View Of and Advice For Trump! Robots and Job Creation! Save Me From Intellectual Elitism!

Socialism, Bernie youth and intellectual elites!
===

Yes, longer than usual but I believe has a lot of meritorious commentary.

=====
I read these articles yesterday and then reread it and decided to post  in full because they point out how fragile Capitalism's imminent position is when it comes to  determining the continuance of our economic lifestyle. 

According to the author: 

"To do that, it needs three things: a willingness to use regulation as a tool of control; the power to tax and subsidize; and a decline in the acceptability of capitalism, especially among the classes that have in the past benefited from its enormous productive power." (See 1 below.)

More from Mauldin on wealth divide etc. (See 1a below.)
===
Trump versus Nixon! (See 2 below.)

Advice for Trump on how to lick the Left's identity politics problem. (See 2a below.)
====
Cole Porter and The Iran Deal. (See 3 below.)
====
Memri Director, Andrey Kortunov, analyses Russia's Middle East strategy after Syrian involvement and withdrawal.  (See 4 below.)
===
More regarding robots and job creation. (See 5 below.)
====
The New York Times was established by German Jews who have demonstrated they are sensitive about their religious connection.

The Ochs and Sulzberger families have wanted to assimilate ever since arriving in America. Their insecurity and feelings of intellectual superiority drives their editorial policies and reporting.

Save me from apologists and intellectual elitists. How pathetic. (See 6 below.)
===
As I have noted in previous memos. (See 7,7a, 7b, and 7c below.)
===
FRANKLIN GRAHAM, BILLY'S SON, and I tend to concur. (See 8 below.)
===

Dick

===============================================================================
1) Clueless Capitalists

What has happened to the traditional reservoir of support for America's market economy?

By IRWIN M. STELZER

To Ted Cruz capitalism is a wonder, as indeed it is, but also a merciless Darwinian process that requires, among other things, deportation sans pitié, taxing what workers buy rather than the incomes of the wealthy, abolishing the sensibly porous but nevertheless useful fence that assigns some territory to religion without making it a key feature of democratic government, and featuring disdain for the political process that underpins capitalism but requires pragmatic adjustment and, dare I say it, compromise if it is to continue to play that role.Karl Marx, Joseph Schumpeter, and Irving Kristol have two things in common. All three recognized the extraordinary ability of market capitalism to produce goods, services, and wealth. And they hoped, believed, and feared, respectively, that capitalism contained the seeds of its own destruction.

The time may have come when these keen observers of the capitalist system are being proved right. Not because the state will have taken over all the means of production and distribution, as Communists and socialists would have it—or merely the "commanding heights of the economy," as Lenin would have it. The state no longer needs to own the means of production and distribution in order to control the economy, allocate capital to whatever purposes the state deems most desirable, and set prices, including the price of labor. To do that, it needs three things: a willingness to use regulation as a tool of control; the power to tax and subsidize; and a decline in the acceptability of capitalism, especially among the classes that have in the past benefited from its enormous productive power.

Donald Trump sees capitalism as a system in which businesses succeed by buying the approbation of politicians in power, no matter which party. Dollars buy access to those in positions to confer favor, no matter their beliefs. Doing business requires something other than the best product at the best price; it requires favors from the people in a position to grant them. His candor on the subject is not an adequate defense. Hillary Clinton takes a different view. The great wealth produced by capitalism is a sort of honey pot, and the game for a political leader is to figure out how to dip into it. Perhaps it takes getting elected to a high office; or establishing a seemingly charitable foundation; or getting in a position to dole out favors and collect IOUs to be cashed at just the right time; or linking all of the above and shaping it into a single large spoon with which to do the dipping, leaving no trace, as our colleague Daniel Halper lays out in detail in Clinton, Inc.: The Audacious Rebuilding of a Political Machine.

To Bernie Sanders, perhaps the most transparent of the lot, capitalism is a system to be changed by a "revolution." No, not the bloody sort practiced by his socialist predecessors when he was honeymooning in the Soviet Union. And no, not one engineered by dispossessed horny-handed sons of toil seeking to be freed of their chains, but by a young army of privileged college students who should be forgiven for they know not what they do, owing to the absence of courses in Western civilization and an appalling lack of interest in the work of the Founding Fathers.

In short, no need to seek among the various aspirants to the leadership of our nation anyone with a belief in capitalism as it has until recently been understood: a system in which individual producers compete to offer individual consumers the best product at the best price, staying within the law while doing so, a law that introduces into the system noneconomic social values agreeable to a majority of the population. No need to hope that we will find such a one as Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a vigorous interventionist but one who sought to save, not destroy, capitalism by making markets work better to produce goods and jobs, and distribute essential benefits such as electricity and decent housing more widely. Or a John F. Kennedy, who understood that the purpose of tax policy was to keep the goose laying golden eggs. Or a Ronald Reagan, who understood that government is more often the problem than a solution, and that it could better provide solutions by making the supply side of the economy more supple rather than by artificially manipulating the demand side. All in their own way, and in all probability well aware of what they were doing, were seeking to preserve capitalism, by reforming it if necessary.

Some overstepped at times, some fell asleep at the switch at times and were too timid to deploy the tools at their disposal, but none sought what Trump, Clinton, Cruz, and Sanders have in mind for us: a stint in office that has no consistent understanding or fondness for the traditional underpinnings of America's functioning capitalist system.

No need here to detail the many ways in which government has used its power to regulate by replacing capitalism's market with rules, despite the fact that the problems could be met by greater, rather than less reliance on prices. Consumers are content to have their electricity made by burning coal, yet instead of making them pay for the environmental impact we will simply regulate the industry out of existence. Consumers make it clear in the market that they prefer large to small, European-style vehicles, but manufacturers are instead told what mix of the two they must turn out. Consumers want to buy health insurance policies that do not have premiums inflated with reimbursements for services they neither want nor need, but regulation prohibits the sale of such policies, which insurers would dearly love to make available to consumers who would dearly love to buy them. Homeowners who were led to believe that in a free-market capitalist system their homes were their castles find that government can snatch those homes away to permit developers to build parking lots or shopping malls in order to increase the tax revenues of the government that did the house-napping.

Equally, there is little need here to lay out in painful detail how the power to tax and subsidize has become the power to destroy capitalism's ability to provide consumers with the goods and services they crave. Consumers want cheap electricity; government wants expensive wind machines and solar installations. So it pays well-connected businessmen to build such facilities, using taxes on consumers to fund that wealth transfer. Government thinks we should drive electric vehicles, so it takes money from the paychecks of middle-class workers and hands checks to those wealthy enough to afford $85,000 Teslas. Government thinks you should smoke less and is probably right, so it raises taxes on cigarettes and bans smoking within several hundred feet of federal buildings while the former speaker of the House contentedly puffed away in the office provided him by taxpayers. Travelers are willing to pay for more parking at airports, but cannot express that preference with hard cash because politicians have reserved spaces for themselves rather than bid and pay for them on an open market and taxes travelers to make up for the lost revenues needed by airport operators.

That this creates cynicism there is no doubt. That politicians' personal behavior and ethical bent removes them from the ranks of possible defenders of the capitalist system is equally certain. Which is the least of our problems. More damaging to the sustainability of that system is the behavior of the corporate sector. The deeds of the financial sector are well known: lavishly rewarding the very executives who were not so long ago bailed out by taxpayers; slipping in charges for services that consumers neither want nor knew they were being charged for; foreclosing on loans of men and women serving overseas in the military to protect the livelihoods of the bankers ordering the foreclosures.

But there is more than the banking sector putting people off the system. High-tech billionaires, many of them major contributors to the party in power, demand and get more visas to allow them to import high-tech workers from abroad after engaging in a conspiracy not to compete for domestic workers, thereby keeping salaries down and depressing the supply of Americans who might, were wages set in the market rather than in Silicon Valley intercorporate communications, be available for those jobs. Hedge fund entrepreneurs, surely in the top .001 percent of earners, work the corridors of power to arrange to have their compensation taxed as if it were capital gains and not income, something that offends even Donald Trump, perhaps because he was too busy setting up a university to have time to open a hedge fund. General Motors' inattention to quality results in deaths in cars manufactured during a time when it was operating with a taxpayer bailout. Drug companies, clearly entitled to profit from their wonderful research, go a step further and prevent the reimportation of drugs they are willing to sell at lower prices to Canada.

Capitalism has always had its discontents. But the vast majority of Americans accepted it, warts and all, because it produced a dazzling array of goods and services at reasonable prices, while at the same time distributing income in a way that made those goods widely affordable. Air conditioning, refrigeration, washing machines—not to mention the electricity that powered them—became available to almost all Americans, in the case of electricity with a major assist from a government now dedicated to making it more costly for them to use it. Today, a sales clerk in a department store lives better than most of her customers did in the middle of the last century. If some jobs paid more than others, no matter: With hard work a man (mostly men, then) could earn enough to live decently and to help his children do even better. Public schools worked well, and the brightest could get a decent education even if they were the poorest, witness the brilliant products of New York City's public universities.

That was then, and this is now. Capitalism continues to produce a cornucopia of goods and services that makes life ever-more satisfactory. But as Robert Gordon argues in his interesting The Rise and Fall of American Growth, the inventions of 1870-1970, notably the internal combustion engine and electricity, had a far greater positive impact on the living standard of Americans than the current innovative output of Silicon Valley. That is debatable, but what is not is that the quality of the public goods that made America a land of opportunity has declined: I ask readers of a certain age to compare the public educations they received with those on offer in Baltimore, Washington, New York, and other major cities afflicted with teachers' unions, kids coming to class from appalling housing projects and fatherless homes. And it is these public goods on which the middle class, with its incomes stuck, although at reasonable levels by historic standards, must rely as it pursues the American Dream, which, despite reports to the contrary, still lives, although its hold on life is more tenuous than it once was.

That is only in part because the marginal addition to the quality of life by the latest app is less than the addition of electricity. It is because Americans are less willing to accept the distribution of the bounty of capitalism as fair. Here is where both progressives and conservatives have much to answer for. Progressives, with their thousands upon thousands of regulations, have stifled growth, leaving the pie much smaller than it need be. But conservatives, by focusing until recently only on increasing the size of the pie—greater incentives to innovation, freer trade, constraints on trade-union work rules—ignored just how that pie is to be sliced. Yes, freer trade probably increases global efficiency; it also forces unskilled Americans—unskilled in part because the education system failed them—to compete with $1-per-day Asian labor while conservatives extol the virtues of free trade. And placing the burden of enhancing growth on monetary policy, which increases the value of assets held by the better-off at the expense of the value of savings and pensions held by the less-well-off, adds to inequality and loss of faith in capitalism.

Fortunately, Americans complain, and worry, and note that the incomes of the counties around our nation's capital, populated by lobbyists, bureaucrats, and politicians, are among the highest in the nation, but so far are inclined to stick with capitalism if not with the entrenched political class. During the Great Depression, when poverty was rampant—real poverty, not lack-of-a-flat-screen-television-set poverty—and the unemployment rate hit 25 percent, Americans continued to believe that a responsive government, rooted in democratic capitalism, would be more in their interests than the other models on offer—national socialism in Germany, fascism in Italy, communism in Russia. After World War II, when the head of General Motors, then the symbol of American economic prowess, professed that what was good for his company was good for America, cynical guffaws were at a minimum. And when America was called upon to protect not only itself but most of the rest of the world from Communist imperialism, its citizens were willing to bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend in the cause of freedom. Now, corporate America is more tolerated than revered, and any candidate suggesting that we bear a burden in the cause of freedom is quickly retired from consideration.

So, as Lenin once asked in another context, what is to be done? It would be difficult to argue that the solution lies in a new attitude from the self-seeking political class, members of which believe that the long run is the time until the next press conference and the very long run the time until the next election. Rather, the answer must come from those who benefit most from American capitalism, but whose benefits are determined by a system of corporate governance that is seriously in need of repair that would turn over power to the shareholder-owners of the companies: CEO compensation in owner-run companies is well below that characteristic of companies where pliant boards selected from a roster of friends of the CEO set pay and perks.

Note that few resent our self-made billionaire entrepreneurs: Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Sergey Brin, Larry Page, and the late Steve Jobs—these men are more capitalist icons than capitalist running dogs, to borrow a phrase from the rulers of China's 1.4 billion souls, including 3.6 million millionaires. In Irving Kristol's formulation, these are "real person[s] .  .  . who took personal risks, reaped personal rewards, and assumed personal responsibility for [their] actions." And there seems to be little anger at LeBron James, or Steph Curry, or other sports millionaires.

If corporate compensation could be made legitimate by relating it broadly to performance, profits, and attention to the public interest, and if businessmen could understand that (Kristol again) "the populist temper and the large corporation coexist uneasily in America," they might take a different view of many important issues. Increased minimum wages set by legislatures might seem no more artificial than executive compensation set by friendly directors. Trade agreements that enhance the prospects of exports might be examined for their impact on more vulnerable American workers. Demands that consumers be protected from misrepresentation might seem more reasonable in light of recent history in, say, the banking and auto industries. The long-run survival of the system that sustains them might be seen to require restraint, the recalibration of moral compasses to point in the direction not of what an executive can get away with, but towards what Adam Smith called "the fortune of others."

If that noble thought is not enough to make our corporate chieftains weigh the effect of what they do on the probability of the survival of market capitalism, perhaps an appeal to self-interest will. Let them survey the political scene with a cold eye, and ask where they will be if populism, for which I have great regard, turns really nasty, driven by a sense that the current system has to be destroyed if prosperity is to be more equitably shared.

1a) Thrivers and Strugglers: A Growing Economic Divide

By Ray Boshara, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Originally published on Ecointersect.com

Bravo to MacKenzie. When she was born, she chose married, white, well-educated parents who live in an affluent, mostly white neighborhood with great public schools. She also chose her birth year wisely, making sure that she graduated from college and entered the job market when the economy was rebounding from the Great Recession. Thanks to the wealth and financial savvy of her parents, MacKenzie graduated from a private, four-year selective college debt-free, giving her many career options as well as the ability to start saving for a home and retirement.

Because of her great “choices,” MacKenzie is likely to accumulate wealth and achieve financial health over her lifetime. She and her parents belong to the roughly one in four American households we can call “thrivers.”

But too bad for Troy. Despite being just as bright as MacKenzie, he chose nonwhite parents who never married and live in a poor, highly segregated neighborhood with lousy public schools and few opportunities to be involved in music, sports and civic activities. Troy’s young, hard-working, conscientious mother was never able to start college. In order to manage the frequent ups and downs in her financial life, she has accumulated debts to family members and credit cards. She also lacks the know-how and networks to get Troy on a college-bound track, something his school fails to do as well. And Troy unwisely chose to finish high school just as the Great Recession was getting underway. So, finding any job, let alone a decent-paying one with benefits, eludes him.

Because of his bad “choices,” Troy is not likely to accumulate much wealth or feel financially healthy over his lifetime. He and his family belong to the roughly three in four American households we can call “strugglers.”

Research from the Center for Household Financial Stability at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis suggests that three demographic drivers – age/birth year, education and race/ethnicity – increasingly matter for building wealth and financial security. MacKenzie and her family’s efforts to build wealth are buoyed by these demographic tailwinds, while the lack of them creates headwinds that hamper Troy and his family’s efforts to succeed financially.

Let us consider each of these characteristics, or drivers, separately.

Race, Ethnicity and Wealth

Beginning with race or ethnicity, a few facts stand out.[1] First, the wealth gaps are disturbingly large and the rankings have persisted since 1989. White families rank first, followed by Asian families, Hispanic families and then black families. With the exception of Asians, the median net worth of all groups in 2013 was about the same as in 1989; the Great Recession wiped out most of the post-1989 gains. However, prior to the recession, whites and especially Asians had seen dramatic increases in their wealth. Since 2010, they have seen their wealth begin to grow again, while the wealth of blacks and Hispanics has continued to decline. (See Figure 1.)

Also, wealth disparities are starker than income disparities. Median wealth for Hispanics and blacks is about 90 percent lower than that of whites. In contrast, median income of Hispanics and blacks is only 40 percent lower. This suggests these two groups may have had few opportunities to “convert” their diminished incomes into wealth, such as through homeownership and retirement plans. And although one would expect age and education to help explain the persistent differences in wealth accumulation across racial and ethnic groups (whites are generally older and better educated than blacks and Hispanics), our research shows that the wealth gap is largely unchanged even among equally educated, similarly aged whites and nonwhites. Stated more starkly, education does not appear to be an equalizer, at least in terms of wealth. Therefore, other factors must be in play, including early childhood experiences, parental influences and, of course, deep and historica l discrimination against blacks and other minorities.

Education and Wealth

Not surprisingly, the association between a family’s education and its wealth is very strong and has become stronger with time, leading to large gaps in wealth by level of education.[2] Only families with college degrees or higher have seen their wealth increase since 1989 (even though all groups saw their wealth decline in the Great Recession). Those lacking a high school diploma saw their wealth plummet 44 percent between 1989 and 2013, while families with a high school diploma saw their wealth decline 36 percent. Meanwhile, families with a two- or four-year college degree experienced a 3 percent increase since 1989, while the wealth of those with advanced degrees spiked 45 percent.

Notably, however, the correlation between education and various measures of economic and financial success does not represent causation. That is, the college degree itself may only partially explain differences in wealth. The degree serves as a marker of many other factors also correlated with educational attainment, such as native ability, family background, marriage patterns (i.e., the tendency of college graduates to marry other college graduates), being read to as a child and the likelihood of receiving gifts or inheritances.

Age and Wealth

Finally, let’s look at age or, more precisely, year of birth. Of course, older families are expected to have more wealth than younger families. But what we are observing is something deeper, even historical.[3] To our surprise, age is the strongest predictor of balance sheet health, even after accounting for race and education. Americans in their 20s and 30s lost the most wealth in the recession and have been the slowest to recover. The wealth of younger adults is concentrated in homeownership, which suffered greatly during the recession. Younger adults also have significant mortgage and consumer debts, and few liquid assets. In addition, they faced severe labor market challenges during and following the recession. But this is not just a recession story; it’s a generational, more troubling story: An American born in 1970 is projected to have 40 percent less wealth over their lifetime than an American born in 1940. Clearly, some larger economic and social forces are underway, reshaping economic opportunity in the U.S.

Policy Implications

In a world where uncontrollable factors – birth year, race/ethnicity, parents – and education – a choice, but influenced by all of the above factors – appear to increasingly matter for building wealth and financial success, three policy responses hold particular promise:

1. Give greater weight to demographic factors in targeting public resources.

Although income has been the primary benchmark for safety net and tax benefits, our research suggests that age or birth year, race or ethnicity, and education must play a greater role in targeting scarce public resources. The U.S. has dedicated massive resources, ruled on issues such as desegregation and voting rights, reduced discrimination in housing and lending practices, built schools and universities, subsidized higher education for disadvantaged students and otherwise striven and often succeeded in helping less-educated and minority families move forward. College attendance rates have been steadily rising, and minorities now hold more elected offices than ever, for example. However, millions of these families remain economically vulnerable; in some ways, they are now even more fragile, given growing economic penalties on less-educated and minority families. Therefore, broad, ambitious efforts to invest in these families must not only continue but be strengthene d.

With regard to age, the U.S. has invested less during the earlier years of life, and the country lags in per capita spending on children compared with other advanced nations. In fact, the U.S. social contract has relied on the ability of younger workers to finance the safety net of older Americans. However, because that social contract is now threatened, and given the challenges facing younger Americans, smarter and more robust investments earlier in life are merited. For example, could we consider more of an age-based social contract, where newborns, school-aged youth and young adults starting their careers and/or families receive a public benefit to help them build human capital and net worth? These investments could be modeled on the “pay it forward” idea, where public investments in individual families (through, for example, no- or low-cost tuition plans) are paid back later in life directly through earnings or, indirectly, through greater productivity and economic growth.

2. Create ways for families to save when children are young and integrate savings plans into other early interventions.

In the assets field, there is a growing body of evidence that savings accounts and assets early in life lead to better outcomes later in life. The Assets and Education Initiative finds that “early liquid assets (ones the household has when the child is between ages 2 to 10)... work with children’s academic ability to influence whether they attend college. The effect is stronger for low-income children than it is for high-income children.”[4] Two studies using randomized trials in the SEED OK experiment in Oklahoma show that Child Development Accounts (CDAs)[5] have a positive impact on social development for children around age 4. This effect was greatest in children in disadvantaged groups.[6] A second study finds that CDAs increase the psychological well-being of mothers, and again the effect was greatest among disadvantaged groups.[7]

Consideration should be given to strategies that integrate CDAs and similar early asset strategies into the fabric of other interventions aimed at young children. For example, a CDA might be offered to every mother who enrolls in a prenatal health program, or to every child entering Head Start or a preschool program. Reading programs might offer an education-focused CDA. Pell grants might be “front loaded” so that income-eligible children at age 5 receive a small portion of their Pell in a CDA, which would then reduce their Pell grant at age 18 accordingly. The College Board has, in fact, advanced a similar idea. It will be difficult, in my view, for stand-alone CDA interventions to reach all economically vulnerable children. Accordingly, integrating early assets and early childhood interventions holds promise for both impact and scale.

3. Help parents and other adults build liquidity and financial assets.

Of course, we cannot build family financial health and well-being by investing only in kids and ignoring their parents and other adults. Accordingly, we should adopt a “two-generation” approach.[8] Struggling families need a range of sound balance sheet investments, including better banking options, credit repair, more college and retirement savings, fewer debts and paths to sustainable homeownership and small-business opportunities. But one intervention in particular cuts across family balance sheets and promotes both financial stability (a family’s first priority)[9] and economic mobility: creating liquidity.

The need for liquidity is well documented. The Federal Reserve Board’s Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking (SHED) finds that an unexpected expense of just $400 would prompt nearly one-half of all households to borrow funds, sell something or simply not pay at all.[10] Fed data also show that the top savings priority for families is emergency or liquid savings, yet only about half of all Americans have such savings. And CFED finds that 44 percent of households are “liquid asset poor.”[11]

When families have more liquid savings, they can better manage their cash flows and volatility; rely less on friends, family and payday lenders to meet cash shortfalls; have better banking options; and save for education, training or a small business, as well as a home or apartment in a better neighborhood. In my view, no intervention better cuts across the health of U.S. family balance sheets – and does more to promote family stability and mobility – than building emergency savings and liquidity.

To be most effective, these three policy recommendations must be integrated into other efforts. Although one or two interventions, including the most promising ones, are not likely to erase enormous gaps in education, earnings or wealth, they are likely to significantly reduce the financial health disparities experienced between future thrivers like Mackenzie and strugglers like Troy.

Adapted from Boshara, R: “The Future of Building Wealth: Can Financial Capability Overcome Demographic Destiny?” In What It’s Worth: Strengthening the Financial Future of Families, Communities and the Nation, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco & CFED, 2015.

Notes

1. Emmons W. and Noeth B.: “How Age, Education and Race Separate Thrivers from Strugglers in Today’s Economy: Race, Ethnicity and Wealth,” The Demographics of Wealth Series, St. Louis: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, February 2015, www.stlouisfed.org/household-financial-stability/the-demographics-of-wealth/essay-1-race-ethnicity-and-wealth.
2. Emmons W. and Noeth B.: “How Age, Education and Race Separate Thrivers from Strugglers in Today’s Economy: The Role of Education,” The Demographics of Wealth Series, St. Louis: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, February 2015, www.stlouisfed.org/household-financial-stability/the-demographics-of-wealth/essay-2-the-role-of-education.
3. Emmons W. and Noeth B.: “How Age, Education and Race Separate Thrivers from Strugglers in Today’s Economy: Age, Birth Year and Wealth,” The Demographics of Wealth Series, St. Louis: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, February 2015, www.stlouisfed.org/household-financial-stability/the-demographics-of-wealth/essay-3-age-birth-year-and-wealth.
4. Elliot W. and Sherraden M.: “Assets and Educational Achievement: Theory and Evidence,” Economics of Education Review 33(3), 2013: 1-7,www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272775713000174.
5. CDAs are also referred to as Child Savings Accounts, or CSAs. Many prefer CDAs because it emphasizes the developmental aspects of savings accounts early in life. CDAs/CSAs refer to savings accounts in a child’s name that are usually restricted to higher education and are often supported by community organizations, foundations, and state and local governments. See CFED, New America, or the Center for Social Development for specific examples and policy recommendations of how to expand CDAs.
6. Huang J. et al.: “Effects of Child Development Accounts on Early Social-Emotional Development: An Experimental Test,” JAMA Pediatrics 168(3), 2014: 265-271, http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1815478.
7. Huang J., Sherraden M., and Purnell J.: “Impacts of Child Development Accounts on Maternal Depressive Symptoms: Evidence from a Randomized Statewide Policy Experiment,” Social Science & Medicine 112, 2014: 30-38,www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953614002548.
8. See “Helping Parents, Helping Children: Two-Generation Mechanisms,” The Future of Children: Princeton-Brookings 24(1), Spring 2014,http://futureofchildren.org/futureofchildren/publications/docs/24_01_FullJournal.pdf.
9. Hannagan A. and Morduch J.: “Income Gains and Month-to-Month Income Volatility: Household Evidence from the US Financial Diaries,” Working Paper, March 2015, www.usfinancialdiaries.org/paper-1/; Currier E. et al.: “The Precarious State of Family Balance Sheets,” The Pew Charitable Trusts, Washington, D.C., January 2015, www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/2015/01/the-precarious-state-of-family-balance-sheets.
10. Larrimore J. et al.: “Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2014,” Washington, D.C.: Federal Reserve Board, May 2015,www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/2014-report-economic-well-being-us-households-201505.pdf.
11. CFED: “Assets & Opportunity Scorecard,”http://assetsandopportunity.org/scorecard.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2) Trump 'Concession' Suggests Narcissistic Personality Disorder

By Daniel John Sobieski

If you think President Richard Nixon was paranoid to the point of having an enemies list, consider the Donald J. Trump statement following his crushing defeat by Sen. Ted Cruz in the Wisconsin primary. Trump did not make the statement personally, lest he provide enough ad hominem sound bites to last a generation. Rather he and his myth of invincibility hid from the camera he usually loves. The statement blaming his loss on everybody and everything but himself, and with the first word after his name being a lie, reads:

Donald J. Trump withstood the onslaught of the establishment yet again. Lyin’ Ted Cruz had the Governor of Wisconsin, many conservative talk radio show hosts, and the entire party apparatus behind him. Not only was he propelled by the anti-Trump Super PAC’s spending countless millions of dollars on false advertising against Mr. Trump, but he was coordinating `with his own Super PAC’s (which is illegal) who totally control him. Ted Cruz is worse than a puppet -- he is a Trojan horse, being used by the party bosses attempting to steal the nomination from Mr. Trump. We have total confidence that Mr. Trump will go on to win in New York, where he holds a substantial lead in all the polls, and beyond. Mr. Trump is the only candidate who can secure the delegates needed to win the Republican nomination and ultimately defeat Hillary Clinton, or whomever is the Democratic nominee, in order to Make America Great Again.

A somewhat delusional Donald J. Trump “withstood” the “onslaught of the establishment” like the Titanic withstood the iceberg. He got clobbered and then whined about it. Such is his narcissism is that he can’t admit defeat, and any more onslaughts withstood like Wisconsin will be his undoing. The self-proclaimed “unifier” then reached out to “Lyin’ Ted Cruz” supporters the way he reached out to Cruz’s wife Heidi with a personal threat:

"Lyin' Ted Cruz just used a picture of Melania from a G.Q. shoot in his ad. Be careful, Lyin' Ted, or I will spill the beans on your wife!" he tweeted Tuesday evening, just minutes before polls closed in Arizona. Trump tweeted and deleted a similar version of the Tweet about 10 minutes earlier….
Trump appears to be referring to a Facebook advertisement targeted to Mormons that shows Trump's wife, Melania, posing nude. That ad was produced by an anti-Trump super PAC, Make America Awesome, which has no known connection to the Cruz campaign.

Ted Cruz posted nothing about Trump’s third wife. Nor is there any evidence of coordination between Cruz and any super-PAC and if Trump has evidence to the contrary, let him produce it. As has been pointed out, nobody is trying to steal the nomination. Cruz and his supporters are trying to win the nomination Trump has not yet earned. Nobody can steal what you don’t yet have. 

Trump hid from the media Tuesday night because he does not like tough questions or losing. That’s why he dodged a debate in Iowa He prefers a fawning press that has provided him with $1.8 billion worth of free air time. As the Atlantic notes in its March 16 issue:

Trump’s knack for securing free media coverage is undoubtedly a skill honed during his time as a reality-television star. The presidential candidate always seems to know just what to say and do to tap into coverage when it’s to his advantage. He surely also knows when it’s strategic to shun the spotlight. That secondary consideration is likely at play in Trump’s decision to sit out the now-canceled Fox News debate. The network has previously confronted Trump over apparent inconsistencies in his record and statements that would sink any other candidate during past debates.

Trump likes to threaten and insult people who don’t worship at his altar. The “unifier” who speaks of “little Marco” and “lyin’ Ted” and thought Carly Fiona’s face was unsuited for the Oval Office has a problem with anyone who does not join his cult of personality in which he tells people to raise their hand and pledge allegiance -- to him. In addition to Carly and Heidi, Trump has also attacked another strong and threatening woman, Fox News’ Megyn Kelly, of whom he tweeted:

Crazy @megynkelly says I don't (won't) go on her show and she still gets good ratings. But almost all of her shows are negative hits on me! (10:14 AM - 19 Mar 2016)

In Iowa, where Cruz again out-organized Trump, Trump had to invent another excuse for losing. Cruz stole the election from him when members of Cruz’s staff passed on an initial CNN report that Ben Carson was not going directly to his home in Florida to “change clothes.” Implying Carson was quitting the race. Trump called that a “dirty trick,” forgetting how he once compare Carson to a pathological child molester. As CNN reported:

Donald Trump said Thursday that Ben Carson's self-described "pathological temper" is incurable -- adding that it's like the sickness of a "child molester."
"It's in the book that he's got a pathological temper," Trump told "Erin Burnett OutFront," speaking about Carson's autobiography. "That's a big problem because you don't cure that ... as an example: child molesting. You don't cure these people. You don't cure a child molester. There's no cure for it. Pathological, there's no cure for that."

The pathology of Donald Trump is now being questioned by clinical psychologists who have observed his petulant, sometimes profane, and arguably paranoid rhetoric. In the November 11 edition of Vanity Fair, Henry Alford quotes a number of clinicians who think Trump’s behavior is indicative of what is called “narcissistic personality disorder”:

For mental-health professionals, Donald Trump is at once easily diagnosed but slightly confounding. “Remarkably narcissistic,” said developmental psychologist Howard Gardner, a professor at Harvard Graduate School of Education. “Textbook narcissistic personality disorder,” echoed clinical psychologist Ben Michaelis. “He’s so classic that I’m archiving video clips of him to use in workshops because there’s no better example of his characteristics,” said clinical psychologist George Simon, who conducts lectures and seminars on manipulative behavior. “Otherwise, I would have had to hire actors and write vignettes. He’s like a dream come true.”

There is what is called the “Goldwater rule”, named after the 1964 Fact magazine article in which psychiatrist’s were polled about Senator Barry Goldwater’s fitness to be President. The American Psychiatric Association considers it normally unethical to make and express psychological evaluations from afar and without the person’s consent. But we are not talking about a candidate’s political views, but rather his publicly displayed personality. As the article notes:

Mr. Trump’s bullying nature -- taunting Senator John McCain for being captured in Vietnam, or saying Jeb Bush has “low energy” -- is in keeping with the narcissistic profile. “In the field we use clusters of personality disorders,” Michaelis said. “Narcissism is in cluster B, which means it has similarities with histrionic personality disorder, borderline personality disorder, and antisocial personality disorder. There are similarities between them. Regardless of how you feel about John McCain, the man served -- and suffered. Narcissism is an extreme defense against one’s own feelings of worthlessness. To degrade people is really part of a cluster-B personality disorder: it’s antisocial and shows a lack of remorse for other people. The way to make it O.K. to attack someone verbally, psychologically, or physically is to lower them. That’s what he’s doing.”

Right now Donald Trump is dealing only with the press and other candidates. But do we really want his hands on the nuclear football or dealing this way with world leaders? Would he use the IRS and FBI, as Nixon wanted to, to “spill the beans” on his opponents? Dare we risk finding out?

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.  

2a)

TEDDY ROOSEVELT’S WISDOM FOR DONALD TRUMP

The GOP frontrunner's "women problem" and the "hyphenated American."

By Jeffrey Lord 

Donald Trump has a problem with women.

So say the sages of the political elites in both parties and throughout the media. Samples? Here’s Gallup with a poll out on April Fools’ Day — excuse me, April 1st — headlined:

Seven in 10 Women Have Unfavorable Opinion of Trump

The accompanying report begins this way: 

PRINCETON, N.J. -- Donald Trump’s image among U.S. women tilts strongly negative, with 70% of women holding an unfavorable opinion and 23% a favorable opinion of the Republican front-runner in March. Trump’s unfavorable rating among women has been high since Gallup began tracking it last July, but after rising slightly last fall, it has increased even further since January.

And Trump and Hispanics? As they say in Brooklyn, fuhgettaaboutit. As the Washington Post, taking a break from its almost rabid anti-Trump editorials, informs here:

Poll: Trump’s negatives among Hispanics rise; worst in GOP field

The paper’s story begins:

Donald Trump has used the issue of immigration to help make himself the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, but his harsh rhetoric also has earned him the highest negative ratings among Hispanic voters of any major GOP hopeful, according to a Washington Post-Univision News poll. 

And on and on goes this meme of Donald Trump perpetually alienating X group to the point that Democrats are said to be salivating while GOP leaders are terrified.

Stop. Stop, stop, stop!

What Donald Trump has been presented with here is a considerable opportunity to begin to break the political back of the American Left and its GOP Establishment camp followers who divide America by gender and race for political profit. Instead of playing defense — by saying, in essence, “women” or “Hispanics” love him, Trump has the opportunity to play the “American card” — a card which, pun intended, can powerfully trump the race and gender cards for a reason. The reason: it’s the right thing to do. And in fact, once upon a time a prominent Republican of the day — Theodore Roosevelt 101 years go — did exactly that.

We have mentioned repeatedly in this space the Left’s obsession with dividing people by race. This is, after all, as we frequently point out, the party that made its political bones by supporting such flagrantly racial policies as yesterday’s slavery, segregation, and lynching and using the Ku Klux Klan as, in the words of Columbia University’s Eric Foner, “a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party” or, according to the University of North Carolina’s Allen Trelease description of the Klan, the “terrorist arm of the Democratic Party.” From there to today’s identity politics (the modern disguise for segregation), racial quotas and the flagrant racial politics of an Al Sharpton or Obama mentor the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, not to mention racial polarizers like Jorge Ramos and La Raza, the goal first last and always is to play the race card to win elections. So too is it with the gender card. Can you say “the war on women”? Women are treated by both the Left and the GOP Establishment as just one more opportunity to play identity politics. As witness that recent letter to Donald Trump from sixteen self-identified “Female Media Members” on the kerfuffle over Michelle Fields and Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, even some conservatives have followed the left-wing practice of identifying by gender instead of their profession. 

This is more than disgraceful. This is a serious political threat to a country that is based not on racial, gender, or ethnic identity but rather on principles of freedom and liberty that apply to all. What the Left proposes is to divide America by race and gender in perpetuity. Or, as the late Democratic Governor George Wallace of Alabama once proposed, “segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever.” 

Into this racial and genderist cauldron steps candidate Trump. Whether he was challenging journalist Megyn Kelly (say again… “journalist” Megyn Kelly, not “female journalist Megyn Kelly”) or being subjected to that appallingly sexist ad by Our Principles PAC — the intent is clear. If the Left and the GOP Establishment get their way, America will be divided by race and gender — forever. Here, as but one example of this appeal to sexism and genderism by the GOP Establishment, is a link to a CNN story on the “Our Principles” ad, showing this jewel of blatantly sexist divide-to-win genderism. The ad is a bold statement that these GOP Establishmentarians have every intention of judging others by leftist gender standards. Suffice to say, these are precisely the kind of people that look at former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and sneeringly insist she’s not a real woman. Just as the left looks at a Justice Clarence Thomas or other conservatives of color and insist they are not really black.

It would be amusing if the consequences of judging everybody in America by race and gender were not so dangerous, not to mention insulting.

Thus Trump’s opportunity.

Earlier in the primary season this same sort of argument was made about Trump and evangelicals. By common consent of the political wizards, it was Ted Cruz — the son of a pastor — who should get the evangelical vote. But once the moment arrived, in Iowa where Trump got a considerable proportion (although not a majority) of the evangelical vote, and South Carolina where he won it outright — an entirely different picture of “the evangelical vote” was in hand. It seemed that — gasp! — evangelicals were not voting to elect a religious leader but a president. And they were concerned about issues like the economy, illegal immigration, terrorism, and the like. Why? I would submit that instead of allowing themselves to be pigeonholed by their religious beliefs, evangelicals responded as in fact what they are — Americans. Americans who have exactly the same kind of concerns as their fellow Americans who aren’t even close to being evangelicals.

There is a lesson here — and a good one. 

Instead of falling for the genderist/racist trap his GOP Establishment and leftist enemies are trying to set for him (and make no mistake, they will try and do the same to Ted Cruz), Donald Trump can turn this back by making a deliberate appeal not by gender and race but appealing to his audience of yes — gasp! — Americans!

As mentioned, one hundred and one years ago, another famous New Yorker — former President Theodore Roosevelt — said the following in terms that could easily be said by Donald Trump today. In TR’s day — this speech delivered to the Knights of Columbus in the years leading up to World War One when many Americans of German and Irish descent were demanding neutrality in the European conflict due to loyalty to their country of origin — the phrase “hyphenated American” was in common use. TR used it famously in this speech:

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all.

This is just as true of the man who puts “native” before the hyphen as of the man who puts German or Irish or English or French before the hyphen. Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul. Our allegiance must be purely to the United States. We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance.

 But if he is heartily and singly loyal to this Republic, then no matter where he was born, he is just as good an American as any one else.

 The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English- Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian- Americans, or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality than with the other citizens of the American Republic.

 The men who do not become Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans; and there ought to be no room for them in this country. The man who calls himself an American citizen and who yet shows by his actions that he is primarily the citizen of a foreign land, plays a thoroughly mischievous part in the life of our body politic. He has no place here; and the sooner he returns to the land to which he feels his real heart-allegiance, the better it will be for every good American.

Today’s “hyphenated Americans” are those who choose to identify themselves by their racial identity (“Hispanic-American,” “African-American”) or gender (as did those “female media members”). But as in TR’s day, there ought to be no room for those who insist on bringing race, ethnic or gender identity into the discussion of issues that affect all Americans regardless of race or gender. Indeed, to update TR’s point from 1915 to 2016, his famous speech needs to be re-written only slightly to say:

The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, races, and genders, an intricate knot of African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Asian-Americans, White Americans or Female and Male Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, race, or gender, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Africans, Whites, Mexicans, Central or South Americans, or women than with the other citizens of the American Republic.

Teddy Roosevelt was right in 1915 — and Donald Trump would be right in 2016 were he to update this bit of Rooseveltian wisdom.

Does Donald Trump have a “woman problem” or a “Hispanic problem” or a “black problem”? Only if he accepts the liberal conventional wisdom that everyone must be divided by race and gender. Forever.

Suffice to say, the distinctly hyphenated-Americanism that is at the base of the American Left and the GOP Establishment is a distinctly un-American — and un-Trumpian — place to be. 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

3)Time for the US to Deal with the Iran Deal?

By Michael Curtis

In his 1936 song "I've Got You under My Skin," in a complicated melody with repeated notes, Cole Porter advised, "Use your mentality; wake up to reality."  In view of a number of recent international events, that advice and a repeated wake-up call for President Barack Obama are long overdue.

New alarm bells for a coherent U.S. foreign policy have come from a number of these event, from the ungracious omission by the White House of words of French President François Hollande to the apparent underplaying of the threat of home-grown Islamist terrorists to the increasing belligerence of Iran.

On March 31, 2016, at a meeting in Washington, D.C. with Obama, President Hollande called for cooperation between the U.S. and France on the crucial issue of what Obama has called "violent extremism."  Hollande uses more correct terminology.  He remarked, "But we are also well aware that the roots of terrorism, Islamist terrorism [sic] are in Syria and Iraq.  We therefore have to act both in Syria and in Iraq, and this is what we are doing within the framework of the coalition."

In most undiplomatic behavior, the initial White House transcript including the English translation of Hollande's remarks erased his words "Islamist terrorism."  To save face, the bad behavior was later labeled a "technical error," and the correct language was made public, but the unwillingness of the U.S. president to acknowledge the reality expressed by the French president of the real nature of the terrorism was evident once again.

The evidence of Islamist terrorism has long been clear and frightening for Europeans.  More than 30,000 Islamists from 104 countries have gone to fight for ISIS in Syria and Iraq.  The reality of the problem has been made more precise by a study commissioned by the Netherlands national coordinator for security and counterterrorism (NCTV) and issued on April 1, 2016 by the International Center for Counterterrorism (ICCT).  It deals with the threat and the policy responses in Europe both at the EU level and within the individual EU member states.    

The study analyzed nine European countries in depth concerning the number of foreign fighters who came from the EU countries to join ISIS and the danger they constituted.  It estimated the total number as between 3,922 and 4,294 jihadists from the EU countries, about 30% of whom have returned home. Of the total, 2,338 came from four countries: Belgium, France, Germany, and U.K., with Belgium having the highest per capita contingent.  The returnees have acquired basic military training and battlefield experience.  They pose a real danger, especially to Belgium and France.

Among other details in the study are the facts that almost all of the fighters came from metropolitan areas or suburbs; that about 17 percent are women; and that a minority, ranging between 6 and 23 percent, were converts to Islam.

Increasingly serious to the world is the recent provocative behavior of Iran in two ways: its flamboyant arms deals and its missile launches.

On March 28, 2016, a U.S. ship in the Arabian Sea stopped a large Iranian arms shipment, containing thousands of weapons, AK-47 rifles, and rocket-propelled grenade launchers headed to Yemen, where Iran has been supporting the Houthi rebels in the fight against a Saudi-led coalition.

Even more provocative are the military actions.  Iran test-fired two Qadr-H ballistic missiles from northern Iran on March 23, 2016 with the words "Israel must be wiped out" written in Hebrew on their sides.  A major figure in Iran's Revolutionary Guard said that the 1,200-mile range of the missiles is "to confront the Zionist regime," and indeed, they could hit Tel Aviv.

In addition to the display of Iran's combative role, the firing of the missiles showed the Iranian contempt for the U.S. in an even more stark fashion than usual, because the launching occurred while Vice President Joe Biden was in Israel on an official visit.  Moreover, in what appears to be deliberate mocking of Obama's non-action over his red line in Syria, the deputy chief of the Iran Revolutionary Guard issued the warning that Iran's defense capacities and missile power are among the Iranian nation's red lines,  and "we won't allow anyone to violate" them.

The launching of the missiles is of course a violation of U.N. Security Council resolution 2231, which forbids Iran from developing missiles that can carry nuclear warheads.  Iran persists that its missiles are solely conventional, but clearly this is untrue.

Though the U.S. administration acknowledges this, it still insists that the launching is not a violation of the nuclear deal with Iran.  Mr. Biden has said that the U.S. will act if it finds evidence that Iran broke the terms of the nuclear agreement.  Obama, puzzlingly, has commented that Iran was obeying the "letter" of the deal but not the "spirit."

Neither Obama nor Biden had heeded the declaration of the ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, on March 30, 2016 that missiles, rather than diplomacy, will be part of Tehran's relations with the outside world.  He made clear that the whole concept of negotiating with the U.S. is flawed.

The launch is a provocative act of aggression, not a sign, as Obama had hoped, that Iran would become more moderate.  No one can now doubt that part of the $150 billion Iran will obtain as a result of the nuclear deal will be used for a serious military buildup and that Iran will continue to pursue its program to obtain nuclear weapons. 

In addition, one can now expect an arms race in the Middle East.  It was noticeable that Saudi Arabia hosted a military exercise, Operation Desert Thunder, in which 20 Muslim countries took part as a coalition to defend themselves against terrorism and against Iran.

It was clear from the beginning that the U.S. and its associates had made an ill-advised nuclear deal with Iran.  It is equally clear that Iran is committed to maintain its aggressive stance toward the West, especially as one views the role and power of the Revolutionary Guards and their leader, Qassem Suleimani.  The problem of Iran has become even more serious as it is working with Russia to upgrade its anti-aircraft defense systems, making an attack on Iran increasingly less likely and more dangerous.

For the U.S., the warning of Iran comes not in the night, as Cole Porter might have suggested, but in clear daylight, and it has been repeated, repeated in the ear of the U.S. administration.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

4)

MEMRI: Director General Of Russian Government-Funded Think Tank, Andrey Kortunov, Analyzes Russia's Middle East Strategy After Withdrawal From Syria

MEMRI April 6, 2016 Special Dispatch No.6375 On March 29, 2016, the Russian government-funded think tank Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC) published an interview with its Director General Andrey Kortunov. In the interview, Kortunov asserts that Russia opposes moves to partition Syria. He suggests that a potential solution to the Syria crisis might be an "asymmetrical federation" that will respect the principle of the country's territorial integrity but will at the same time guarantee "sufficient autonomy" for ethnic, religious, regional and political groups in Syria. Kortunov states further that Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad is neither a client of Russia's nor a personal friend of Russian President Vladimir Putin's. Rather, Russia considers Assad and his regime as a mere instrument to prevent chaos in Syria, since an authoritarian state is better than a "failed" one. Kortunov says that Russia does not want Syria to become another Libya, considering its geographical proximity to the South Caucasus and Central Asia. As for the American role in the Middle East, Kortunov stresses that Russia has no interest in pushing the U.S. out of the region. Russia wants to be a global player, but at the same time it has "no resources for and no interest" in replacing the United States as the "next hegemonic power" in the Middle East. Indeed, Kortunov stresses that Russia needs the U.S. in the region, because if Washington withdraws from the Arab world, it is likely to leave behind a vacuum that will be filled by radical fundamentalist forces hostile to the West and to Russia. Lastly, Kortunov contends that the role of Iran will be one of the decisive factors shaping the future of the Middle East. Speaking of Russian-Iranian relations, Kortunov admits that while there has always been "a temptation" to build these relations on an anti-Western basis, this cannot be a "stable and reliable foundation," and Russia and Iran should rather increase their cooperation on regional matters – including the Caspian Sea issues, Afghanistan, and Central Asia. The interview with Kortunov was previously published in Farsi on the website of the Iranian research institute Iran Eurasia Research Institute (IRAS).[1] The following are excerpts from the English version of the interview with Kortunov, published on the RIAC website on March 29 (the text has been lightly edited for clarity).[2] "Authoritarian States In The Middle East Are Better Than Failed States" Question: "Russian military presence in Syria makes Russia a pivotal player in the Middle East. How does Russia define its role in the Middle East?" Andrey Kortunov: "…Russia tries to avoid taking sides in the Sunni-Shia disputes, supporting those in the region who back religious tolerance and respect for minority rights. The Arab Spring of 2011-2012 changed many fundamentals in the region… If in the West the Arab Spring was initially received by many with high hopes and even enthusiasm, in Russia, from the outset, the political mainstream expressed deep skepticism and concern about the likely outcomes of the ongoing regional transformation. Furthermore, the Arab Spring was often presented by Moscow as a long-planned Western (predominantly U.S.) conspiracy aimed at acquiring more control over the Arab world by pursuing a strategy of 'controlled chaos'… The failed transition in Libya was an important learning experience for Moscow. It consolidated the conservative faction in the Russian political establishment and nearly silenced the liberal opposition. After Libya, Russian officials formulated their new approach to the Middle East, which can be summarized in the following way: First, authoritarian states in the Middle East are preferable to failed states that replace the former following public uprisings (which are often planned, funded, and instigated from abroad). Second, the intentions and commitments of the West should not be trusted; the West can easily 'sell out' its longtime allies and friends in the region (e.g. Mubarak in Egypt)… Third, if Russia remains an idle bystander, observing the Arab Spring from the sidelines, the chaos, instability, and terrorism generated in the Arab world will ultimately spill over Russia’s borders, not to mention lead to the demise of Russian influence in the region. The practical application of this new approach was, of course, Moscow's engagement in the civil war in Syria. In this bloody and protracted conflict Moscow demonstrated much more than its readiness to oppose what was perceived as the consolidated position of the West. For the first time since the invasion of Afghanistan back in 1979, the Kremlin used military force outside the boundaries of the former Soviet Union. For the first time a Russian military aircraft was downed by a NATO member country [Turkey]. For the first time Russia became a central player in a large-scale war right in the heart of the Arab world." Question: "How do you assess Saudi objectives in the Middle East, and to what extent are these goals 'for or against' Russian interests in the region? Could Russia and Saudi Arabia reach an agreement on the future of the Middle East?" Kortunov: "...Relations between Moscow and Riyadh have always been complicated; Russia accuses Saudi Arabia of supporting militant radical Islamic groups in Syria, while the Saudis have consistently opposed Russia's support for the regime of Bashar Assad in Damascus. However, there are also overlapping interests: both Russia and Saudi Arabia oppose plans to partition Syria and both are concerned about the current crisis of statehood in the region. Another common interest is to prevent a further uncontrolled fall in energy prices. Recently, we have seen more active interaction between Russian and Saudi leaders, although major differences in approach to the Syrian situation remain unresolved. My personal guess is that a Russian-Saudi agreement on the future of the Middle East is more likely to be achieved in a multilateral format than in the framework of their bilateral relationship." A Potential Solution To The Syrian Crisis Would Be An "Asymmetrical Federation" That Respects The Country's Territorial Integrity While Guaranteeing Sufficient Autonomy Question: "With respect to recent events between Russia and Turkey impinging on cordial bilateral trade ties and economic cooperation, how do you predict the future of Russian-Turkish relations?" Kortunov: "I would argue that the crisis between our two countries has been in the making for a long time, and the SU-24 downing was only the last straw that broke the camel’s back. For many years, Russians and Turks tried to convince each other that they could 'agree to disagree' on many controversial and explosive political matters… Over the years serious disagreements over Caucasus, the Middle East, Iran, Ukraine, NATO, BMD [Ballistic Missile Defense], gas pipelines, and other matters were swept under the rug. But this mutual hypocrisy could not last forever. In a way, the ongoing crisis was possible only because the notion of a strategic partnership between Russia and Turkey remained on paper…What could either side do to restore the relationship? Before answering this question, we should ask ourselves something else: what can we not afford in the near future? First, we cannot restore mutual trust anytime soon – the trust between the two national leaders and between the political elites in Moscow and Ankara is completely broken. Second, we cannot realistically discuss any strategic reconciliation between the two countries or a Russian-Turkish "Grand Bargain." In the absence of mutual trust and with the lack of the strategic depth the idea of a mutual remission of sins by Putin and Erdogan seems ridiculous. Third, we should be fully aware of the fact that the spiral of hostility and mutual animosity is spinning ever faster, and both sides would have to invest considerable time and energy in slowing this negative momentum, not to mention reversing it… One should seek the solution where the problem is located. The most critical bone of contention between Russia and Turkey today – all other disagreements and disputes notwithstanding – is the future of Syria. Russia is committed to preserving the territorial integrity of Syria, while Turkey feels responsible for the future of the Syrian Turkmen and other Turkey-oriented groups opposed to Damascus. A number of external players including Iran and the Gulf states have their own interests and claims to protect among the Syrian factions. I do not like the term 'soft partition' because it emphasizes the noun 'partition' more than the adjective 'soft.' But a potential solution to the Syrian riddle might well be connected to the concept of an 'asymmetrical federation' that will not question the principle of the country's territorial integrity, but will at the same time guarantee sufficient autonomy for ethnic, religious, regional and political factions in Syria, including the preservation of their traditional links with neighboring countries. The concept of an 'asymmetrical federation' may become the platform for a compromise not only between Russia and Turkey, but between all the major players involved in the Syrian conflict. If we agree on the future of Syria, it would be much easier to move ahead on other burning issues." Question: "Some say that Russia is employing hard power to deter threats and secure its interests in different parts of the world. How effective is such an approach?" Kortunov: "Russia invested considerable resources into restoring and upgrading its hard power capabilities under President Putin. It now has robust military potential with significant power projection capacities and a reliable nuclear deterrent. Russia has successfully tested some of its newly-acquired capabilities in the Syrian conflict. Despite the current economic difficulties, the ongoing large-scale modernization of the Russian armed forces continues mostly as scheduled. Russia remains a major global exporter of arms, second only to the United States… [However,] skillful diplomacy is no less important than hard power. Russia is still learning how it can use its soft power in the most efficient way. Bashar Assad Has Never Been A Client Of Moscow's Nor A Friend Of Putin's Question: "What is the Kremlin’s plan for Syria’s future? What kind of Syria is good for Russia and under what circumstances might Russia end its mission in Syria?" Kortunov: "When Western experts and Kremlin watchers analyze Russian strategy in Syria, they usually single out three goals that Moscow allegedly pursues in this conflict. First, to rescue the Russian client in the region – Bashar Assad and his regime; second, to diminish U.S. influence in the Middle East to the extent that this is possible; third, to support Shias against Sunnis in the sectarian clash that is tearing apart the Islamic world. In my view, all three alleged goals can be questioned. First, Bashar Assad has never been a client of Moscow's and he is not a personal friend of Vladimir Putin's... Bashar Assad does not have powerful lobbyists in Moscow, as Saddam Hussein once had. Economically, Syria is much less important to Russia than, for instance, neighboring Turkey, or even Iraq. When Russian officials argue that their prime concern is the future of Syrian statehood, not the future of Bashar Assad personally, they are not necessarily trying to deceive the West. To have another Libyan situation in Syria, much closer to the South Caucasus, Central Asia, and Russia proper, is not an attractive option for decision makers in the Kremlin. In this respect, Bashar Assad and his regime are nothing but instruments to prevent chaos and anarchy in Syria. Are these instruments indispensable? Probably not. But so far all the efforts of the U.S. and its partners to present a consolidated Syrian opposition as a credible alternative to the regime in Damascus do not appear too convincing to Moscow. Second, the idea that Moscow is desperately trying to push the United States out of the Middle East fits nicely into standard Cold War logic, but does not convincingly explain Russia’s recent moves in the region. If Washington is the main competitor, why offer to work together with the U.S. on chemical weapons in Syria; or to collaborate with the Americans on the Iranian nuclear dossier? Decision makers in the Kremlin might be generally anti-Western and anti-U.S., but they are definitely not crazy. They understand that Russia has no resources for and no interest in replacing the United States in the Middle East as the next hegemonic power. And if Washington does withdraw from the Arab world, it is likely to leave behind a vacuum to be filled with radical fundamentalist forces equally hostile to the West and to Russia. Russia needs the U.S. in the region, despite its insistence that current American policies in the Middle East – starting with the Iraq war of 2003 – are ill-conceived, poorly implemented and, at the end of the day, mostly counterproductive. Third, the Sunni-Shia explanation for Russian strategy is linear and schematic at best. To start with, the Damascus army does not include only Shias, as there are many Sunnis fighting on Assad’s side as well. One of Russia's closest partners and friends in the Arab world is Egypt, which happens to be the largest Arab Sunni country. The majority of twenty million plus Russian Moslems are Sunni and it would be political suicide for any regime in Moscow to align with Shias against Sunnis abroad. However, since Moscow is committed to fighting against ISIS, pure military logic pushes it to build alliances with whoever has the best fighting capacity on the ground. For a variety of reasons, Sunni states in the Gulf and most other Arab Sunnis are not in a position to commit substantial ground forces to a joint anti-ISIS campaign." Question: "Envisioning an end to the Syrian conflict, would Russia and Iran be eager to cement their strategic cooperation in the Middle East? What are your recommendations for improving bilateral political, economic, and military dialogue in the future? How could both countries cooperate on the energy market?" Kortunov: "Russia managed to take the lead in the dramatic events currently taking place in and around Syria. Its positions cannot be ignored and no settlement is possible without Russia’s participation. However, one should not overestimate the role of Russia – or of any other non-regional power – in the mid- and long-term evolution of the Middle East. The region has entered a historically unprecedented cycle of social, economic, and political transformation that is likely to last until at least the middle of this century. The future of the Arab world will depend mostly on the successes or failures of its own regional centers of gravity – such as Egypt or Saudi Arabia. As for external factors affecting the Arab world, the influence of overseas players is likely to become less significant, while the influence of neighboring non-Arab states (Iran, Turkey, Israel) is likely to grow. The role of Iran will definitely be one of the decisive factors shaping the future of the Middle East. And speaking of Russian-Iranian relations, we must define what 'strategic cooperation' really means for them in the current circumstances. There has always been a temptation – at least on the Russian side – to build these relations on an anti-Western basis. But this is not a stable and reliable foundation. I think that Russia and Iran have to upgrade their current collaboration on regional matters – including the Caspian Sea issues, Afghanistan, and Central Asia. We clearly underutilize the existing potential for economic partnership. Finally, we simply need to know each other much better than we do now, which involves more contacts in education and research, and more cultural and civil society exchanges." Endnotes: [1] Iras.ir, March 26, 2016. [2] Russiancouncil.ru, March 29, 2016. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 5) Are Robots Job Creators? Or are they the reason for the economic  decline of working-class Americans? BY MOSHE Y. VARDI If you put water on the stove and heat it up, it will  at first just get hotter and hotter. You may then  conclude that heating water results only in hotter  water. But at some point everything changes—the  water starts to boil, turning from hot liquid into  steam. Physicists call this a “phase transition.” Automation, driven by technological progress, has  been increasing inexorably for the past several  decades. Two schools of economic thinking have  for many years been engaged in a debate about the  potential effects of automation on jobs, employment  and human activity: Will new technology spawn  mass unemployment, as the robots take jobs away  from humans? Or will the jobs robots take over  release or unveil—or even create—demand for new  human jobs? The debate has flared up again recently because of  technological achievements such as deep learning, which  recently enabled a Google software program called  AlphaGo to beat Go world champion Lee Sedol, a task  considered even harder than beating the world’s chess champions. Ultimately the question boils down to this: are  today’s modern technological innovations like those  of the past, which made obsolete the job of buggy  maker, but created the job of automobile  manufacturer? Or is there something about today  that is markedly different? Malcolm Gladwell’s 2006 book The Tipping Point  highlighted what he called “that magic moment  when an idea, trend, or social behavior crosses a  threshold, tips, and spreads like wildfire.” Can we  really be confident that we are not approaching a  tipping point, a phase transition—that we are not  mistaking the trend of technology both destroying and  creating jobs for a law that it will always continue  this way? Old worries about new tech This is not a new concern. Dating back at least as  far as the Luddites of early 19th-century Britain, new  technologies cause fear about the inevitable changes they bring. It may seem easy to dismiss today’s concerns as  unfounded in reality. But economists Jeffrey Sachs  of Columbia University and Laurence Kotlikoff of  Boston Universityargue, “What if machines are getting  so smart, thanks to their microprocessor brains, that  they no longer need unskilled labor to operate?”  After all, they write: Smart machines now collect our highway tolls,  check us out at stores, take our blood pressure,  massage our backs, give us directions, answer our  phones, print our documents, transmit our messages,  rock our babies, read our books, turn on our lights,  shine our shoes, guard our homes, fly  our planes, write our wills, teach our children, kill  our enemies, and the list goes on. Looking at the economic data There is considerable evidence that this concern  may be justified. Eric Brynjolfsson and Andrew  McAfee of MIT recently wrote: For several decades after World War II the  economic statistics we care most about all rose  together here in America as if they were tightly  coupled. GDP grew, and so did productivity — our  ability to get more output from each worker. At the  same time, we created millions of jobs, and many of these were the kinds of jobs that allowed the average American worker, who didn’t (and still doesn’t)  have a college degree, to enjoy a high and rising  standard of living. But … productivity growth and  employment growth started to become decoupled  from each other. As the decoupling data show, the U.S. economy has been  performing quite poorly for the bottom 90 percent of Americans for the past 40 years. Technology is  driving productivity improvements, which grow the  economy. But the rising tide is not lifting all boats,  and most people are not seeing any benefit from  this growth. While the U.S. economy is still creating  jobs, it is not creating enough of them. The labor  force participation rate, which measures the active  portion of the labor force, has been dropping since  the late 1990s. While manufacturing output is at an all-time high,  manufacturing employment istoday lower than it was in  the later 1940s. Wages for private nonsupervisory  employees have stagnated since the late 1960s, and the  wages-to-GDP ratio has beendeclining since 1970. Long-term  unemployment is trending upwards, and inequality has  become a global discussion topic, following the  publication of Thomas Piketty’s 2014 book, Capital in the  Twenty-First Century. A widening danger? Most shockingly, economists Angus Deaton, winner  of the 2015 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic  Science, and Anne Case found that mortality for white  middle-age Americans has been increasing over the  past 25 years, due to an epidemic of suicides and  afflictions stemming from substance abuse. Is automation, driven by progress in technology, in  general, and artificial intelligence and robotics, in  particular, the main cause for the economic decline  of working Americans? In economics, it is easier to agree on the data than  to agree on causality. Many other factors can be in  play, such as globalization, deregulation, decline of  unions and the like. Yet in a 2014 poll of leading academic economists  conducted by the Chicago Initiative on Global  Markets, regarding the impact of technology on  employment and earnings, 43 percent of those  polled agreed with the statement that “information  technology and automation are a central reason why  median wages have been stagnant in the U.S. over  the decade, despite rising productivity,” while only  28 percent disagreed. Similarly, a 2015 study by the  International Monetary Fund concluded that  technological progress is a major factor in the  increase of inequality over the past decades. The bottom line is that while automation is  eliminating many jobs in the economy that were  once done by people, there is no sign that the  introduction of technologies in recent years is  creating an equal number of well-paying jobs to  compensate for those losses. A 2014 Oxford study  found that the number of U.S. workers shifting into  new industries has been strikingly small: in 2010,  only 0.5 percent of the labor force was employed in  industries that did not exist in 2000. The discussion about humans, machines and work  tends to be a discussion about some undetermined  point in the far future. But it is time to face reality.  The future is now. This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article. Moshe Y. Vardi is a Professor of Computer Science, Rice University. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 6) New York Times Smears Orthodox Jews,  Violates Own Policies By Ira Stoll “F.B.I. Questions Police Leaders Amid Inquiry Into Businessmen Linked to de Blasio” is the headline of aNew York  Times dispatch. It takes the Times only two paragraphs before injecting the religion of the businessmen into the article — about what  the paper describes, based on anonymous sources, as a federal corruption investigation involving the New York  police. Here’s how the Times puts it: Some of the questions centered on allegations of free meals and trips given to police officials by members of Orthodox Jewish communities in Brooklyn. But the agents were more focused on two Orthodox businessmen with ties to Mayor Bill de Blasio, according to the three people, all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the investigation. If these businessmen — Jona Rechnitz and Jeremy Reichberg — were, say, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, atheists or  lapsed Catholics, do you think the Times would mention it in the third paragraph of the news item about the  investigation? Of course not. It’s hard to see how the information is relevant here. The Timesstory doesn’t mention  the religion of the police officials, or of the FBI agents, or of Mayor de Blasio, or of the federal prosecutor doing the  investigating. Only the Orthodox Jews have their religion dragged into it. Likewise, does the Times mention in its science or business pages the religion of the scientist or businessman every  time that a successful discovery or profitable deal is made by an Orthodox Jew? No. But when there is a whiff of  corruption or a grand jury investigation, you can be sure the newspaper will find a way to mention Orthodox  Judaism prominently in a negative context. Here is the entry on religion from my 1999 copy of the New York Times stylebook: “The religion of a person in the  news should be mentioned only when it is pertinent and its pertinence is clear to the reader.” As recently as 1986, the Times issued an editor’s note clarifying that “The race, religion or ethnic background of a  person in the news, under The Times‘s policies, may be specified only if it is pertinent to the news. And in such a case,  the relevance must be demonstrated in the article.” In that 1986 case, the paper said, the religious reference “did not  meet this test and should not have been cited.” It will be interesting to see if the Times of today will adhere to the standard it set in 1986 and issue a public  retraction, editor’s note or correction to this article about Messrs. Rechnitz and Reichberg, which so egregiously  brings their religion into play where its relevance is not clear to readers. One hopes so, but rather doubts it. If the  Times has changed its policy and is now going to be identifying Orthodox Jews as such even when it isn’t clearly  pertinent, will it announce this new policy publicly? And will this new policy apply to all religions, or just to  Orthodox Jews? The New York Post managed to write an article about the same story without using the words “Orthodox” or  “Jewish.” Maybe the Times editors and reporters can ask the Post for some pointers on avoiding bias against  religious Jews. The dispatch in question carries no fewer than four bylines — William Rashbaum, Al Baker, Michael Schwirtz and  Michael Winerip — without identifying their religion. But it does make one wonder how many reporters it would  take for the Times to follow its own stated policies. If a fifth reporter were added to the Times team of four on the  story, would that have been enough to get it right? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 7)Jack Lew’s Political Economy Pfizer’s CEO nails the reason for slow growth and small wage gains. CEOs have learned to keep mum in the Obama era, lest their companies be punished likeJ.P. Morgan  after Jamie Dimon criticized some parts of Dodd-Frank. So it’s worth noting the candid reaction after a  new Treasury rule scuttled the merger between Pfizer Inc. andAllergan PLC. The companies ended their $150 billion tie-up after Treasury Secretary Jack Lew issued new rules that  made it harder for companies like Pfizer to move to Ireland to legally lower their taxes. Pfizer will have  to pay Allergan a breakup fee of $150 million, though Allergan shares are still down more than $10  billion since the Treasury ambush. Pfizer CEO Ian Read defends the company’s planned merger in an op-ed nearby, and his larger point  about capricious political power helps explain the economic malaise of the last seven years. “If the  rules can be changed arbitrarily and applied retroactively, how can any U.S. company engage in the  long-term investment planning necessary to compete,” Mr. Read writes. “The new ‘rules’ show that  there are no set rules. Political dogma is the only rule.” He’s right, as every CEO we know will admit privately. This politicization has spread across most of  the economy during the Obama years, as regulators rewrite longstanding interpretations of long standing laws in order to achieve the policy goals they can’t or won’t negotiate with Congress.  Telecoms, consumer finance, for-profit education, carbon energy, auto lending, auto-fuel economy,  truck emissions, home mortgages, health care and so much more. Capital investment in this recovery has been disappointingly low, and one major reason is political  intrusion into every corner of business decision-making. To adapt Mr. Read, the only rule is that the  rules are whatever the Obama Administration wants them to be. The results have been slow growth,  small wage gains, and a growing sense that there is no legal restraint on the political class. 7a) Treasury Is Wrong About Our Merger and Growth The broken U.S. tax system puts American companies like Pfizer at a competitive disadvantage. By  IAN READ In the pharmaceutical industry we develop medicines and therapies to address world-wide health  challenges. The work is complex and deeply gratifying. At Pfizer we employ more than 30,000 highly  skilled people in the United States alone and invest almost $8 billion annually in R&D, much of it in  the U.S. I Surely we benefit from world-class academic institutions, a highly skilled labor force and other  attractions of doing business in the U.S. But the key point is so do our foreign competitors. And they  pay significantly less for the privilege. So we compete in a global marketplace at a real disadvantage.  The U.S. tax code has among the highest rates in the Western world and forces its multinationals to pay  U.S. tax on income earned abroad if they want to bring it back to this country. The real-world consequences are significant. In Cambridge, Mass., where Pfizer has a state-of-the-art  research lab, we are surrounded by foreign-owned competitors’ facilities. When those companies invest  in their facilities, it is often as much as 25%-30% cheaper than every dollar we put into research and  jobs. Why? Because our competitors don’t have to pay the penalty imposed on U.S. corporations  bringing earnings back to America. We can invest less—because of a broken tax system. Pfizer has long worked with Congress to make the U.S. tax system more competitive and fair. In the  absence of tax reform, we undertook a proposed merger with Allergan PLC in good faith and after  intense study and review of current laws. This strategic transaction, driven by strong commercial and  industrial logic, would have made it easier to invest in the U.S. On Monday the U.S. Treasury announced a third set of new rules governing corporate re-domicilings,  or so-called inversions. It surprised many because Treasury Secretary Jack Lew said in 2014 that “we  do not believe we have the authority to address this inversion question through administrative action. If  we did, we would be doing more. That’s why legislation is needed.” This week’s Treasury action interprets the tax laws in ways never done before. This ad hoc and  arbitrary attempt to single out and damage the growth opportunities of companies operating within the  current law is unprecedented, unproductive and harmful to the U.S. economy. The action was accompanied by much unfortunate rhetoric about tax avoidance. No one was shirking  their U.S. tax bills. In a merger with Allergan PLC, an Irish company, we would have continued to pay  all federal, state and local taxes on our U.S. income. All that these new rules will do is create a  permanent competitive advantage for foreign acquirers. Simply put, there will be more foreign  acquisitions of U.S. companies resulting in fewer jobs for American workers. What fails to get noted is our steadfast commitment to science and good corporate citizenship. More  than half of Pfizer’s 1,000-plus R&D collaborations take place in the U.S., where our partners include  academic hospitals, government organizations, nonprofits, foundations, patient advocacy groups and  other pharma companies. Companies like Pfizer and Allergan contribute to the communities in which we operate. To be pilloried  as “deserters” when we are trying to stay competitive on a global stage so that we can continue to  invest in the U.S. is wrongheaded. Government policy should encourage investment certainty and job  creation. Combining these two businesses would have had a positive impact on the lives and livelihoods  of many people. While the Treasury’s proposal is a shot at Pfizer and Allergan, this unilateral action will hurt other  companies as well. If the rules can be changed arbitrarily and applied retroactively, how can any U.S.  company engage in the long-term investment planning necessary to compete? The new “rules” show  that there are no set rules. Political dogma is the only rule. Pfizer will continue to make medicines that significantly improve lives. We are proud of our heritage,  our commitment to patients and we will continue to drive for cures. Mr. Read is chairman and chief executive officer of Pfizer Inc. 7b) Panama Bernie Bernie Sanders’s politics produced the Panama Papers. By DANIEL HENNINGER Bernie Sanders caused the Panama Papers. Bernie of Vermont didn’t do it by himself, of course. The  world’s most famous socialist, and Hillary Clinton’s albatross, had a lot of help. Spare me the crocodile  tears over the immorality of tax avoidance. Panama is an indictment of government greed. After World War II, the governments of the West established tax regimes to support the reconstruction  of their nations. Six decades later, that tax machinery, which runs the social-welfare states in the  countries Bernie Sanders cites in every campaign stop as a model for America, has run totally amok— an unaccountable, devouring monster. Billionaires aren’t the only ones who run from it. Most governments, including ours, overtax their citizens to feed their own insatiable need for money.  Then the legal thieves running the government and their cronies, unwilling to abide the tax levels they  created, move their wealth offshore to places like Panama. Arguably, all the world’s people should be able to move their assets “offshore” to escape governments that are smothering economic life and growth, which has stalled in the U.S., Europe and Asia. Speaking of crocodile tears, Barack Obama spent Tuesday bragging that corporate tax inversions are  akin to Panama Papers’ tax avoidance. Mr. Obama said “corporations,” another swearword invoked by  Bernie Sanders at every stop, are “gaming the system.” Well what about that “system?” Mr. Obama is saying, with Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton in his  echo chamber, that U.S. corporations should suck it up on the U.S.’s 35% corporate tax rate, the world’s  developed highest, and simply send that money to him. Why? Because he’s gotta have it. To spend. Other than their national health-care systems, many of which are effectively bankrupt, most Europeans  would be hard put to explain what it is their high-tax governments actually do with their money. Suppressed for generations by high tax rates and regulatory minutiae, most Europeans survive in an  economic half-life of gray and black markets, with their assets protected by cash-only transactions,  bartering, and endless hours devising off-the-books deals involving family real estate, inflated art prices  and anything else they can hide from the taxman. The Beatles actually wrote a song about it in 1966— “Taxman,” a grim ode to all this. Governments with unsated “needs” for revenue exist in Europe, Africa, Russia and South America. The  Associated Press this week reported that in Russia today shell companies exist simply to pay the bribes  that are the price of daily life. One way or another, most people living in the countries run on the Obama-Sanders-Clinton model  eventually go searching for their own private Panama. When private capital is under public assault, it  will hide. From the wealthiest to the poorest, it creates a world of chiselers, not productive citizens. Sen. Sanders gave his Wisconsin victory speech in Laramie, Wyo., back grounded by the smiling,  bobbing heads of his 20-something voter base. In Western Europe, which is Sanders Land, those 20- somethings are the subject of a permanent economic discipline called high youth unemployment. The Sanders campaign isn’t about idealism. It’s about the misallocation of capital. “Misallocation of  capital” is a phrase utterly alien to socialists, and increasingly to most of the modern Democratic Party. In the now-extinct Democratic Party—the party of Hubert Humphrey, Jimmy Carter andBill Clinton— room existed for the private sector to breathe. Not yet unhinged completely from economics, Democrats  understood the symbiosis between healthy private production and public revenues. Both Presidents  Carter and Clinton deregulated economic life. No longer. The deconstructed party of Barack Obama, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and forced- recruit Hillary Clinton says: Just keep squeezing them. This week marked a historic moment in the Democratic drift toward low-growth Euro-socialism. Both  California and New York raised the minimum wage to $15. California Gov.Jerry Brown, who in his  career has been every Democrat that ever was, summarized the true meaning of the new party.  “Economically, minimum wages may not make sense,” he said, but they make sense “morally, socially  and politically.” It has been my view for some time that to help her navigate Bernie’s new Democratic world Hillary  Clinton should bring in Lady Gaga as a consultant. An expert in magic realism. Sen. Sanders is getting mocked now by Hillary Clinton and her supporters for a catastrophic interview  he gave this week to the New York Daily News, revealing he knows little about his own proposals. But  France’s Socialist President François Hollande knew everything about his economic proposals. What  difference does it make? The day before losing to Bernie Sanders in Wisconsin, Mrs. Clinton argued: “I think we need a nominee who’s been tested and vetted already. For 25 years they’ve thrown everything they could at me, but I’m still standing.” Tested, vetted and still standing. On the available evidence so far, that isn’t this year’s criteria for the  American presidency. 7c) An Overheated Climate Alarm The White House launches a scary campaign about deadly heat. Guess  what: Cold kills more people . By  BJORN LOMBORG The Obama administration released a new report this week that paints a stark picture of how climate  change will affect human health. Higher temperatures, we’re told, will be deadly—killing “thousands to  tens of thousands” of Americans. The report is subtitled “A Scientific Assessment,” presumably to  underscore its reliability. But the report reads as a political sledgehammer that hypes the bad and skips  over the good. It also ignores inconvenient evidence—like the fact that cold kills many more people than heat. Climate change is a genuine problem that will eventually be a net detriment to society. Gradually rising  temperatures across decades will increase the number of hot days and heat waves. If humans make no  attempts whatsoever to adapt—a curious assumption that the report inexplicably relies on almost  throughout—the total number of heat-related deaths will rise. But correspondingly, climate change will  also reduce the number of cold days and cold spells. That will cut the total number of cold-related deaths. ENLARGE PHOTO: ISTOCK Consider a rigorous study published last year in the  journal Lancet that examined temperature-related  mortality around the globe. The researchers looked  at data on more than 74 million deaths in 384  locations across 13 areas: cold countries like  Canada and Sweden, temperate nations like Spain,  South Korea and Australia, and subtropical and  tropical ones like Brazil and Thailand. The Lancet researchers found that about 0.5%—half  a percent—of all deaths are associated with heat, not  only from acute problems like heat stroke, but also  increased mortality from cardiac events and  dehydration. But more than 7% of deaths are related to cold—counting hypothermia, as well as  increased blood pressure and risk of heart attack that results when the body restricts blood flow in  response to frigid temperatures. In the U.S. about 9,000 people die from heat each year but 144,000 die  from cold. The administration’s new report refers to this study—it would be difficult to ignore, since it is the  world’s largest—but only in trivial ways, such as to establish the relationship between temperature and  mortality. Not once does this “scientific assessment” acknowledge that cold deaths significantly  outweigh heat deaths. The report confidently claims that when temperatures rise, “the reduction in premature deaths from  cold are expected to be smaller than the increase in deaths from heat in the United States.” Six  footnotes are attached to that statement. But one of the cited papersdoesn’t even estimate cold deaths;  another flat-out disagrees with this assertion, projecting that cold deaths will fall more than heat deaths  will rise. Further, the figure that made it into news reports, those “tens of thousands” of additional deaths, is  wrong. The main model that the administration’s report relies on to estimate temperature-related  mortality finds, in a worst-case scenario, 17,680 fewer cold deaths in 2100, but 27,312 more heat  deaths—a net increase of 9,632. Moreover, the model considers cold deaths only from October to March, focusing on those caused by  extreme temperatures in winter. Most cold deaths actually occur during moderate temperatures, as the  Lancet study shows. In the U.S., about 12,000 people die from extreme cold each year but 132,000 die  from moderate cold. In London, more than 70% of all cold-related deaths occur on days warmer than  41 degrees Fahrenheit. Although extreme temperatures are more deadly, they occur only a few days or  weeks a year, whereas moderate cold comes frequently. Thus, one of the central findings in the administration’s new report is contradicted by a large number of  scientific studies from around the globe. A 2009 paper from the European Union expects that the  reduction in cold deaths will definitely outweigh extra heat deaths in the 2020s. Even near the end of  the century, in the 2080s, the EU study projects an increase in heat deaths of “between 60,000 and  165,000” and a decrease of cold deaths of “between 60,000 and 250,000.” In other words, the effects  will probably balance each other out, but warming could save as many as 85,000 lives each year. An academic paper published two years ago in Environmental Health Perspectives similarly shows that  global warming will lead to a net reduction in deaths in both the U.K. and Australia. In England and  Wales today, the authors write, statistics show that heat kills 1,500 people and cold kills 32,000. In the  2080s, they calculate that increased heat will kill an additional 3,500. But they find that cold deaths will  drop by 10,000. In Australia the projections suggest 700 more heat deaths but 1,600 fewer cold deaths. Globally, one estimate of the health effects of climate change, published in 2006 by Ecological  Economics, shows 400,000 more respiratory deaths (mostly from heat) by mid century, but 1.8 million  fewer cardiovascular deaths (mostly from cold). In pushing too hard for the case that global warming is universally bad for everything, the  administration’s report undermines the reasonable case for climate action. Focusing on only the bad  side of the ledger destroys academic and political credibility. Although there is a robust intellectual debate on heat and cold deaths, there is a much simpler way to  gauge whether people in the U.S. consider higher temperatures preferable: Consider where they move.  Migration patterns show people heading for warm states like Texas and Florida, not snowy Minnesota  and Michigan. That’s the smart move. A 2009 paper in the Review of Economics and Statistics estimates that because  people seek out warmth, slightly more die from the heat, but many fewer die from the cold. In total, the  actions of these sun-seekers avert 4,600 deaths in the U.S. each year. You won’t be surprised to learn  that the study wasn’t mentioned in the administration’s half-baked report. Mr. Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, is the author of “The Skeptical  Environmentalist” (Cambridge Press, 2001) and “Cool It” ( Knopf, 2007). ============================================================= 8)WRITTEN BY FRANKLIN GRAHAM, BILLY'S SON.  Time is like a river You cannot touch the water twice, because the flow that has passed will never pass again. Franklin Graham was speaking at the First Baptist Church in Jacksonville, Florida in January, 2015, when he said America will not come back. He wrote: The American dream ended on November 6th, 2012 in Ohio.  The second term of Barack Obama has been the final nail in the coffin for the legacy of the white Christian males who discovered, explored, pioneered, settled and developed the greatest republic in the history of mankind.  A coalition of blacks, Latinos, feminists, gays, government workers, union members, environmental extremists, the media, Hollywood, uninformed young people, the "forever needy," the chronically unemployed, illegal aliens and other "fellow  travelers" have ended Norman Rockwell's America. You will never again out-vote these people. It will take individual acts of defiance and massive displays of civil disobedience to get back the rights we have allowed them to take away.  It will take zealots, not moderates and shy, not reach-across-the-aisle RINOs to right this ship and restore our  beloved country to its former status.  People like me are completely politically irrelevant, and I will probably never again be able to legally comment on or concern myself with the aforementioned coalition which has surrendered our culture, our heritage and our traditions without a shot being fired. The cocker spaniel is off the front porch, the pit bull is in the back yard The American Constitution has been replaced with Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" and the likes of Chicago shyster David Axelrod along with international socialist George Soros have been pulling the strings on their beige puppet have brought us Act 2 of the New World Order. The curtain will come down but the damage has been done, the story has been told. Those who come after us will once again have to risk their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to bring back the Republic that this generation has timidly frittered away due to white guilt and political correctness. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++