One more "I told you so" about this subject
I discussed recently.
Yes, we tax payers will become the "stuckees" for
more big government insanity! (See 1 below.)
===
And Hillarious and Bernie want college education to be free.
Why not make everything free, even burials? Womb to tomb government is the Liberal and Progressive way to go. Mexico will pay for it!
And if not, then we can stick it to our children and grandchildren. That has become the American Way and while you are at it - diss religion, lay down your guns, trample on the flag, turn over our personal and economic freedoms to government bureaucrats, allow anyone who wants to come here to do so and then give them benefits and put every instruction in their language but put Muslims first. Shut down the energy industry and spend on the greatest threat facing us "global warming", give high grades to low achievers, rid the education system of subjects that are challenging, eliminate reasoning since we have robots to think for us, allow our adversaries to replace us while we decimate our military, take back from the rich that which they all stole from the poor, distrust the police, allow students to run wild on campuses and for those seeking an education tell them to clam up. Finally repeat after Rev. Wright - GD America!
Now that is what I call real " Hope and Change!!!" so go right ahead and elect Hillarious so she can complete Obama's agenda, finish off Capitalism, drive the last nail into our nation's coffin and end the last vestige of our personal freedoms..
===
First Obama controls your health, then your retirement and then he has you under his total sway. That has been his intent all along - turn Americans into frogs in a pan while he gradually turns up the heat. Hard to believe it only has taken 7 plus years. (See 2 below.)
===
Obama majestically decides he will give illegals whatever he chooses by way of entitlements. (See 3 below.)
Read this and decide for yourself. (See 3a below.)
===
Obama's patsies were warned but they were too anxious to do the bidding of their master when it came to the Iran Deal. (See 4 and 4a below.)
===
The signs of a Trump rise were there but it was hard to believe they would ripen. (See 5 below.)
===
Our Israeli cousin has just been appointed by Netanyahu as Israel's Consul General in Los Angeles.
We are very proud of Sam Grundwerg and his lovely family and welcome them to our country and know he will have a successful tour of duty.
Sam is a young dynamo and will represent his country with distinction and vigor.
===
For those who are interested in who protects what is left of our freedoms:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/
===
Let's end with some humor:
50 year old Miriam goes to see doctor Levy to ask his advice on how to revive her husband Joseph's libido.
"So have you tried Viagra?" asks doctor Levy. "It works wonders for most people."
"There's no point in me trying to get Joseph to take a Viagra pill," replies Miriam. "He won't take any pill, not even an aspirin."
"That doesn't have to be a problem," replies doctor Levy. "You can give Joseph farborgn Viagra."
"What is farborgn Viagra?" she asked.
"It's when you drop the Viagra tablet into his coffee when he's not looking. He won't know it's there or even taste it, I promise you. Give it a try and then call me and let me know how things went. I'll give you a prescription for some pills now."
Three days later, Miriam phones doctor Levy and tells him that she did what he told her to do. "So Miriam," asks doctor Levy, "tell me already, did it work?"
"Did it work? you ask," replies Miriam, "Oy vey did it work. But it was horrible, just horrible, doctor."
"Really? So what happened?" asks doctor Levy.
"Well, I did as you advised and slipped a Viagra tablet into his coffee while he wasn't looking, and the effect was almost immediate. As he started to drink his coffee, he suddenly jumped straight up from his chair and looked at me with a smile on his face, a twinkle in his eye, and a large bulge in his trousers. Then with one swoop of his arms, before I could do or say anything, he sent the cups and saucers flying from the table. He then ripped all my clothes off and made mad passionate love to me then and there on the table."
"So why do you say it was horrible?" asks doctor Levy. "Wasn't his love making to your liking?"
"It was by far the most amazing, the most passionate, and the most satisfying love making I've ever experienced in our 30 years of marriage," replies Miriam.
"So nu, what was wrong with that?" asks doctor Levy.
"It's just that we'll never be allowed to book a table in Minky's Kosher Diner again," replies Miriam.
===
Dick++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) More Than 40% of Student Borrowers Aren’t Making Payments
New figure raises worries that millions of them may never repay more than $200 billion owed
By JOSH MITCHELL
More than 40% of Americans who borrowed from the government’s main student-loan program aren’t making payments or are behind on more than $200 billion owed, raising worries that millions of them may never repay.
The new figures represent the fallout of a decadelong borrowing boom as record numbers of students enrolled in trade schools, universities and graduate schools.
While most have since left school and joined the workforce, 43% of the roughly 22 million Americans with federal student loans weren’t making payments as of Jan. 1, according to a quarterly snapshot of the Education Department’s $1.2 trillion student-loan portfolio.
About 1 in 6 borrowers, or 3.6 million, were in default on $56 billion in student debt, meaning they had gone at least a year without making a payment. Three million more owing roughly $66 billion were at least a month behind.
Meantime, another three million owing almost $110 billion were in “forbearance” or “deferment,” meaning they had received permission to temporarily halt payments due to a financial emergency, such as unemployment. The figures exclude borrowers still in school and those with government-guaranteed private loans.
The situation improved slightly from a year earlier, when the nonpayment rate was 46%, but that progress largely reflected a surge in those entering a program for distressed borrowers to lower their payments. Enrollment in those plans, which slash monthly bills by tying them to a small percentage of a borrower’s income, jumped 48% over the year to 4.6 million borrowers as of Jan. 1.
Advocacy groups, some members of Congress and the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau fault loan servicers—companies the government hires to collect debt—for not doing enough to reach troubled borrowers to offer such payment options.
“The servicers aren’t quite promoting them in the way they should be—I think some of it’s information failure,” said Rachel Goodman, a staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union.
But the picture seems more complicated.
Navient Corp., which services student loans and offers payment plans tied to income, says it attempts to reach each borrower on average 230 to 300 times—through letters, emails, calls and text messages—in the year leading up to his or her default. Ninety percent of those borrowers, which include federal borrowers as well as those who hold private loans, never respond and more than half never make a single payment before they default, the company says.
The Obama administration—worried about taxpayer costs and the prospect of consumers damaging their credit by defaulting—has stepped up efforts to reach borrowers and offer the income-based repayment plans. In some cases, the government is garnishing wages and tax refunds of borrowers who refuse to pay.
Education Department officials note that some defaulted loans are from prior decades and, unlike private lenders, the government is severely limited in its ability to write them off and remove them from the books. They also point out that the growth in defaults and delinquencies slowed last year, suggesting progress in the administration’s efforts to get borrowers current.
But the officials acknowledge that a large pool of borrowers have essentially fallen off the radar. The Education Department has assembled a “behavioral sciences unit” to study the psychology of borrowers and why they don’t repay.
“We obviously have not cracked that nut but we want to keep working on it,” said Ted Mitchell, the Education Department’s under secretary. He said many defaulted borrowers dropped out of school and are underemployed.
Carlo Salerno, an economist who studies higher education and has consulted for the private student-lending industry, noted that the government imposes virtually no credit checks on borrowers, requires no cosigners and doesn’t screen people for their preparedness for college-level course work. “On what planet does a financing vehicle with those kinds of terms and those kinds of performance metrics make sense,” he said.
Some borrowers aren’t repaying even when they can. Research from Navient shows that borrowers prioritize other bills—such as car loans, mortgages and heating bills—over student debt. A borrower who fails to pay down an auto loan might have her car repossessed; with student loans, there is no such threat.
Kristopher Mathews, 38 years old, is in deferment on about $11,900 in federal student loans. During the recession he earned a certificate at a Michigan-based for-profit college that teaches media arts, but he wasn’t able to find the well-paying job in radio that he hoped for.
Mr. Mathews now works as a logistical analyst for an auto company, making $46,000 a year. He says he devotes his income to caring for his family—he and his fiancée have three children—and paying off two credit cards and a car loan. “With all the other necessities in life I just don’t have” funds to pay student debt, he said.
Once his deferment expires, he isn’t sure if he will feel obliged to pay down his loan. “They promised me everything,” he said of his for-profit college. “And I honestly have nothing to show for it except a piece of paper that doesn’t really do me any good.”
Most borrowers who have defaulted owe relatively little—a median $8,900, according to the Education Department.
The administration maintains that the student-loan program, as a whole, will generate a profit over the long term, but the risk is rising that its revenue won’t meet the administration’s projections.
Even many borrowers who are current on their loans are paying very little. More than a third of borrowers on an income-based repayment plan had monthly payments of zero because their incomes were so low, according to a Navient survey last year.
The Education Department, through private debt-collection agencies, garnished $176 million in Americans’ wages in the final three months of last year for student debt, federal data show.
The administration’s pursuit of troubled borrowers is drawing criticism from student advocates and their allies in Congress. Last week, the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Consumer Law Center sued the Education Department, accusing it of blocking public access to data on the agency’s debt-collection efforts. The groups suggested that the companies collecting debt for the department might be discriminating against black and Hispanic borrowers.
Dorie Nolt, a spokeswoman for Education Secretary John B. King Jr., said the agency is reviewing the groups’ public-information requests.
“The singular goal of our student loan program is to help all students get a degree that sets them up for success, and we take the treatment of our borrowers—particularly historically under served students—very seriously,” Ms. Nolt said in an email.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2) They Want Your IRA
2) They Want Your IRA
The White House pushes investors toward government accounts.
President Obama’s regulators aren’t slowing down, alas. And on Wednesday they unveiled another part of their plan to push Americans out of private investment accounts and into government-run plans.
The Department of Labor says its so-called fiduciary rule will make financial advisers act in the best interests of clients. What Labor doesn’t say is that the rule carries such enormous potential legal liability and demands such a high standard of care that many advisers will shun non-affluent accounts. Middle-income investors may be forced to look elsewhere for financial advice even as Team Obama is enabling a raft of new government-run competitors for retirement savings. This is no coincidence.
Labor’s new rule will start biting in January as the President is leaving office. Under the rule, financial firms advising workers moving money out of company 401(k) plans into Individual Retirement Accounts will have to follow the new higher standards. But Labor has already proposed waivers from the federal Erisa law so new state-run retirement plans don’t have the same regulatory burden as private employers do.
This competitive advantage could be significant. Last month the board of California’s new “Secure Choice” retirement plan wrote to state legislators about their “exciting win” in Washington. They reported that employers enrolling workers in the new government-run plan “would have no liability or fiduciary duty for the plan.” Score! The California bureaucrats added that “we have been given the green light to auto-enroll workers into an Individual Retirement Account (IRA).”
Meanwhile, there are only losses for private competitors. The final rule Labor Secretary Tom Perez unveiled Wednesday is being marketed as less onerous than an earlier draft. Thus much of the financial industry is going to take a few weeks to decide on its response. But the main question is exactly how many billions of dollars in costs and lost opportunities will be visited upon investors. And how big the incentive will be to seek government options.
The White House claims it is solving a $17 billion problem for consumers who suffer from “conflicted advice,” but the investment advisory industry is already among the most regulated. The $17 billion figure was assembled from a variety of data sets, many of which weren’t measuring the alleged problem that Team Obama says it can solve, and some of which were generated by people who don’t endorse the White House analysis. In any case government-run plans will have their own conflicts of interest—politicians want the money—and will be expensive.
Mr. Perez claims his agency “worked closely” with the government’s actual IRA and investing experts at Treasury and the Securities and Exchange Commission. But when Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson’s Government Affairs Committee dug into the interagency email traffic, he found Labor telling an SEC staffer, “we have now gone far beyond the point where your input was helpful to me.” Senator Johnson’s report says emails show that Treasury officials also criticized Labor’s proposal.
Still, Labor’s one-two punch on private savings has something for everyone in the progressive coalition. Senator Elizabeth Warren can check off another item on her wish list of anti-business initiatives. Mr. Perez gets to burnish his credentials as a candidate for Vice President. And Mr. Obama gets to say he helped government control more of the private economy.
What average investors get out of this deal is much less certain. But judging by the pending California plan, one answer is: low returns. The initial investment allocation, even for young workers, is likely to be heavy on government bonds. Naturally.
California and other states are still working out the details of their new foray into investment management. Depending on how the plans are structured, they may be headed back to Washington to seek exemptions from the SEC. They won’t want to live with the rules that the commission places on private brokerages or mutual funds, but the SEC’s mandate is to protect investors, not politicians who want government to manage workers’ financial assets.
Charging young investors for the privilege of loaning money to government, while handicapping private competitors and denying choices to middle-income consumers. Another perfect progressive innovation.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3) Obama Claims Power to Make Illegal Immigrants Eligible for Social Security, Disability
Does the president of the United States have the power to unilaterally tell millions of individuals who are violating federal law that he will not enforce that law against them now, that they may continue to violate that law in the future and that he will take action that makes them eligible for federal benefit programs for which they are not currently eligible due to their unlawful status?
Through Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, President Barack Obama is telling the Supreme Court exactly this right now.
3) Obama Claims Power to Make Illegal Immigrants Eligible for Social Security, Disability
Does the president of the United States have the power to unilaterally tell millions of individuals who are violating federal law that he will not enforce that law against them now, that they may continue to violate that law in the future and that he will take action that makes them eligible for federal benefit programs for which they are not currently eligible due to their unlawful status?
Through Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, President Barack Obama is telling the Supreme Court exactly this right now.
The solicitor general calls what Obama is doing "prosecutorial discretion."
He argues that under this particular type of "prosecutorial discretion," the executive can make millions of people in this country illegally eligible for Social Security, disability and Medicare.
On April 18, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case. Entitled United States v. Texas, it pits President Obama against not only the Lone Star State, but also a majority of the states, which have joined in the litigation against the administration.
At issue is the policy the administration calls Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, which would allow aliens in this country illegally who are parents of citizens or lawful permanent residents to stay in the United States.
"The Executive Branch unilaterally created a program — known as DAPA — that contravenes Congress's complex statutory framework for determining when an alien may lawfully enter, remain in, and work in the country," the attorney general and solicitor general of Texas explained in a brief submitted to the Supreme Court on behalf of the states seeking to block the policy.
"DAPA would deem over four million unlawfully present aliens as 'lawfully present' and eligible for work authorization," says the Texas brief. "And 'lawful presence' is an immigration classification established by Congress that is necessary for valuable benefits, such as Medicare and Social Security."
In the administration's brief, the solicitor general admits that the president's DAPA program does not convert people illegally in the United States into legal immigrants. He further asserts that the administration at any time can decide to go ahead and remove these aliens from the country.
"Deferred action does not confer lawful immigration status or provide any defense to removal," he says. "An alien with deferred action remains removable at any time and DHS has absolute discretion to revoke deferred action unilaterally, without notice or process."
Despite this, he argues, the administration can authorize aliens here illegally on "deferred action" to legally work in the United States.
"Without the ability to work lawfully, individuals with deferred action would have no way to lawfully make ends meet while present here," says the administration's brief.
Nonetheless, the solicitor general stresses that "deferred action" does not make an illegal immigrant eligible for federal welfare.
"In general," he says, "only 'qualified' aliens are eligible to participate in federal public benefit programs, and deferred action does not make an alien 'qualified.'... Aliens with deferred action thus cannot receive food stamps, Supplemental Security Income, temporary aid for needy families, and many other federal benefits."
But, he says, aliens here illegally with deferred action will be eligible for "earned-benefit programs."
"A non-qualified alien is not categorically barred, however, from participating in certain federal earned-benefit programs associated with lawfully working in the United States — the Social Security retirement and disability, Medicare, and railroad-worker programs — so long as the alien is 'lawfully present in the United States as determined by the (Secretary),'" says the solicitor general.
The "secretary" here is the secretary of Homeland Security.
"An alien with deferred action is considered 'lawfully present' for these purposes," says the solicitor general.
So, as explained to the Supreme Court by Obama's solicitor general, when DHS grants an alien here illegally "deferred action" under the president's DAPA policy, that alien is not given "lawful immigration status" and can be removed from the country "at any time." However, according to the solicitor general, that alien will be authorized to work in the United States and will be "considered 'lawfully present'" for purposes of being eligible for "the Social Security retirement and disability, Medicare, and railroad-worker programs."
The U.S. Constitution imposes this straightforward mandate on the president: "(H)e shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed."
When the Supreme Court agreed in January to hear U.S. v. Texas, it made a telling request. It asked the parties to argue whether Obama's DAPA policy "violates the Take Care Clause of the Constitution."
The Obama administration has taken care of just one thing here: It has constructed a convoluted — and unconvincing argument — it hopes will provide the activists on the Supreme Court with a cover story to explain why this president need not faithfully execute the nation's immigration laws.
3a)What Difference Does It Make?
3a)What Difference Does It Make?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4) The Perils of Not Listening to Iran
4) The Perils of Not Listening to Iran
by Shoshana Bryen
Gatestone Institute
Gatestone Institute
Supporters of President Obama's Iran deal (JCPOA) are starting to worry -- but that is because they believed him when his lips moved. They heard "snapback sanctions" and pretended those were an actual "thing." They are not, and never were. They heard Treasury Secretary Jack Lew say the U.S. would never allow Iran access to dollar trading because of the corruption of the Iranian banking system and Iranian support for terrorism -- and they wanted to believe him. And sanctions? The administration said that sanctions related to non-nuclear Iranian behavior -- support for terrorism, ballistic missile development, and more -- would be retained.
Supporters believed Secretary Kerry when he said sanctions on Iran would be lifted only by a "tiny portion," which would be "very limited, temporary and reversible... So believe me, when I say this relief is limited and reversible, I mean it." They all but heard him stamp his loafer.
The mistake was not just listening to the administration say whatever it was Democrats in Congress wanted to hear, while knowing full well that once the train left the station it would never, ever come back. The bigger mistake wasnot listening to Iran. The Iranians have been clear and consistent about their understanding of the JCPOA.
Days before Congress failed to block the JCPOA, Maj. Gen. Hassan Firouzabadi, Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, outlined Iran's red lines.
- To block "infiltration" of "Iran's defense and security affairs under the pretext of nuclear supervision and inspection... Iranian military officials are not allowed to let the foreigners go through the country's security-defense shield and fence."
- "Iran's military officials are not at all allowed to stop the country's defense development and progress on the pretext of supervision and inspection and the country's defense development and capabilities should not be harmed in the talks."
- "Our support for our brothers in the resistance [Hezbollah, Assad, Yemeni Houthis, Hamas, Shiites in Iraq] in different places should not be undermined."
- A final deal should be a "comprehensive one envisaging the right for Iran to rapidly reverse its measures in case the opposite side refrains from holding up its end of the bargain."
- "Iran's national security necessitates guaranteed irreversibility of the sanctions removal and this is no issue for bargaining, trade, or compromise."
- "Implementation... should totally depend on the approval of the country's legal and official authorities and the start time for the implementation of undertakings should first be approved by the relevant bodies."
- Iran would not be limited in transferring its nuclear know-how to other countries of its choosing.
The Iranians deliberately and openly conflated what the Administration claimed would be limited sanctions relief related to specific Iranian actions on the nuclear program with the larger issues of sanctions for other Iranian behavior. The Iranians were confident that the Americans could be counted on not to collapse the whole discussion over violations along the edges. Their model was American behavior in the Israeli-Palestinian "peace process." The Palestinians violate agreements and understandings with impunity because they know the Administration is more firmly wedded to the process than the specific issues on the table.
The Iranian firing of a missile within 1500 yards of U.S. aircraft carrier Harry S. Truman in December, and thekidnapping and photographing of a U.S. Navy ship and crew (the photographs were a violation of the Geneva Convention) were test cases. Other than an apparent temper tantrum by Secretary Kerry, there was no American response. Oh, actually, there was. Mr. Kerry absolved his friend, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, of responsibility, noting, "it was clear" that the footage did not come from the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He blamed the Iranian military, as if they do not work together.
Iran's announcement that it would pay $7,000 to each family of Palestinian terrorists killed by Israel "to enable the Palestinian people to stay in their land and confront the occupier," elicited the disclosure that Mr. Kerry was "extremely disturbed."
Iran's ballistic missile test in November, in violation of UN Security Council Resolutions, prompted U.S. Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power to say, "The U.S. is conducting a serious review of the reported incident," and if the reports were confirmed, the Obama administration would bring the issue to the UN and "seek appropriate action."
By February, however -- after yet another ballistic missile test, in which the missiles carried explicit threats to Israel, Mr. Kerry said he was prepared to let the matter drop. "We've already let them know how disappointed we are."
| Iran's firing of a missile within 1500 yards of a U.S. aircraft carrier in December, and its kidnapping and photographing of a U.S. Navy crew were test cases. Other than an apparent temper tantrum by Secretary of State John Kerry, there was no American response, except that Kerry absolved his friend Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif of responsibility. Pictured above: Iranian President Hassan Rouhani (left) and Foreign Minister Javad Zarif (right). |
Responding to Senator Lindsay Graham's suggestion that Congress might increase sanctions against Iran, Mr. Kerry replied, "I wouldn't welcome [that] at this time given the fact that we've given them a warning and if they decide to do another launch then I think there's a rationale."
Kerry may not have to wait long.
Just this week, Iranian Deputy Chief of Staff Brig-Gen Maassoud Jazzayeri was quoted by the FARS News Agencyreiterating, "The White House should know that defense capacities and missile power, specially at the present juncture where plots and threats are galore, is among the Iranian nation's red lines and a backup for the country's national security and we don't allow anyone to violate it."
Now, he is believable.
Congress is beginning to breathe fire, but it is not yet clear what it can or will do in the face of the Obama Administration's executive actions. Last week, angry congressmen were reduced to threatening to "name and shame" American companies that do business with Iran because they cannot figure out how to stem the tide of the Obama Administration's indulgence of Iranian provocations. Embarrassing American companies for Congress's failure to halt the Iran deal is not even close to good enough.
4a) Iran should pay a price for its ballistic missile tests
IRAN HAS complied with the principal terms of the nuclear agreement reached last summer, mothballing much of the infrastructure that could be used for weapons production and shipping enriched uranium out of the country. It also has aggressively exploited loopholes in the agreement and tried to create new ones. Most seriously, it has repeatedly tested ballistic missiles that could be used for carrying nuclear warheads, even though a U.N. Security Council resolution approved in tandem with the nuclear accord explicitly called on Iran not to engage in such activity.
Tehran’s behavior comes as no surprise to the many observers who predicted the deal would not alter its hostility to the West or its defiance of international norms. Unfortunately, the Obama administration’s response has also been much as critics predicted: It has done its best to play down Iran’s violations and avoid any conflict out of fear that the regime might walk away from a centerpiece of President Obama’s legacy.
The missile tests are one example of U.S. waffling. The administration has described them as a violation of U.N. Resolution 2231 and responded with mostly symbolic sanctions of several individuals and companies associated with the program. But it has appeared to yield to Russia’s contention that Iran did not, technically, breach the resolution because it was only “called upon,” not ordered, to stop testing. A letter sent by the United States, Britain, France and Germany to the Security Council last week described the tests as “inconsistent with” the resolution, rather than a violation that would mandate enforcement action.
Another area of potential accommodation concerns dollar transactions linked to Iran. U.S. sanctions tied to terrorism and human rights still prohibit Iranian access to the U.S. financial system. Iranian officials are complaining that they have been unable to draw on newly unfrozen assets elsewhere in the world, or make trade deals, because international banks are afraid to conduct any transactions in U.S. dollars. The administration is considering issuing a clarification to foreign banks that they can conduct dollar exchanges linked to Iran’s assets or future trade deals under certain conditions.
Administration officials say the action may be needed to comply with the spirit of the nuclear deal, which promised Iran access to its frozen assets and the resumption of international trade. Secretary of State John F. Kerry, the accord’s architect, said Tuesday that the regime “deserves the benefits of the deal they struck.” There’s logic to that. But there’s also a problem of reciprocity: Should the United States take steps not strictly mandated by the text of the nuclear accord at a time when Iran is testing nuclear-capable missiles?
Not surprisingly, Republican opponents of the nuclear deal are lining up to block the administration’s prospective action; legislation is being introduced by Sens. Mark Kirk (Ill.) and Marco Rubio (Fla.). A better response would resemble that being discussed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s chairman, Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), and ranking Democrat, Ben Cardin (Md.), though action is not likely before the U.S. election. They would mandate sanctions against all Iranian entities, including financial institutions, connected to the missile program and renew the broader Iran Sanctions Act. That would allow the nuclear accord to go forward, while sending Iran the message that its infractions will be costly.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
5) Why we should have seen the rise of Donald Trump coming, in 7 graphs
BY LINDSEY COOK
Republican front-runner Donald Trump is making headlines with his off-the-cuff campaign speeches, blunt attitude and often polarizing policy positions.
But Tamara Draut says his ideas are anything but original.
"He is billing himself, and people see him as, the authentic candidate," says Draut, vice president of policy and research at public policy organization Demos. "But, honestly, his whole candidacy is ripped straight from any polling you look at of white working-class voters."
In her new book, "Sleeping Giant: How the New Working Class Will Transform America," Draut argues that the trajectory of the working class has not been sustainable. But she also details a newly emerging working class – one largely made up of people of color and women who hold service jobs – that is overtaking what traditionally has been a manufacturing-based sector dominated by white males.
It's precisely the decline of that traditional working class – along with the frustration and distrust accompanying its demise, which largely have gone ignored by the Republican Party elite – that helped provide an opening for Trump 2016 and its populist-driven agenda.
See images of Trump through the years:
Below, we take a look at some of the evidence showing the decline of the working class – defined by Draut as Americans without a college education – along with the factors and fears Trump has capitalized on during his rise to the top of the Republican Party pack.
In short, here's why we all should have seen this coming.
Economic Strife
The wages of those in the working class have dropped over the past decades, which – combined with the increasing costs associated with housing and education – have put the American dream increasingly out of reach for many. For men in the working class specifically, the median hourly wage declined by $4.47 (in 2013 dollars) between 1980 and 2012, according to Draut's analysis of Labor Department data.
The wages of those in the working class have dropped over the past decades, which – combined with the increasing costs associated with housing and education – have put the American dream increasingly out of reach for many. For men in the working class specifically, the median hourly wage declined by $4.47 (in 2013 dollars) between 1980 and 2012, according to Draut's analysis of Labor Department data.
Many members of the working class also have been trapped in part-time work, needing to hold down several jobs just to make ends meet. Even worse, advocates say wage theft – in which employers don't pay overtime, steal tips or skimp on salary in some other way – is all too common, meaning workers often need to be suspicious of the very companies they are depending on. One poll found that nearly 90 percent of fast-food workers had experienced wage theft.
As evidenced by fewer benefits, unpredictable schedules and frequent safety violations, Draut says today's working class isn't provided the same respect as the working class of her father's day was. And despite a slow but steady economic recovery in the U.S., the working class – which was hit hard by the Great Recession – still has less economic confidence than a year ago, according to Gallup.
The New Populists
In a report on the white working class called "Beyond Guns and God," the Public Religion Research Institute explored the populism among the white working class. The 2012 analysis and accompanying survey data showed that 70 percent of white working-class Americans believed the economic system favored the wealthy, and a majority said that one of the biggest problems facing the U.S. was that not everyone gets an equal chance in life.
Many also believed that capitalism and the free market system were at odds with Christian values. And nearly 8 in 10 blamed the nation's economic problems either somewhat or very much on corporations moving jobs overseas.
Meanwhile, just 1 in 20 white working-class Americans said either abortion or same-sex marriage was the most important issue to their vote.
Enter Trump. The billionaire real estate mogul's campaign has largely set aside the common refrains of social conservatives and the Republican Party of recent decades. Even the firestorm of late over his illegal-abortion-should-be-punished comments stemmed from being pressed while on the hot seat during a televised town hall, and weren't the result of his standard remarks on the stump.
Instead, Trump has concentrated on a populist-driven agenda, trying to convince those looking for work and wage solutions that he can bring jobs back from beyond U.S. borders and keep out immigrants, whom many in the working class believe are taking jobs from them.
But it's not as if the growing disconnect between a wide swath of potential Republican voters and the messaging of the Republican Party went unnoticed by the party itself. In a post-mortem report released after the 2012 election, GOP leaders called for the party to be "the champion of those who seek to climb the economic ladder of life."
"We have to blow the whistle at corporate malfeasance and attack corporate welfare," the report said. "We should speak out when a company liquidates itself and its executives receive bonuses but rank-and-file workers are left unemployed. We should speak out when CEOs receive tens of millions of dollars in retirement packages but middle-class workers have not had a meaningful raise in years."
Yet, combined with little economic progress for the working class and little leadership in Washington from Republicans on these issues, what's been a crucial Trump voting bloc remained angry and up for grabs. According to polling from thePew Research Center, Trump supporters are more likely than backers of Sen. Ted Cruz or Gov. John Kasich to say that life for people like them in America is worse than it was 50 years ago. They're also far more likely to be angry at the federal government.
Skin-Color Suspicions
The U.S. is more diverse than ever, and only getting more so. Immigration hasincreased in recent decades, especially from Mexico , although the number of people trying to enter the U.S. illegally from there has decreased of late.
The U.S. is more diverse than ever, and only getting more so. Immigration hasincreased in recent decades, especially from Mexico , although the number of people trying to enter the U.S. illegally from there has decreased of late.
Many white working-class Americans have seen their own declining economic prospects as going hand-in-hand with this increasing diversity. In fact, according to the PRRI report, white working-class Americans were 20 points more likely than white college-educated Americans to think immigrants in the country illegally were taking Americans' jobs and causing economic problems.
Meanwhile, even as the 2012 Republican post-mortem called for a more inclusive attitude, racial tensions in the U.S. have erupted, notably in places like Ferguson, Missouri, and Baltimore following the police-involved deaths of unarmed African-Americans.
But plenty of white people in the U.S. weren't buying that there was a big problem, nor have they shared African-Americans' suspicion of police officers or law enforcement tactics. And back in 2009, 28 percent of white Americans thought President Barack Obama's policies aimed at improving the standard of living of blacks in the U.S. would go too far.
This perception likely contributed to an opinion among some whites that they are the ones being treated unfairly. And among the white working class, such opinions are especially rooted. In the PRRI survey, 60 percent said discrimination against whites had become as big a problem as discrimination against blacks and other minorities. Among Southern working-class whites, that number was a whopping 69 percent.
Trump, of course, hasn't exactly taken up the cause of multiculturalism or diversity. He's proposed banning Muslims from the country, called police officers "the most mistreated people" in America and stumbled when given the chance to immediately disavow support from a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment