Saturday, July 25, 2015

Raise Minimum Wage and Workers Cut Hours to Keep Welfare

Reportedly, Seattle’s law to raise minimum wage is running into a conflict with the welfare state.


McDonald’s and Walmart were smeared with this term because anyone who was trying to live on a single income as one of their employees would need government assistance to live. The idea was pushed that McDonald’s and Walmart are getting subsidized labor.

Mark replied to one economist pushing this message.

It is not only legal, it is exactly what the welfare state wanted and expected. It is sickening hypocrisy to favor the welfare state (which [Barry] Ritholz does) and pretend that such support does not empower employers to pay their employees less. It isn’t just McDonald’s and Walmart. It is every independent convenience store franchise owner. McDonald’s didn’t create this situation. Walmart didn’t dream up welfare entitlements and then lobby to get them passed as a long-term strategy to pay employees less. If you don’t want people to benefit from free stuff, then stop offering it to them.

Well, now we have more experimental data on the issue, since Seattle has raised the minimum wage. According to Fox News, “Seattle sees fallout from $15 minimum wage, as other cities follow suit.”

Fallout” is another term for unintended consequences or unintended results.

Seattle’s $15 minimum wage law is supposed to lift workers out of poverty and move them off public assistance. But there may be a hitch in the plan.

Evidence is surfacing that some workers are asking their bosses for fewer hours as their wages rise – in a bid to keep overall income down so they don’t lose public subsidies for things like food, child care and rent.

Full Life Care, a home nursing nonprofit, told KIRO-TV in Seattle that several workers want to work less.

“If they cut down their hours to stay on those subsidies because the $15 per hour minimum wage didn’t actually help get them out of poverty, all you’ve done is put a burden on the business and given false hope to a lot of people,” said Jason Rantz, host of the Jason Rantz show on 97.3 KIRO-FM.

How common is this? I don’t know. But it doesn’t seem like many people have been enabled to get less assistance after the raising of the minimum wage.

The notion that employees are intentionally working less to preserve their welfare has been a hot topic on talk radio. While the claims are difficult to track, state stats indeed suggest few are moving off welfare programs under the new wage.

Despite a booming economy throughout western Washington, the state’s welfare caseload has dropped very little since the higher wage phase began in Seattle in April. In March 130,851 people were enrolled in the Basic Food program. In April, the caseload dropped to 130,376.

The bottom line is that the government is distorting the economy by interfering in the employer-employee relationship with both minimum wage laws and welfare payments. The government needs to let people negotiate their lives with free people so that wages and prices are set at the right balance point. Every time the government “helps” someone it creates more problems, which it then attempts to solve with more “help” that creates yet more problems.



[VIDEO] Watch Ted Cruz’s Epic Rant About How GOP Leadership Keeps Failing Conservatives

On the Senate floor this morning, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, blasted Republican leadership.
“We’ve had a Republican majority in both houses of Congress now for about six months,” said Cruz in a speech. “What has that majority done? First thing we did – in December, we came back and passed a trillion dollar cromnibus plan, filled with pork and corporate welfare.”
“Then this Republican majority voted to fund Obamacare,” he continued, “voted to fund President Obama’s unconstitutional executive amnesty, then leadership rammed through the confirmation of Loretta Lynch as attorney general. Madam President, which of those decisions would be one iota different if Harry Reid were still majority leader? Not a one. Not a one. This senate operates exactly the same.”

The Few, the Proud, the Unarmed

Ever get the feeling that you went to sleep one night and awakened to find somebody stole your country and replaced it with an insane asylum?

We trust our warriors with weapons in foreign countries but not on their home turf? This is what’s flying over the D.C. cuckoo’s nest.

Imagine that you’re being held hostage by the “Death to America” Islamic Republic of Iran. Your president negotiates a nuclear “agreement” with the regime, but he’s too needy and impotent to secure your release as part of the agreement. Is there any message that would bring more joy to your heart than: “The Marines have landed?”

They’d be packing heat, unlike the unarmed victims at ChattanoogaFort Hood, the DC Navy Yard, and Little Rock -- United States of America.

The valiant volunteer members of our military swear an oath:
“to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”
About that “domestic” part. Despite the murders of four “officially” unarmed Marines and a Navy petty officer in Chattanooga, Tenn. on July 16, by a heavily-armed follower of Allah, some geldings in the federal follies are still studying whether to allow our military to be armed in U.S. recruiting offices, on military bases, and in public.

Responding to the Chattanooga attack, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter approved a memo telling Marines not to wear their uniforms in public. The Pentagon also told recruiters to “close the blinds for added security.”

In other words, behave like a hostage in your homeland: The Few, the Cloistered, the Incognito. There’s a sure-fire recruiting ad.

Are we fed up yet with this administration treating our military so contemptuously?


Student Takes His School To The Cleaners For $900k

A man poses with dollars, after buying them at a money exchange in Caracas, Febreuary 24, 2015.  REUTERS/Carlos Garcia Rawlins
A student expelled from a public college for dubious reasons has been vindicated, and has picked up a cool $900,000 in the process.
Way back in 2007, Hayden Barnes was a student at Georgia’s Valdosta State University. The school at the time was planning to build two new parking garages on campus, and Barnes was strongly opposed. So, Barnes expressed his frustration on social media, posting an image collage to Facebook that, among other things, included a picture of Valdosta’s then-president Ronald Zaccari.
Zaccari promptly flew off the handle, labeling the collage a “threatening document” because it dubbed one of the garages the “Zaccari Memorial Parking Garage” (Zaccari said the name implied a threat to murder him). Declaring that Barnes was an imminent threat to both Valdosta at large and Zaccari’s own personal safety, the president unilaterally expelled him without even holding a hearing.
Since then, Barnes graduated from a different college, got a law degree, got married and had a kid. But he remained convinced that his expulsion from Valdosta was a grave wrong, and was determined to be vindicated in the courts. His initial lawsuit against the school transformed into a bruising seven-year legal battle.
Barnes’s case became a cause célèbre to advocates for campus civil liberties, being pushed with particular vigor by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). In 2013, Barnes was awarded $50,000 after a federal court found his due process rights had been violated by the school. Barnes’s fight continued, though, as he also pursued a separate claim that his First Amendment right to free speech had been improperly suppressed. (RELATED: Jury: College President Must Pay Expelled Student $50,000)
Finally, in January, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling overturning a lower court’s ruling against Barnes, reinstating his First Amendment claim against the school. The ruling set the stage for a huge payout from Valdosta, as it would have to cover Barnes’ eight years of attorney fees along with a civil judgment reflecting the school’s suppression of his civil rights.

California Consumer Advocates Complain About Record Oil Industry Profits

Consumer advocates said oil refineries are logging record profits as the state's drivers pay gas prices well above $4 a gallon.
Consumer Watchdog looked at refinery margins, which is the cost and profit calculated for every gallon of gas that's refined. The historical margin averages about 46 cents a gallon. The current margin is $1.17.
Oil industry officials said that number is misleading because it includes both cost and profit. They blame recent prices on refinery outages.
The issue is getting attention because California's average price is about $1.10 above the national average price. The difference is even sharper in Southern California where prices are nearly $1.40 higher.
Consumer Watchdog's Jamie Court said the state needs to step in to regulate prices.
"What's really outrageous is we're over $4 a gallon and the price of crude is more than half of what it was the last time we were over $4 a gallon. It's between $50 and $60 a barrel," Court said.
Current gas prices are uncomfortable for all California drivers, according to Tupper Hull of theWestern State's Petroleum Association. He said the soaring prices are linked to a series of refinery outages that create gas shortages.
"The market can react with a lot of volatility and you will see big swings in prices," Hull said. "Right now we're seeing truly one of the largest differentials between the national average and California prices than we've seen in a very long time."
San Diego's average price for a gallon of regular is a $1.44 above the national average.
Consumer Watchdog is asking the governor and state lawmakers to intervene with a windfall profit tax. They also hope the refining industry shares more information about their business.

[COMMENTARY] Hillary Clinton’s Worst Fears Are Coming True

The national political press is fixated on the chaotic and contentious Republican presidential primary, and not without good reason. But in devoting so much focus to the race for the GOP nomination, the Democratic side of the aisle has been getting short shrift. Over the course of the summer, a left-wing revolt against and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has evolved into an insurgency, and her campaign is gradually imploding, albeit at a cosmically languid pace. But that tempo is set to accelerate. The tipping point may have been reached on Thursday when one of the presumptive Democratic nominee’s worst fears was realized. 

Hillary Clinton’s campaign team was surely reveling in the national media’s distracted focus on the messy Republican presidential primary late Thursday night when they got the news. Immediately, her campaign team sprang into action and began the familiar process of muddying the waters and misdirecting reporters with a magician’s mastery. The New York Times had revealed that two independent inspectors general requested that the Justice Department open a criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton for possibly jeopardizing national security by handling classified information on her personal “homebrew” email server. By morning, however, the Times story had been edited several times. Struck from the account was the contention that Clinton had “mishandled sensitive government information” and in its place was the claim that “information was mishandled” by… someone. The lead reporter on that story confessed that the alterations were made at the Clinton campaign’s “reasonable” request. The Associated Press dutifully followed the Times lead and noted that the IG’s referrals do not suggest wrongdoing by Clinton personally – merely her subordinates at the State Department.

Several hours later, the Justice Department indicated that the referrals they received were not criminal, leading to pushback from New York Times reporters who claimed that their sources were solid. Meanwhile, a spokeswoman for the Inspector General’s office is standing by the contention that classified information that was classified as such was sent to Clinton’s private email address. Something bizarre is happening.
All that is clear at the moment is that a classic bit of Clintonian obfuscation skillfully executed by Hillary’s rapid response shop and her campaign’s press secretary, Nick Merrill, is afoot. Reporters and commentators immediately began litigating the story as reported in the Times and not the revelation that Clinton’s email practices are now a criminal matter. The story isn’t the story; the reporters who exposed the story are the story. It’s only a matter of time before Republicans “pounce” and probably “overplay their hand.”

Chattanooga declares shooting sites, funerals and memorials off-limits to protesters

Mayor Andy Berke cites state, federal law protecting funerals and memorial services

Chattanooga Mayor Andy Berke has declared memorials at Lee Highway and Amnicola Highway, at which a 24-year-old gunman mounted brazen attacks on two military installations last Thursday, as "protected memorial services, which will shield them from any protests," according to news releases. 
The gunman, who officials said on Wednesday was a "violent extremist," killed five and wounded others during his assault, before being shot and killed by police. 
"Since the incidents, the sites have served as memorials to the fallen heroes, and thousands of people have visited the sites to memorialize the mourn them," Berke wrote in a directive, labeled number 2015-01. 
Berke directed the Chattanooga Police Department, Hamilton County Sheriff's Office and other agencies to defend mourners at Lee Highway, Amnicola Highway, and any funeral processions and funeral services. 
Berke cited Tennessee Code Section 39-17-317 as the justification for preventing interference during memorial services, preventing anyone from doing anything "in a manner offensive to an ordinary person."
He said the Tennessee General Assembly has determined that picketing, protesting or demonstrating at a funeral or memorial service within 500 feet shall be deemed offensive. 
He also cited federal law, specifically 38 USC Section 2413, which prohibits some demonstrations at national cemeteries, such as the Chattanooga National Military Cemetary, within 300 feet of the entrance.

The ‘Donald Trump Act’ Just Passed The House By A Landslide, And Obama Doesn’t Like It One Bit

obama-trump
The House passed a bill Thursday which would punish cities that refuse to enforce federal immigration law.
H.R. 3009 passed easily in the lower chamber 241 to 179The Hill reported. The bill would force local law enforcement agencies to notify Immigration and Customs Enforcement if they have an illegal immigrant in custody; otherwise, certain federal law enforcement grants would be withheld.
“I think we can all agree that any state or locality must comply with the law—and they are required to coordinate and cooperate with the federal government,” said Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., who sponsored the legislation. “If an arrest is made, the federal government should be notified. The fact that San Francisco, Los Angeles and other cities disagree with the politics of federal enforcement doesn’t mean they should receive a pass to subvert the law.”
“And if they do, there needs to be consequences—and the way we impose those consequences is by hitting them where it hurts. In the pocketbook,” Hunter added.
The bill was passed after 32-year-old Kate Steinle was murdered earlier this month, allegedly by an illegal immigrant who was deported from the U.S. multiple times and convicted of several felonies.
Hunter’s bill was voted on largely across party lines. Reps. Carlos Curbelo of Florida, Bob Dold of Illinois, Dan Donovan and Peter King of New York, and Dave Reichert of Washington were the only GOP members of Congress to vote against the measure. Six Democrats voted for the bill: Reps. Ami Bera of California, Jim Cooper of Tennessee, Henry Cuellar of Texas, Bill Keating of Massachusetts, Collin Peterson of Minnesota, and Krysten Sinema of Arizona.
Opponents of the bill have tied it to Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who in a statement earlier this week labeled the proposal the “Donald Trump Act.” Pelosi went on to call the bill a “wildly partisan, misguided bill that second-guesses the decisions of police chiefs around the country about how to best ensure public safety.”
“Just a few weeks into his campaign and Donald Trump has a bill on the floor of the House. That is better than some of the senators he’s running against,” Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., a fierce opponent of conservative immigration measures, told The Hill Thursday.

[VIDEO] California AG to review group behind Planned Parenthood videos

California Attorney General Kamala Harris announced Friday she plans to review two undercover videos released by anti-abortion activists aimed at discrediting Planned Parenthood’s procedures for providing fetal tissue to researchers to see if any law was broken in the filming.
Harris made the announcement in a letter to four Democratic members of Congress who had requested the investigation, saying she’ll use her office’s authority to regulate charity organizations to see if the organization that made the videos violated registration or reporting requirements, or broke any other rules.
"We will carefully review the allegations raised in your letter to determine whether there were any violations of California law," Harris said in the letter to four members of the U.S. House of Representatives.
She said her office will look into "allegations that individuals impersonated corporate officials from a fake biologics company, resulting in the release of secretly filmed videos of Planned Parenthood physicians without their consent."
Harris, a Democrat, plans to run for the U.S. Senate in 2016.
The videos show Dr. Mary Gatter, a Planned Parenthood medical director in Southern California, meeting with people posing as possible buyers of intact fetal specimens. The conversation is centered of the cost of the specimens.
David Daleiden of the Center for Medical Progress, the group that released the videos, contends it follows all applicable laws when making videos that he called investigative journalism.
He said in a statement that Planned Parenthood is "trying to use the power of their political cronies to shut down free speech" and to "silence the freedom of the press."
The videos have shined the spotlight on Planned Parenthood’s policies on aborted fetuses by three Republican-led congressional committees and three states.
Federal law prohibits the commercial sale of fetal tissue, but it allows the not-for-profit donation of tissue if the women who underwent abortions give their consent. Planned Parenthood says the payments discussed in the videos pertain to reimbursement for the costs of procuring the tissue — which is legal.
Gatter says in the second video, which was released on Tuesday a week after the first, that "We're not in it for the money," while also discussing whether a payment of $100 per fetal specimen would be adequate.

SEN. TOM COTTON: CHANGES TO CITIZENSHIP OATH ‘UNDERMINES WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A CITIZEN’

The Obama administration’s changes to the Oath of Allegiance for new citizens erodes its very meaning, according to 
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR)
60%
.

“The Obama Administration’s announced changes to the Oath of Allegiance undermines what it means to be a citizen of the United States,” Cotton said in statement.
Tuesday, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced it was altering the eligibility requirements for modifications to the Oath of Allegiance. Namely, while immigrants seeking to become citizens are usually required to declare they will “bear arms on behalf of the United States” and “perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States,” the new guidance now allows for not only those with religious objections but also people with a strongly held beliefs to omit those portions.
Specifically the guidance says that citizenship candidates:
-May be eligible for modifications based on religious training and belief, or conscientious objection arising from a deeply held moral or ethical code.
-Is not required to belong to a specific church or religion, follow a particular theology or belief, or to have had religious training in order to qualify.
-May submit, but is not required to provide, an attestation from a religious or other type of organization, as well as other evidence to establish eligibility.
Cotton in his statement this week  highlighted his family and his personal experience with and in the military.
“Growing up in Dardanelle I learned from an early age that freedom isn’t free. I knew my dad and many of his friends had put their lives on hold to serve during the Vietnam War,” he said. “When they returned home they didn’t ask for glory or recognition; in their minds they were simply doing their patriotic duty. Their service is partially what inspired me to join the Army after September 11th and to volunteer for a second deployment to Afghanistan.”
According to Cotton, this sense of service should be universal to all Americans.
“All citizens of the United States—native or naturalized—should have that same of sense of patriotism and duty,” he said.

Clintons' charities got £50million of British aid cash: UK government accused of trying to buy influence with US power family

Controversy: At least £50 million of taxpayer-funded foreign aid money has gone to Clinton charities, which are at the centre of allegations in the US that foreign governments used donations to buy influenceTens of millions of pounds of UK aid money has been siphoned through charities linked to Hillary Clinton, it emerged last night.

British politicians – including Gordon Brown – stand accused of diverting huge amounts of cash through the organisations after falling under the spell of the US presidential candidate and her husband Bill.

At least £50 million of taxpayer-funded foreign aid money has gone to Clinton charities, which are at the centre of allegations in the US that foreign governments used donations to buy influence.

The UK is one of the biggest donors, handing over more than £20 million last year alone to the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI), an organisation chaired by former President Bill, 68, and whose board includes the couple’s daughter Chelsea, 35. Since 2011, a total of £48.9 million has gone into the coffers of this charity alone.

Tory backbenchers say the revelation is symptomatic of the fact that the Department for International Development has so much money to spend that large amounts have to be simply handed to global charities, often leading to huge amounts of waste.

The Clinton charities are involved in running projects receiving some £107 million from DfID since 2009 – although not all of this money went to their organisations.

But critics are concerned that waste at CHAI is so high that British taxpayers may end up paying millions of pounds of management charges – money which they say would be much better spent on front-line disaster relief.


Republican Weekly Address, Saturday July 25, 2015



WASHINGTON, D.C.  In the Weekly Republican Address, Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma says that after years of unsatisfactory short-term spending bills to fund America’s roads, bridges and highways, the Senate is now considering a long-term solution that will allow states to pursue critically needed transportation projects throughout the country.  With 54 percent of America’s major roads rated poor or mediocre, and one in four bridges requiring significant repair, states need the certainty that federal funds will be available to tackle long-term transportation and infrastructure projects. “With the DRIVE Act, we can rebuild Eisenhower’s vision, fight growing congestion, and maintain the mobility of good and services necessary to move our economy forward,” says Inhofe, chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
Via: You TubeContinue Reading...

OBAMA WEEKLY ADDRESS: Wall Street Reform is Working

WASHINGTON, DC — In this week's address, the President spoke to the progress we have made in making our financial system stronger, safer, and more fair in the years since financial crisis. Five years ago this week our country enacted theDodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, rules that have substantially reduced recklessness and abuse in our financial system that predated the crisis.  As a result of Wall Street reform, our banks are less reliant on unstable funding and less likely to engage in risky behavior, the independent Consumer Financial Protection Bureau works to protect American consumers, and our financial system is significantly better-regulated.  Dodd-Frank is working, and the President emphasized that he will continue to fight any challenges to the law and veto any effort to unravel the new rules governing Wall Street.
The audio of the address and video of the address will be available online atwww.whitehouse.gov at 6:00 a.m. EDT, July 25, 2015.


AT&T & DirecTV Merger Gets FCC Approval – With Conditions

One day after AT&T CFO John Stephens said he expected the $49 billion melding with DirecTV to get regulatory approval “at any time,” the Federal Communications Commission has signed off on the deal today. Now the largest Pay TV provider in the nation, the newly merged company will have around 26 million cable and satellite subscribers. To that end, the FCC have imposed some conditions for the next four years on the rich AT&T and DirecTV marriage.
The approval comes with the stipulations that the new bigger than ever telecommunications giant grow its high-speed fiber network and build on the FCC’s Open Internet Order. That will include greater access for public libraries and schools as well as discounted pricing for millions of low income households to get them online. An independent compliance officer will also be in place to make sure that there will be no-data caps on the company’s broadband or discrimination against video services. “The conditions imposed by the commission address potential harms presented by the combination of AT&T, one of the nation’s largest telephone and Internet service providers, and DIRECTV, the nation’s largest satellite video provider,” said the FCC in a statement today. “This pretty much seals the merger as the Department of Justice has already stated that it would not contest the arrangement.

Popular Posts