignored, all anti-Common Core legislation was defeated.

In contrast, pro-Common Core lawmakers gave due deference to principals of non-profit groups like the Chamber of Commerce-supported Georgia Partnership for Excellence in Education (GPEE).

As I described in another article, GPEE then sent Dana Rickman to bamboozle parents selected by school districts about Common Core. This was done in a public facility with public support, ultimately.

The federal Common Core standards themselves were developed by well-connected non-profits with the support primarily of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which then funded Chambers of Commerce, which then funded groups like GPEE, which then lobbied against citzens’ wishes and left them with the final bill for Common Core. I dared to testify against Common Core and thought that those who contributed to help me do my work should enjoy the same tax exemptions as Bill and Melinda Gates.

We did win 501(c)(3) status as I announced before–but not before undergoing costly delays and harassment.

To read more about the latest developments on the IRS case, go here

To read the list of names, go here.

Here are some of my Dissident Prof posts about Common Core:

Contraries, May 20, 2016

Contraries, Dec. 22, 2015

October 3, 2014 as well as professors of philosophy who specialize in “white privilege,” “teacher ambassadors” and the terrible outcomes of this administration’s policies, and on.

Corruption: Millions in business loans to Muslim refugees not tracked by Obama administration

June 11, 2016/in Budget and Finance, Economy, Featured, Policy, Taxes, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Ann Corcoran

I’m dashing out the door and cannot do this incredible work by Judicial Watch justice, but wanted to get it up now hot off the presses!

For years I’ve wondered how you get at this information on special loans for special peopleand now I know—someone does a Freedom of Information Act request (a specialty of JW as Hillary knows so well!).

Here is how the story begins:

The U.S. government gives refugees on public assistance special “loans” of up to $15,000 to start a business but fails to keep track of defaults that could translate into huge losses for American taxpayers, records obtained by Judicial Watch reveal. The cash is distributed through a program called Microenterprise Development run by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Refugee Resettlement.

Since 2010 the program has granted thousands of loans to refugees that lack the financial resources, credit history or personal assets to qualify for business loans from commercial banks. Most if not all the recipients already get assistance or subsidies from the government, according to the qualification guidelines set by the Microenterprise Development Program. It’s a risky operation that blindly gives public funds to poor foreign nationals with no roots in the U.S. and there’s no follow up to assure the cash is paid back. The idea behind it is to “equip refugees with the skills they need to become successful entrepreneurs” by helping them expand or maintain their own business and become financially independent.

You gotta read this, continue here.

If you are looking for an organization to donate to—Judicial Watch is it!

Afterthought: Repeatedly you see news stories that refugees are opening new businesses at record rates and thus boosting the local economy. (Opening businesses with your financial help.) This information makes me wonder how many of those new businesses survive for even a year or two?

Sweden took in 162,000 Muslim migrants in 2015 — 494 got jobs

June 5, 2016/in Culture War, Must Read, Policy, Politics, Religion, Taxes/by Jihad Watch

“Fight those who do not believe in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, even if they are of the People of the Book, until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Qur’an 9:29).

In lieu of the jizya, there is welfare. It is the duty of the Infidels to pay for the upkeep of Muslims, as that Qur’an verse makes clear. UK jhadist Anjem Choudary said in February 2013:

“We are on Jihad Seekers Allowance, We take the Jizya (protection money paid to Muslims by non-Muslims) which is ours anyway. The normal situation is to take money from the Kafir (non-Muslim), isn’t it? So this is normal situation. They give us the money. You work, give us the money. Allah Akbar, we take the money. Hopefully there is no one from the DSS (Department of Social Security) listening. Ah, but you see people will say you are not working. But the normal situation is for you to take money from the Kuffar (non-Muslim) So we take Jihad Seeker’s Allowance.”

“Sweden Took 162k Refugees Last Year, 494 Got Jobs,” by Jacob Bojesson, Daily Caller, June 1, 2016 (thanks to Steve):

Just 494 out of the 162,000 refugees who applied for asylum in Sweden in 2015 have managed to get a job, according to government figures released Tuesday.

Refugees are eligible to work while their applications are pending as long as they can show a valid identification document and haven’t been rejected for asylum in the past. A majority of asylum seekers would qualify for a work permit, but the national migration office was only capable of issuing one to one-third due to the high demand.

“There was an incredible amount of people who applied for asylum in Sweden, and for us to be able to register everyone we had to disregard certain areas, and employment was one of them,” Lisa Bergstrand, officer at the Swedish immigration office, told Swedish public broadcaster SVT. “We do what we’ve been told to do.”

Getting migrants off welfare and into the job market has been a problem for most European countries during the ongoing refugee crisis.

Germany announced reforms to its labor laws in May to make it easier for migrants to enter the job market. Migrants are exempt from minimum wage regulations and thousands of “one-euro jobs” — in which refugees can work for low wages of between $1.13 and $2.80 per hour — have been created.

The center-left government in Sweden has proposed a reform to asylum laws to force migrants into the work force. If an applicant can’t support himself after three years in the country, they won’t be eligible for permanent residency if the reforms pass.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Germany To Strip Job Protection From Citizens To Make Room For Refugees

San Jose: Muslim chases, tackles Trump supporter after rally, then brags on Twitter

‘Forgiving’ Government Employees’ Student Debt Is a Bad Idea by Jesse Saffron

June 3, 2016/in Culture War, Education, Taxes/by Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

Bills filed in the North Carolina General Assembly would provide student loan debt relief to “public interest” attorneys and to K-12 teachers. Both proposals are ill-advised.

Rather than erase debt for those in politically connected groups, lawmakers should work to address the root causes of skyrocketing college costs, which are borne by all North Carolina students through the tuition and fees they pay each semester. Of course, state taxpayers also cover those costs, with roughly $2.6 billion allotted annually to the University of North Carolina System.

One of the bills, H.B. 1015, would allocate $500,000 each year to the North Carolina Legal Education Assistance Fund—NC LEAF—to restore a loan repayment assistance program for public interest attorneys. (From 2002-03 through 2010-11, the program received more than $3 million from the state.)

In a Pope Center interview, the bill’s sponsor, Representative Sarah Stevens (R), said the funds would “entice attorneys to stay in the public defender’s office or District Attorney’s office” by helping to pay loans of staffers who earn less than $50,000. Stevens said she filed the bill at the behest of the N.C. Courts Commission, which is comprised of politicians (including Stevens), judges, district attorneys, and bar representatives.

Such loan forgiveness, however, is already offered at the federal level and is therefore duplicative. The Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, created in 2007, wipes out debt of qualified employees after ten years. In addition, income-based federal loan repayment programs created under the Obama Administration allow recent graduates to significantly reduce their monthly payments.

Because of such federal programs, even individuals with six-figure debt (the NC Legal Education Assistance Foundation—which would distribute LEAF funds—says the average debt of recent law school graduates is $110,000) can pay affordable monthly installments, and after twenty years have their outstanding balance erased.

Besides program duplication, publicly funded loan forgiveness presents an ethical problem. As my colleague George Leef argued last November, it is “extremely wasteful to lure students into high-cost degree programs with easy-to-get government loans, then saddle the taxpayers with the unpaid balance when the student later defaults or manages to qualify for loan forgiveness. That artificially inflates the demand for college credentials and helps to accelerate the constant increase in the cost of higher education.”

Since 1991 the state’s Legal Education Assistance Foundation has provided more than $5.8 million to more than 500 public interest attorneys. Almost half of that money came from donations from private law firms and various state attorney associations. Instead of shifting the majority of the costs of this program to taxpayers, it is better to let charity and attorney associations pick up the tab.

Another dubious proposal, House Bill 1031, would create the North Carolina Help Educators with Loan Payment Fund (HELP Fund) and dedicate $38.5 million of state lottery profits to reduce teachers’ debt burdens. The idea is that doing so would help to keep more educators in the state and address teacher shortages. The State Education Assistance Authority would operate the new government program, to pay up to $10,000 per year, for up to four years, of a teacher’s debt. Disbursements would depend on an individual’s ability to pay, as well as on whether he or she is assigned to a school in a low-income neighborhood or a rural part of the state. Teachers would have to stay in North Carolina for four years to receive loan forgiveness.

Defending the proposal in an interview with the Winston-Salem Journal, bill co-sponsor Representative Ed Hanes (D-Forsyth) said, “Our public school teachers are being financially squeezed at every turn. While we are working on raises, they simply aren’t coming fast enough. Our teachers and their families need relief.”

But Rep. Hanes is mistaken. According to the National Education Association, since 2013 North Carolina has topped the nation in terms of teacher pay increases. And as John Hood noted in Raleigh’s News & Observer, when factors such as cost of living and teacher age/experience are accounted for, it’s clear that state leaders have—contrary to criticism from left-leaning interest groups and teacher unions—treated educator salaries as a top priority.

Perhaps the biggest problem with Hanes’s proposal is that it is not tied to teacher quality. That was the argument made by Dr. Terry Stoops, the John Locke Foundation’s Director of Education Studies, in a recent Pope Center interview.

“The program would be more palatable if it guaranteed that only exceptional teachers would receive loan repayment,” he said. “I worry, however, that the program would benefit mediocre teachers, rather than those with a strong track record of raising student achievement.”

Aside from teacher quality, would the HELP Fund increase teacher retention?

“There is a limited body of research on the use of loan repayment as a teacher recruitment and retention tool, particularly for math, science, and special education teachers and/or those who teach in a low-performing school,” Stoops said. “It might make more sense to transfer the funds to the North Carolina Education Endowment Fund—Lt. Governor Dan Forest’s performance pay initiative—than to establish a new program and agency to run it.”

State policymakers are right to focus on student debt, which is a problem for many of North Carolina’s college graduates, not just those in teaching and legal professions. But a focus on the front-end of the problem, rising college costs, makes more sense.

Across the UNC System’s 16 schools, cost drivers include a rapidly swelling higher education bureaucracy; high instruction expenses resulting from low faculty teaching loads; and the continuation of low-enrollment degree programs. By addressing those issues, state policymakers would help reduce costs and student debt loads in the long run.

Providing special interest groups with a debt bailout would not.

This article appeared at the Pope Center.

Jesse Saffron

Jesse Saffron is a writer and editor at the Pope Center.

Government Shouldn’t Decide Who Uses Which Bathroom by Doug Bandow

May 16, 2016/in Culture War, Featured, Healthcare, Policy, Politics, Taxes/by Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

There’s Simply No Single Right Answer.

The North Carolina legislature voted in March to require that people use the bathroom designated for their biological sex. The state was criticized for violating gay and transgender rights. The Obama administration may cut federal education, housing, and transportation aid to North Carolina in response.

Bathroom use has been an issue in other states, including Illinois, Texas, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Kansas, Missouri, Mississippi, Tennessee, and South Dakota. Legislation proposed and passed differs by state on how to define gender — ranging from chromosomes to birth certificate to anatomical sex. Obviously, people can’t change their chromosomes. They can, however, change their gender identity and its associated physical traits, which is where the controversy begins.

The president’s position appears to be that people have a legal right to use the bathroom of their choice, regardless of their gender, however defined. With the club of federal funding, he is attempting to socially engineer America.

This is central planning run riot.

Good people should approach anyone in the midst of gender change with humility and compassion. For most of us, it is unimaginable what would cause someone to desire to shift genders. It is a personal issue of the most profound nature. It shouldn’t be debated and decided in the public square.

And politicians aren’t doing a good job addressing the question. It may not make sense to most people for someone who looks like a guy to use the ladies room, however he sees himself, but neither does it seem right to force someone who looks like a guy to use the ladies room because he was born female. And it certainly makes no sense to let one person or group of people force everyone else to comply with their preference, even when that group is a majority of voters.

Bathroom use shouldn’t be a question for bureaucrats, politicians, lawyers, or judges to answer.

Who should use which bathroom? If it’s in your home, you decide. Likewise, a private company or other private organization should set the rules for its building. What does the owner want? What do customers or members prefer? What is the best way to balance competing interests given the community’s dominant moral sense?

Most people in most places probably believe that people should use the bathroom that matches their physical characteristics, whether changed or not. And we know from the current debate that many (if not most) people prefer not to share a bathroom with someone who appears to be of the other sex, irrespective of the gender with which he or she identifies.

However, one can imagine a “progressive” individual, business owner, or group deciding otherwise. And whether that decision reflected special solicitude for vulnerable individuals or a desire to shape public attitudes, it would be no cause for complaint.

There’s simply no single right answer — and no justification for government to intervene in such intimate, private decisions.

What about bathrooms in public facilities, such as a government office, school, airport, or military base? These are all theoretically “owned” by everyone. Everyone has a stake in the issue — and thus a “right” of some sort — but there’s no accepted, overarching principle that determines with whom you must share a bathroom. A local majority may need to rule in such cases, but someone will always be unhappy with the result, especially if the relevant decision-makers are far away, protected from the consequences.

For Washington pols to insist that, say, teenage girls in a small town in downstate Illinois accept as a bathroom mate a child who appears to be a boy is an act of extraordinary chutzpah. The girls’ refusal to do so does not necessarily reflect malevolent discrimination; it may simply be an understandable reaction to basic biology. Politicians have no right to impose their particular agenda.

Of course, differing opinions don’t justify ignoring the interests of those in the midst of gender change, whether it involves surgery or not. Access to a bathroom is critical for almost everything people do — going to school, working outside your home, going shopping, and traveling. Some kind of accommodation should be made. But what kind?

Again, there’s no single solution that fits every public establishment, let alone private entity, across the country. Larger buildings could offer more options, such as separate bathrooms, like family-friendly single facilities. Communities and student bodies differ in attitudes and openness. Even those who are transgender may desire different outcomes in different circumstances.

Most important, all participants need to demonstrate understanding and sensitivity. No one of goodwill wants to add to the distress of someone changing gender. At the same time, those going through the process should not try to use government to impose their preference on schoolmates, neighbors, coworkers, and others. People should look for alternatives and compromises to work it out. Compromise, compassion, private property rights, and decentralized decision-making are enough to resolve this issue.

Politicians already control education, manage health care, provide social services, and underwrite businesses — and now they even decide who should use which bathroom. It’s time to return life’s most important decisions to the people. A good place to start would be keeping government out of our bathrooms.

Doug Bandow

Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and the author of a number of books on economics and politics. He writes regularly on military non-interventionism.

RELATED ARTICLES:

New Democrat Party: The Red-Green-Rainbow Troika

What will happen when a Muslim girl showers with a male who thinks he’s a girl?

Three reasons why Trump’s support of transgender bathrooms is wrong

EDITORS NOTE: Congressman Vern Buchanan (FL-District 16) did an email survey of constituents on the issue of transgender bathrooms. Here is the question and responses as of May 16th, 2016:

Do you support the new Obama administration directive requiring all public schools to allow transgender students to use bathrooms and locker rooms of their choice?
	Strongly support	23.16%
	Somewhat support	8.39%
	Somewhat oppose	5.59%
	Strongly oppose	62.84%

Trump Actually Isn’t the First to Threaten Default on U.S. Debt by Caroline Baum

May 11, 2016/in Economy, Policy, Politics, Taxes, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

Who’s the Real “King of Debt”?

The outrage was palpable. Here was Donald Trump, l’Enfant Terrible of the 2016 presidential campaign, who has offended everyone from women to Muslims to Mexicans, going where no candidate had dared to go, threatening the unthinkable: a default on the national debt.

“I would borrow, knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal,” Trump said in a CNBC interview last week.

Alternatively, he said the U.S. government could make a Trump-type deal with its creditors to repurchase outstanding debt at less than face value, the equivalent of default.

No one took him seriously, of course. When the U.S. government was late in redeeming Treasury bills in 1979, the result of a back-office glitch, yields shot up 60 basis points. With $19.2 trillion in debt outstanding, of which $13.8 trillion is held by the public — foreigners hold about 45 percent of publicly held debt — the last thing a potential president should intimate, even in jest, is default.

“Such remarks by a major presidential candidate have no modern precedent,” the New York Times tut-tutted in a May 7 article.

What about remarks by an actual occupant of the White House? On several occasions over his two terms in office, President Barack Obama and his Treasury secretary — both Tim Geithner and Jack Lew — have used the threat of default to pressure the Republicans to raise the statutory debt ceiling. I have arguedthat the leader of a debtor nation, proprietor of the world’s reserve currency, should never throw the “D” word around lightly. The president of the United States of America should assure holders of Treasury debt that the nation will make timely payment of principal and interest under any and all circumstances.

During the 2013 debt-ceiling showdown, Obama and Lew skillfully used the threat of default to turn public sentiment against the GOP, which was holding the debt ceiling hostage to other priorities. Yields on very short-term T-bills shot up as much as 30 basis points. Where was Paul Krugman’s “horrified amazement” — his description of the cognoscenti’s reaction to Trump’s default ruminations — back then? (Blaming the Republicans, of course.)

In any given month, the Treasury takes in far more in tax receipts than it owes in interest. Yes, Treasury would have to stiff Social Security recipients and other beneficiaries of government programs, but that doesn’t qualify as a default as far as Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s rating agencies are concerned.

Treasury has said publicly — in 2011, 2013 and again in 2015, when the U.S. was up against its borrowing limit — that it cannot prioritize payments. In other words, it does not have the authority to decide to pay bondholders and not military salaries; to pay interest to the People’s Bank of China and not make disability payments. What’s more, the department claims its computers would have to be re-programmed in order to select which of some 80 million monthly payments to process.

However, in a 2014 letter to Jeb Hensarling, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, an aide to Secretary Lew admitted that it was technically possible for the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to make principal and interest payments on U.S. Treasury securities while the Treasury halted other payments. The aide stressed that any such protocol was untested.

The Government Accountability Office, formerly known as the General Accounting Office, has a different interpretation on prioritization. Asked by Congress in 1985 about the Treasury secretary’s authority to prioritize payments absent the authority to borrow, the GAO said Treasury was free to determine in which order the outstanding obligations should be paid “to best serve the interests of the United States.”

If late payment of interest due to a computer glitch can send T-bill rates soaring, imagine the damage an actual default could do. The U.S. would have to pay substantially higher rates to borrow, which would make future deficits an even bigger burden. When it comes to debt markets, confidence lost is not confidence easily regained.

Trump’s latest verbal escapade on a U.S. debt deal with creditors has even less chance of coming to fruition than making Mexico pay for that wall he plans to build. What I don’t understand is, where were the economists, pundits and journalists when Obama used the threat of default, even if he didn’t mean it, to his own political advantage?

OK, you say, it’s not the same thing. Trump was just being Trump, after all, unwittingly demonstrating his policy ignorance and his complete disregard for the system.

And what about Obama’s insincere threats of default? That wasn’t reckless? Before a sitting president threatens the unthinkable, he should consider how it might translate into Chinese.

This article first appeared at E21.

Caroline Baum

Caroline Baum is an award-winning financial journalist and contributor to e21 and Market Watch.

The Congressional Budge Process: ‘The Fiscal Equivalent of Chutzpah’ [Video]

May 10, 2016/in Economy, Policy, Politics, Taxes/by Dr. Rich Swier

WASHINGTON, D.C. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Stan Collender, nationally recognized expert on the federal budget, author of Forbes blog “Capital Gains and Games”, and Executive Vice President at Qorvis MSLGROUP sat with Chuck Conconi on this week’s episode of Focus Washington. Collender discussed the ins and outs of the budget process and prospects for compromise under the next administration.

As general election season approaches and the country hones in on the two likely nominees for the race, the differences between a Trump budget or a Clinton budget merits discussion. Collender pointed out that, however, that regardless of who will next sit in the Oval Office, the process goes beyond the total authority of the President; Clinton or Trump, the responsibility of passing a budget will still be with a split congress, making the chances of four more years of budget stalemate high.

Collender recently testified in a Senate Budget Committee hearing on just this subject. As he recounted to Chuck, “I told them this process is broken down and it’s broken down because you have refused to implement it, so the idea you’re holding a hearing now to talk about better ways to implement it is crazy. I called it the fiscal equivalent of chutzpah.”

The failure of the budget process reflects the highly partisan nature of politics today. As Collender pointed out, a lack of coherent priorities or decisions by the legislative branch paralyzes the fiscal policy of the nation – and this is a fact that is not likely to change in the coming four years.

To watch the full interview:

About MSLGROUP

MSLGROUP is Publicis Groupe’s strategic communications and engagement group, advisors in all aspects of communication strategy: from consumer PR to financial communications, from public affairs to reputation management and from crisis communications to experiential marketing and events. With more than 3,000 people across close to 100 offices worldwide, MSLGROUP is also the largest PR network in Europe, fast-growing China and India. The group offers strategic planning and counsel, insight-guided thinking and big, compelling ideas – followed by thorough execution.

About Publicis Groupe

Publicis Groupe [Euronext Paris FR0000130577, CAC 40] is a global leader in marketing, communication, and business transformation. In a world marked by increased convergence and consumer empowerment, Publicis Groupe offers a full range of services and skills: digital, technology & consulting with Publicis.Sapient (SapientNitro, Sapient Global Markets, Sapient Government Services, Razorfish Global, DigitasLBi, Rosetta) – the world’s largest most forward-thinking digitally centered platform focused exclusively on digital transformation in an always-on world – as well as creative networks such as BBH, Leo Burnett, Publicis Worldwide, Saatchi & Saatchi, public affairs, corporate communications and events with MSLGROUP, ad tech solutions with VivaKi, media strategy, planning and buying through Starcom MediaVest Group and ZenithOptimedia, healthcare communications, with Publicis Healthcare Communications Group (PHCG), and finally, brand asset production with Prodigious. Present in 108 countries, the Groupe employs more than 76,000 professionals.

Small town school district has students speaking 34 different languages!

May 9, 2016/in Education, Immigration, Policy, Taxes/by Ann Corcoran

And, one in four students is in an ELL class.

We haven’t mentioned Lewiston much recently (no Somali kids have burned down apartment buildings there in the last few years).

This is your usual fluffy story about coming to America and I’m just posting it to tell you about the school system challenges your town will face if it “welcomes” refugees this year.

Besides the expense to the school system, this family obviously entered the US illegally and are in Maine where the welfare is good for so-called ‘asylum seekers.’ They are hoping to persuade an immigration judge that they are legitimate refugees and they have been told to go to Maine to wait out the legal process.

BTW, the article tells us Dad had a job selling cellphones and computers throughout Europe, so why didn’t he simply take the kids on one of his trips to Europe and ask for asylum there? There must be much more to his ‘story.’

From the Lewiston-Auburn Sun Journal:

LEWISTON — Joao Rodrigues and his children moved to Maine this past winter from Africa.

His children are among the city’s 1,374 students in the English Language Learner program. One out of every four Lewiston students is in the ELL program; most are Somali children, but ELL students speak a total of 34 languages.

[….]

Speaking Portuguese and communicating through an interpreter, he shared how he and his children fled their native Angola, a country of unrest and violence. They escaped to the Democratic Republic of the Congo before making their way to the United States. [“making their way” is code for arriving through questionable means—ed]

They arrived in New York in January with nothing. A pastor there recommended he take his family to Maine, where there are African communities and where he could get help.

See our very large archive on the Somali capital of New England—Lewiston—here.

And, click here, for much more on Maine the welfare magnet where the governor was trying to slow the giveaways to non-citizens, but not sure he ever succeeded.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Rutland, VT refugee controversy confirms what we have been saying for years!

85% of Trump supporters believe Middle East refugees pose threat to America, but…

It Wasn’t Broke, so they Shouldn’t Have Fixed It

May 9, 2016/in Economy, Policy, Regulation, Taxes/by Ron Edwards

The United States of America used to be a nation where things got done. No matter what the challenge, everything from natural disasters to overcoming negative civic and political issues, the normal inclination was to start over and get it right. If something was working just fine, usually common sense dictated it was to be left alone, at least until a superior method of operation was developed.

Take the United States of America for example. She was founded upon superior values and principles. Some of which included the supreme right of sovereign individuals to live according to their own God or self-directed path. For the first time in human history, the United states was comprised of a set of economic principles and personal liberties that obliterated the worldwide concepts of government domination, or an equally abusive caste system. Those dominated by cradle to grave government or a monarchy simply existed from day to day and were under the strain of not having enough to eat. That was only one of many problems people suffered with no way out.

Venezuela is a nation that at one time was fairly prosperous and the citizenry usually had more than enough to eat. But in more recent years, cruel communist dictators with no respect toward individual rights have enacted brutal economic, property, religious, healthcare, agricultural, education and media controls brought that onetime prosperous to a screeching halt. In fact, Venezuela has not only been halted, but in actuality, she is hurtling backwards. People have been rioting in the streets, seeking the last vestiges of food supplies to raid do to abusive government induced starvation.

Venezuela is a perfect text book case of what the United States should not be doing.

America the beautiful has been generally blessed with a system of market based economic principles that favored equal opportunity for those willing to work for it. Unfortunately, in more recent decades, the already difficult job of creating opportunities and benefiting for your labor has been hampered by brutal government intrusions via regulations. So now they make it impossible for America to win on the world economic stage.

Either purposely or through sheer ignorance, America’s course of direction has steadily drifted from a free market economy based upon reward for effort, into punishment for trying. At every turn, small business owners are treated by government like they are criminals for simply attempting to be successful. Many local and state governments throughout the union are horrendously hard on small business owners. They often enact unfairly high taxes or fees on everything from waste baskets, to needed equipment.

Even the big boys are being choked out of the American economy. Eaton Corporation of Cleveland recently announced a world headquarters more to Ireland. Carrier, the giant air conditioning manufacturer will soon leave business friendly Indiana and move to Mexico. The reason being, the highest corporate tax rate on earth and regulations that are much to oppressive.

The government goal of forcing equal results through redistribution of wealth and artificial increases in the minimum wage will continue to cause reductions in the number of entry level jobs. Unfortunately, those are most needed by both teenagers just starting out and lower skilled older adults. These efforts to fix what was not broken help drastically affected America. She evolved from being the world’s manufacturing floor and most innovative economy into an increasingly undesirable place to conduct business activities.

As a result of fixing what was not broken, America is now broken financially, morally, economically, militarily, educationally and racially. She can only be truly repaired now, by a concerted effort reestablish the enormously successful principles the Founding Fathers enacted long ago. They include a firm recognition of the unalienable God given rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness and or Property. There also has to be an immediate working plan to reduce the enormous economic and Constitution violating federal government.

For the good of the future of our republic and to truly fix America, now that she has been broken, the importance of real education must not be overlooked. What is taught to one generation dictates what direction the nation takes in the next. Our current broken state can be fixed with a genuine return to high quality education, critical thinking, and true American history.

Last but not least, America’s first president George Washington along with the majority of the Founding Fathers had an unyielding faith in the God who shed his grace upon the United States. They left warnings of the negative consequences we are witnessing today, if our republic turned away from the ways of God. However, I firmly believe that if America (We the People) wisely seeks God’s forgiveness and repent of her wayward ways, she will once again be the glorious shining city on a hill nation under God, Indivisible with Liberty and Justice for all.

Obamacare pays $3.5 Billion to Bailout Insurers/Hide Losses as this ‘Healthcare’ Plan Fails

May 4, 2016/in Healthcare, Must Read, Policy, Politics, Taxes/by Dr. Richard Ruhling, MD

Obama’s Administration has funneled $3.5 billion from taxpayers to cover the losses of major insurance companies that helped write Obamacare. This is a classic case of corporate welfare in Washington, an illegal move that most Americans disdain.

Obamacare forced Americans to pay more for their healthcare with higher premiums and deductibles, and now they’re paying for it twice. It bothers those who saw this coming and now the program is riddled with cost overruns and unworkable mandates.

It’s bad enough to have limited choice, the loss of trusted doctors, and higher costs. Now Obamacare is collapsing and taxpayers are hit with the bill. Americans don’t want to bailout giant insurance companies as a result of a law that those companies helped to write.

Americans for Prosperity is the source of this information and they have made it easy to contact our congressman at Action Center.

And it’s not just a problem of paying double for a broken plan. America doesn’t realize that Big Pharma was also a major contributer to the 20,000 page monstrosity of a law that makes prescription drugs available at tax-payers expense.

Adverse Drug Reactions have made medical care the leading cause of illness and death, says Dr. Richard Ruhling, an MD who was board-certified in Internal Medicine and taught Health Science at Loma Linda University, now retired.

Ruhling says he visited US Senate offices with medical literature to show Rx drugs are #1 risk until one senator said, “You are wasting your time—they own us,” speaking of drug company donations to their re-election campaign.

Ruhling is 74 and has only taken one prescription in the past 50 years. He wonders why he should pay taxes for healthcare of people who choose to eat, drink, smoke and sex as they please. He says true health care is 90% wise choices in what we put in our mouths and getting some exercise.

As an aid, he recommends the DVD, “Eating” that has Bill Clinton’s cardiologist, Dr. Esselstyn from the Cleveland Clinic. Five minutes of it may be seen on his website, http://RichardRuhling.com

EDITORS NOTE: Dr. Richard Ruhling is author of Why You Shouldn’t Ask Your Doctor available on Amazon.com. The book is free on every Saturdays in May.

Obama’s Illegal Aliens Disguised as Refugees

May 2, 2016/in Featured, Immigration, Policy, Politics, Taxes/by Ann Corcoran

Below is the press release from the Center for Immigration Studies this morning. In fact this effort to expand the definition of who is a refugee is going on world wide as so-called ‘Unaccompanied Alien Children’ (largely teenage boys) are also flooding into Europe. It is not a coincidence!

Unaccompanied Alien Children arrive at U.S. border in 2014.

For nearly 9 years I’ve watched the definition of the word ‘refugee’ be stretched like a rubber band until now most in the media think that anyone on the move for any reason is a refugee!

But, that is exactly what the No-Borders gang is pushing for. When you read this remember that a legitimate refugee must prove that he/she has been persecuted for one of several reasons (such as race, religion, political persuasion).

Someone running from crime and wanting a better life does NOT a refugee make!

WASHINGTON, DC (May 2, 2016) — The Center for Immigration Studies has released a new report, “Welcoming Unaccompanied Alien Children to the United States”, analyzing the Obama administration’s persistent efforts to relocate the children of Central American illegal aliens to the United States. The report is online at http://cis.org/Welcoming-Unaccompanied-Alien-Children-to-the-United-States.

When the illegal flow of mostly teen-age boys from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador across the border reached record levels in 2014, the administration at first tried to arrange for them to stay by presenting them as victims of trafficking. But for the immigration benefits of being trafficked to apply, there must be coercion and exploitation; this was not the case.

Next, the administration established the Central American Minors Refugee/Parole Program, to fly the young people directly to the United States. But this program requires that the family members to whom the children are delivered have some form of legal status in the U.S. Because the majority of the minors’ family members in the U.S. are illegal immigrants, the program has not been widely used.

Thus the latest initiative: a new “family reunification program” specifically designed for illegal aliens and their children. In collaboration with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the administration is planning to enable illegal aliens to have their children brought to them in the U.S., with the minors labelled as “refugees.” However, by the UN’s own admission most of these children do not qualify as refugees.

The cost to American taxpayers of reuniting illegal aliens with the children they left behind is substantial. The FY 2017 budget request for the Unaccompanied Children (UC) program totals $1.321 billion, making the cost for one UAC likely to be more than $17,000. This is more than double the cost per UAC in 2010.

Nayla Rush, a senior researcher at the Center and author of the report, writes: “We can empathize with children wishing to reunite with family members who make it to the United States before them. … We can also, however, question this administration’s policies and motives and wonder if it is in the best interest of the American people to welcome these children here. … We might even call this program what it really is: a family reunification program specially crafted for illegal aliens and their children under the cover of refugee resettlement.”

(Emphasis mine)