You cannot mandate growth through raising wages but liberals do not understand it is growth and rising profits that allows corporations to increase wages. (See 1 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I would love to see an Oprah- Pocahontas ticket. This would give women their opportunity to run/ruin America. It would also give the Democrat Party the opportunity to prove they are the ones who are truly insane. Furthermore, it would also provide the opportunity for the far left to gut us old white males and lay capitalism to rest once and for all.
Finally, it would give Hollywooders' a chance to impose their values on a nation which seems to have lost its way.
Should Oprah run and win, she could appoint Michael Moore Secretary of State, Meryl Streep could be Sec. of Defense. Whoopi Goldberg could be Attorney General, Barbara Streisand could be Amb. to Israel, Mayor diBlasio could become head of the CIA, Hillary could be appointed Sec. of the Treasury and an assortment of other female actresses, who hate Trump, could round out other Cabinet Positions. Bill could return as Head of The VA.
Just think, Oprah would be able to select two and possibly three Justices of The Supreme Court and , thus, really end the rule of law so Marijuana can be legalized and kindergartners could start smoking pot and even if they fail in whatever they undertake they would at least feel good.
Stay tuned as The Good Ship comes apart at the seams.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I recently read an interesting article about France's President, Emannuel Marcon and how authoritative he is in his effort to remake France. We had a president, named Obama, who acted in a similar fashion because he too wanted to change/transform America.
I believe citizens of Western nations are fed up with the power of their ineffective political establishments who have fumbled their economies, have yielded too much authority to unions and have allowed their nations to become over run by Muslims . Even Germany's Merkel cannot form a government.
In frustration, the French seem to have turned to an outsider who brings new ideas, and is unwilling to tolerate unending debates that accomplish little that proves productive. The French seem to be following "deplorables" who decided to toss the ball to a man named Trump. So far he is surprising even some of my friends, who still dislike him but are willing to admit they are surprised at how effective he has been. (See 2 below.)
Stay tuned as Oprah becomes the mass media's new saviour. Will it last or fade?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
BAMA pulled it out. Saban took a chance and the freshman came through. Great game. College football continues to be far more exciting than professional football in my opinion. I watch very little of either but try to watch Alabama because my father loved Alabama football and that was something we did together.
++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
+++++++++++++++++
1) Raise Wages via Growth, Not Mandates
American workers are already benefiting from tax reform.
President Trump’s regulatory rollback is driving an economic surge few anticipated. Tax reform promises to accelerate that growth by encouraging business investment and eliminating the perverse incentives that drive companies, jobs and investments to other countries. The true test for these pro-growth policies is whether they result in a more participatory economy, in which workers’ incomes meaningfully increase over the long run. The early results are promising.
The left’s proposed solution to wage stagnation has been for government to mandate increased wages by more than doubling the minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 an hour. That causes employers to eliminate jobs and reduce hours to offset their increased costs. To increase wages without these unintended consequences, you need economic growth.
Democrats once understood that. President Kennedy referred to economic growth as the “tide that lifts all boats.” Yet no Democrats voted for tax reform in December. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi warned of “Armageddon.” Sen. Bernie Sanders called it “a disaster.” Sen. Elizabeth Warren claimed Republicans were “just delivering one gut punch after another to hardworking people.”
President Trump’s regulatory rollback is driving an economic surge few anticipated. Tax reform promises to accelerate that growth by encouraging business investment and eliminating the perverse incentives that drive companies, jobs and investments to other countries. The true test for these pro-growth policies is whether they result in a more participatory economy, in which workers’ incomes meaningfully increase over the long run. The early results are promising.
The left’s proposed solution to wage stagnation has been for government to mandate increased wages by more than doubling the minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 an hour. That causes employers to eliminate jobs and reduce hours to offset their increased costs. To increase wages without these unintended consequences, you need economic growth.
Democrats once understood that. President Kennedy referred to economic growth as the “tide that lifts all boats.” Yet no Democrats voted for tax reform in December. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi warned of “Armageddon.” Sen. Bernie Sanders called it “a disaster.” Sen. Elizabeth Warren claimed Republicans were “just delivering one gut punch after another to hardworking people.”
That “gut punch” turned out to be bigger paychecks. After the GOP passed its tax bill, major U.S. employers including AT&T , Bank of America , Boeing , Wells Fargo , Fifth Third Bank, Comcast NBC Universal and Sinclair Broadcasting immediately committed to investing billions in growth, special bonuses or higher wages. Wells Fargo and Fifth Third are voluntarily increasing their base wages to $15 an hour.
Democrats criticized these commitments as publicity stunts designed to get favorable treatment from the Trump administration. But they miss the economywide significance of this investment. Businesses compete for the best employees. If you want the best, you pay the going rate. With regulatory relief, tax cuts and the increased business that comes from economic growth, employers now have the resources to bid up wages. Competition will spread those increases without the unintended consequences of a dramatic minimum-wage increase.
That competition kicked in almost immediately as more than 100 diverse businesses, including Wisconsin-based Associated Bank , North Carolina-based BB&T Corp oration, Pennsylvania-based PNC Financial Services Group , New Jersey-based OceanFirst FinancialCorp. , Georgia-based Sun Trust Banks, Minnesota-based US Bank, the Bank of Hawaii , and South Carolina-based Nephron Pharmaceuticals announced pay hikes for workers within two weeks of the tax bill’s passage.
Both the competition for employees and the associated wage increases will continue—if government stays out of the way. Wage growth doesn’t come from government mandates. It comes from policies that get the economy moving. It’s just unfortunate that it took so long for us to elect political leaders who understood that.
Mr. Puzder is a former CEO of CKE Restaurants.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2) Could Oprah Out-Trump Donald?
The talk show host makes Hollywood hearts flutter.
By The Editorial Board
Hollywood spent the Golden Globe awards Sunday atoning for its sexual harassment of women, an industry habit running back at least a century. Better late than never. But the evening’s news break was the possibility that the Democratic Party’s 2020 nominee for the U.S. Presidency might be Oprah.
It is a commentary on the evolution of our politics that the next presidential election could be a contest between two first-name celebrities: Donald and Oprah. Ms. Winfrey says she isn’t running, and it may be that the Oprah boomlet isn’t much more than wishful thinking by Hollywood’s effervescent dream factory. But we can see how the possibility might cause the hardest professional Democratic hearts to flutter.
Oprah’s name recognition equals Donald Trump’s . We’d guess that the popular midday talk show host’s approval rating is at least double that of the sitting President, and across the political spectrum. Among women, he’d never match her support. Like him, she could run as an outsider when many voters are still hostile to the political class.
Her candidacy would also offer Democrats relief from two problems: the need to come up with a substantive agenda and to raise money. Ms. Winfrey would likely run a campaign based more on a personality suffused with positive energy than on, say, climate change. With a net worth estimated at nearly $3 billion, she’d give a rest to Democratic donors tapped out by Hillary Clinton’s campaign. By the way, contrary to current Democratic dogma—“if you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that”—Oprah really did build that wealth herself.
No one waltzes into the Oval Office. Unless the Democratic Party chooses to coronate Ms. Winfrey, an unpopular idea in liberal circles, she would have to run through a primary gauntlet likely to include Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris and maybe 15 other Democratic contenders. We’ve learned it’s possible to survive this ordeal without knowing much of anything about public policy, but Democratic primary voters might not take it on faith that this famous entrepreneur is on board with the current progressive turn toward some American version of statism.
Ms. Winfrey’s other obstacle might be convincing voters in a general election that her Presidency in practice wouldn’t merely return the Obama -era apparat to power after Mr. Trump’s policies restored the economy. Ms. Winfrey might have to talk her way around what the Democrats represent, but after 2016 only a fool would rule out Oprah’s chances.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2) Trump Is Right to Cut Funding to UNRWA
by Gregg Roman
The Hill
The Hill
Originally published under the title "Trump Is Right to Cut Funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency."
A few days ago, President Trumpasked an important question in a tweet: "[W]e pay the Palestinians HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS a year and get no appreciation or respect. But with the Palestinians no longer willing to talk peace, why should we make any of these massive future payments to them?" On Friday, Trump answered his question and cut funding to the Palestinians by freezing a $125 million transfer to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA).
Asked about the decision, the State Department said deliberations are ongoing about how to move forward. This presents a tremendous opportunity, but it will take more bold action by the White House. The administration must continue to hold the Palestinians accountable for their rejectionism.
Like Trump's December move on Jerusalem, this represents a bold step that is long overdue. UNRWA, the UN's Palestinian refugee agency, long has needed reform, but with Palestinian leadership unwilling to even feign serious commitment to peace, it's probably time to scrap the agency altogether. It stands in the way of peace.
The Israeli government has remained publicly supportive of the agency, resisting attempts to defund UNRWA for fear it will lead to a humanitarian crisis. But things may be changing as the world finally realizes this agency is harmful.The United States funds UNRWA to the tune of $300 million per year, and it does enjoy important backing and major funding from some in the Muslim world. But the agency runs large annual deficits.
Founded in 1949 to carry out direct relief and works programs for Palestinian refugees from
Israel's War of Independence, UNRWA long ago outlived its charge. When it was established, there were as many as 750,000 refugees. Today, UNRWA considers more than 5 million people to be refugees from that conflict and provides education, health care, social programs, loans and more to people in the West Bank, Gaza, Jordan and Syria.
Israel's War of Independence, UNRWA long ago outlived its charge. When it was established, there were as many as 750,000 refugees. Today, UNRWA considers more than 5 million people to be refugees from that conflict and provides education, health care, social programs, loans and more to people in the West Bank, Gaza, Jordan and Syria.
Helping refugees is a noble charge, but UNRWA isn't actually helping people. It's perpetuating a conflict the Palestinians lost long ago and aiding Arab governments who refuse to provide for the basic needs of their people.At the Middle East Forum, we seek to bring the UNRWA definition of a refugee in alignment with U.S. law that recognizes as refugees only those displaced and their minor children who have not obtained a new nationality and are not "home." This is a conceptual change: "Yes to assistance, no to classification as refugees." The result would leave only about 20,000 legitimate Palestinian refugees.
Between 1940 and 1945, World War II created 40 million refugees in Europe. The partition of India and Pakistan displaced 14 million people in 1947. But how many people remain displaced because of these conflagrations? Zero.
Why, then, has the number of refugees from Israel's War of Independence grown nearly sevenfold since 1949? The answer is that it's been politically advantageous to the Palestinian leadership and to Israel's Arab neighbors who work to ensure the conflict continues. With UNRWA's support, they've become experts at perpetuating the conflict. A recent study found that UNRWA schools teach Palestinian children that, "Jews have no rights whatsoever in the region but only 'greedy ambitions.'" The same study found textbooks in UNRWA schools glorifying terrorists who killed civilians as heroes.
UNRWA has evolved from a temporary relief and works program into a broad social welfare organization.
|
There have been many ideas about how to reform UNRWA, including forcing host governments such as the Palestinian Authority and Lebanon to take responsibility for their people. But the time for reform has passed. It's time to dismantle the agency.
Israeli Education Minister Naftali Bennett recently called UNRWA a "terror-supporting organization" and said that "aiding the residents of Gaza should be no different than aiding the Syrian residents suffering under a terror regime, or aiding any other group of descendants of refugees."
Ending UNRWA doesn't mean ending humanitarian support for Palestinians. If the definition of a Palestinian refugee changes, the small number of remaining refugees could be served by the U.N. Refugee Agency (UNHCR) and Palestinians in need could be served by the Palestinian Authority.
To help bring that about, Trump should clarify that the U.S. Government's definition of a Palestinian refugee includes only those who are actually refugees. This change would help depoliticize the provision of aid. Importantly, this would be a step toward taking a major point of contention — the rights of Palestinians to return to Israel — off the table, just as the administration did with Jerusalem.
Defunding UNRWA gives Palestinian leadership a stark choice: get serious about forging lasting peace with a Jewish state in Israel, or refuse to play ball and be forced to act like a responsible government that cares for its own people.Ultimately, the path to peace is one that forces the Palestinian people to realize that continued rejection of Israel is a dead end. They must understand that the only way to build a better future for their children is to abandon the conflict that has been central to their identity for most of the last century.
President Trump came into office making big promises about solving the Arab-Israeli conflict and reforming the United Nations. His announcement on Jerusalem dealt a serious blow to the Palestinian rejectionism that has prolonged this conflict for generations. Finding a way to end UNRWA's support for the structures behind the unwillingness of Palestinians to make peace would be another important step. Freezing payments is a step in the right direction.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Gregg Roman (@GreggRoman) is director of the Middle East Forum.
