Big government

Greg Gutfeld: Sanders campaign staff wage complaints expose ‘socialist millionaire’ as ‘hypocrite’

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., routinely slams corporate executives and makes calls for wage hikes, a stance that comes across as hypocritical thanks to a new report, according to Greg Gutfeld. The self-described democratic socialist is reportedly taking heat from campaign staffers upset they are being paid “poverty wages” and not the $15 per hour that is a hallmark of the Sanders campaign, Gutfeld claimed Friday on “The Five.” “He is, just by existing, a hypocrite,” he said. “He’s a socialist millionaire with three homes. Wealth is good for him but not for others.” Sanders reportedly has a net worth of about $700,000, but has made more than $1 million annually in recent years. He and his wife Jane own a house in Burlington, Vt., he purchased a $575,000 lakefront property in the Green Mountain State in 2016, and the couple owns a 19th-century townhouse in the District of Columbia. On “The Five,” Gutfeld said it is important that Sanders, “appl[y] the damaging policies that he wants to do to Americans onto his staff.” “But why won’t he?” he asked. “Because he knows when you raise wages… you have to reduce the number of jobs because ‘the pie’ doesn’t grow. “The purpose of the minimum wage is it’s the first rung on the employment ladder. The problem with the left is… they see the first rung as the last rung because they’re not economically competent.” In recent weeks, Sanders has called for a $15 per hour minimum wage on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” and at campaign rallies in Rock Hill, S.C. and in Augusta, Ga. Adding to Gutfeld’s remarks, host Juan Williams claimed the wages Sanders staffers are making average out to $13 per hour. The staff is also unionized, Williams said.

Greg is definitely right..  Regardless of your personal politics, or party affiliation, Bernie is clearly a spectacular hypocrite.  But, then again, so are most socialist leaders.  They’ll want to impose their failed economic/political system on everyone, but themselves.  Socialism keeps people in mediocrity, except those at the very top who are millionaires (some even billionaires) with multiple mansions and so on.  And, that’s been true throughout history.  Bernie is just the most glaring, brazen example in American politics.  Kudos to Greg for calling out that self-righteous hypocrite on his bs.  For more, click on the text above.

Steve Forbes: Trump deregulation boosting our economy – Here’s one example

Two big things have been propelling the U.S. economy forward in impressive fashion: the 2017 Trump tax cuts and the president’s relentless drive to reduce unnecessary regulations, which are another form of taxation. One example of the president delivering his deregulation promise came in late May when the U.S. Department of Transportation and Federal Railroad Administration abandoned a costly regulatory proposal issued by President Barack Obama. The measure would have forced private freight railroad carriers to continue operating with two people in a locomotive cab. This proposed Obama, anti-business mandate was always wrongheaded, and its revocation carries important lessons for how best to regulate. It is also a positive development for the sake of a U.S. economy, whose strength is increasingly connected to the efficient movement of goods. E-commerce will only continue to grow as businesses fiercely compete, and America needs a multimodal transportation system to support this. Despite years of analysis, the federal government did not have data to show that two-person railroad crews – the standard operating model currently for big freight carriers like BNSF or CSX – are any safer than one-person crews used by many smaller freight carriers, like Indiana Railroad, or almost all passenger railroad systems throughout the U.S. The Obama proposal was not a serious attempt at promoting safety. Rather it was featherbedding pure and simple at the behest of unions. Ditching the proposal underscores the fact that regulators should embrace outcomes – such as reducing rail accidents – instead of prescriptions when writing rules. Rather than bow to narrow labor interests, regulators would be better served stating the goals and letting industries figure out the best ways to achieve them. This would encourage innovation and avoid the constant problems of regulators always being behind the curve when it comes to newer and better practices. The Trump Transportation Department deserves immense credit for turning rhetoric into action. A nanny-ish, we-know-best mentality on a decision better left to the private market is simply unneeded as railroads continue to set all-time safety records – a result of private investments averaging $25 billion in recent years. Indeed, as the American Action Forum outlined, “regulators should not impose specific and costly mandates when lacking evidence they will solve a problem. Regulators should also be mindful of the implications today’s regulatory decisions will have on future innovation, particularly when evidence suggests those innovations could improve safety.” Consumers should welcome this news too, as railroads now have a greater incentive to develop technology that will allow them to better compete for freight business. After all, truckers are feverishly working to reduce labor costs by employing autonomous technologies, and drones don’t need pilots to fly them. Instead, with action from the Transportation Department, trucks and railroads, along with the rest of the freight market, can let the market decide what works best. This is deregulation done right. Ironically, excessive government regulation came close to destroying the rail system; deregulation in the early 1980s saved it. Modernizing operations in the future – free from senseless dictates – will be critical for future U.S. economic growth.

Agreed 100!!   Thanks to Steve Forbes for that outstanding op/ed. Steve is Chairman and Editor-in-Chief of Forbes Media. His latest book, “Reviving America: How Repealing Obamacare, Replacing the Tax Code, and Reforming the Fed will Restore Hope and Prosperity”.  Excellent!!     🙂

Study: Deporting Illegal Aliens Saves Americans Billions in Tax Dollars

Deporting the roughly 11 to 22 million illegal aliens living across the United States saves American taxpayers hundreds of billions in public costs, analysis finds. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is expected to conduct a mass deportation effort next week, where at least 2,000 illegal aliens who have final orders for removal will be arrested, detained, and deported from the U.S. American taxpayers stand ready to benefit significantly from the deportation of thousands of illegal aliens, all of whom have been ordered deported and have refused to leave. The latest analysis from the Center for Immigration Studies Director of Research Steven Camarotta compared and contrasted the cost to American taxpayers of millions of illegal aliens living in the U.S. over a lifetime and the cost of deportation. Based on research from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, the cost of illegal aliens to American taxpayers over a lifetime is about $746.3 billion. Compare this to the cost of a single deportation, which is about $10,854 per illegal alien based on Fiscal Year 2016 totals. Overall, deporting every illegal alien in the country would amount to a cost savings of about $622 billion over the course of a lifetime. This indicates that deporting illegal aliens is six times less costly than what it costs American taxpayers to currently subsidize the millions of illegal aliens living in the U.S. “There’s a high cost of cheap labor,” Camarotta told Breitbart News. Last year, President Trump’s administration deported more than 256,000 illegal aliens from the U.S. Assuming that the cost of deportations has been largely unchanged since the Obama administration, this would mean that last year’s deportations, alone, cost about $2.8 billion. Compared to the annual $116 billion that the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) estimates illegal immigration costs taxpayers, deportations conducted last year were more than 40 times less costly. The latest Harvard/Harris Poll finds that a majority of Americans support Trump’s plan to mass deport illegal aliens following inaction from Congress. This includes support from more than 8-in-10 Republican voters and more than 5-in-10 swing voters. As Breitbart News has chronicled, there are about 1.7 million illegal aliens from Central America and Mexico, alone, living in the U.S. despite already being ordered deported or having pending deportation orders. The latest federal data concludes there are more than 925,000 illegal aliens, in total, with final deportation orders who have continued living freely in the U.S. About 20 percent of these illegal aliens have at least one criminal conviction and almost all are not in federal custody. Roughly 60 percent of these illegal aliens come from Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala.

As we’ve been saying from day 1 here at The Daily Buzz..  We much closer to, if not more than, 22 MILLION illegal aliens here in America.  That’s an insane number!!  So, we need to be deporting these illegal aliens by the hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions.  The current roundup of the low-hanging fruit (those who are convicted criminal aliens with final deportation orders from an immigration judge) is the first step.  But, we need to keep that momentum going.  As this article clearly points out, and we’ve been saying for years, the cost of deportation is far less than allowing these illegals to remain.  Kudos to Steven Camarotta for putting this outstanding study together.  Facts matter…even if they’re uncomfortable and inconvenient for the open-boarders crowd of Democrat politicians, and their cheering section in the dominantly liberal mainstream media.

 

9th Circuit Court sides with Trump administration on banning Title X funds for abortion

A federal appeals court refused Thursday to block the Trump administration’s Title X family-planning rules from taking effect, keeping in place newly instated requirements preventing grant recipients from referring clients for abortions. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a plea from 20 states and the District of Columbia, as well as abortion providers like Planned Parenthood, to impose an emergency stay after lifting June 20 preliminary injunctions ordered by lower courts in California, Oregon and Washington. In February, the Department of Health and Human Services overhauled rules governing Title X grants for family-planning services to low-income patients, prohibiting recipients from using the funds to “perform, promote, refer to, or support abortion as a method of family planning.” The rule change could cost Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, as much as $60 million per year, although the Title X grants represent only a small percentage of the organization’s half-billion in annual federal funding. Pro-life groups cheered the court for standing by its earlier ruling. All seven of the judges who voted to deny the emergency stay were appointed by Republicans—including two chosen by President Trump—while the four who voted in the minority were named by Democrats. “This is a victory for commonsense, life-affirming policy,” said Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America. “The Protect Life rule ensures that the people helping women plan for families are not misusing appointments to market abortions at taxpayer expense.” She added that “Title X had become a marketing slush fund for Planned Parenthood, and the Trump Administration and the American people won today.” The Title X overhaul opened the door for pro-life pregnancy centers to receive funds by removing the requirement for “nondirective counseling on abortion.” In March, the Obria Group of California became the first such center to receive a Title X grant. The rule also requires a “clear financial and physical separation” between abortion procedures and other family-planning services, a mandate scheduled to take effect in March 2020. Planned Parenthood blasted the court’s refusal to block “the Title X gag rule,” calling it “devastating.” “This is devastating news,” said Planned Parenthood president Leana Wen. “While we are incredibly concerned the panel did not recognize the harm of the Trump-Pence administration’s gag rule, we will not stop fighting for the millions across the country in need for care.” Jeanne Mancini, president of the March for Life, said that abortion “is neither health care nor family planning and therefore should not be funded by the Title X program.” “This regulation helps to get taxpayers out of the abortion business, without cutting resources for those in need, and is a victory for all Americans,” she said.

Agreed 100!  This is a victory for all hard-working American tax payers.  To be clear, this isn’t about abortion, or outlawing it…or anything like that.  It’s simply a rare common-sense ruling by the otherwise left-leaning 9th Circuit agreeing with the Trump Administrations prohibition against using Title X funds for abortions.  That’s it.  And, it’s about time.  It’s hopefully the first step in stopping ALL federal tax-payer funding of Planned Parenthood entirely.  And, again, this has NOTHING to do with abortions, or their legality.  It’s simply about forcing tax-payers to pay for them; a large percentage of whom have moral objections to such procedures.  If someone wants to undergo that procedure, that’s their business.  But, the rest of us shouldn’t be forced to pay for it.  That’s the bottom line.  I don’t say this very often..but..  Kudos to the 9th Circuit Court for this decision.

Supreme Court invalidates part of law aimed at preventing gun violence

The Supreme Court on Monday invalidated a key part of a law designed to prevent gun violence, saying it left too much leeway for judges to decide what constituted a violent crime. In a 5-4 ruling the justices said Congress was too vague when it tried to slap extra penalties on people who used guns while committing a “crime of violence.” “In our constitutional order, a vague law is no law at all. Only the people’s elected representatives in Congress have the power to write new federal criminal laws,” Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote in the court’s opinion. The ruling could lead to thousands of new appeals from people convicted under the vague law, prosecutors warned. The case involved two men who were convicted of a string of robberies. They carried firearms during the crimes, which earned them heightened sentences under the Gun Control Act, which kicks in for cases of a “crime of violence or drug trafficking crime.” The statute said crimes of violence are those where physical force is used or threatened against a person or property. But the justices have long grappled with what, exactly, meets that definition. In a series of cases Justice Gorsuch, joined by the court’s four Democratic-appointed justices, has ruled it’s too tough to say what falls under the law. “Vague statutes threaten to hand responsibility for defining crimes to relatively unaccountable police, prosecutors, and judges, eroding the people’s ability to oversee the creation of the laws they are expected to abide,” Justice Gorsuch wrote. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, writing the dissent joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, said the law was successful, and should have remained in place. “Many factors have contributed to the decline of violent crime in America. But one cannot dismiss the effects of state and federal laws that impose steep punishments on those who commit violent crimes with firearms,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote. John Marti, a former federal prosecutor now practicing at the Dorsey & Whitney law firm, said the decision will lead to a “title wave” of appeals from defendants convicted under the statute now struck down. “Today the Supreme Court eliminated this powerful tool for federal prosecutors in combating violent crime, by finding that the statute is unconstitutionally vague by using the phrase ‘crime of violence,’” Mr. Marti said.

Supreme Court sides with property owners in fight over cemetery mandate

The Supreme Court ruled Friday that people can sue in federal court if they believe state or local governments have infringed on their property rights, siding with a Pennsylvania woman fighting her town over a supposed cemetery on her land. In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled in favor of Rose Mary Knick, who tried to bring a lawsuit in federal court after her town, Scott, Pennsylvania, passed an ordinance that required anyone with a cemetery on their land to open it to the public during the day. Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the court’s opinion in Knick v. Township of Scott, saying that a person attempting to sue their town finds themselves in a “Catch-22.” “He cannot go to federal court without going to state court first; but if he goes to state court and loses, his claim will be barred in federal court,” Roberts wrote, adding that “we now conclude that the state-litigation requirement imposes an unjustifiable burden” on the property owner. In this case, a town official found several grave markers on Knick’s farmland in Pennsylvania, but she disputed whether there was actually a small, family cemetery on her property. Knick argued that in passing the ordinance in 2012 and applying it to her, local officials were essentially taking her property and opening it to the public without paying her for it. A federal court threw out Knick’s case, ruling that she had to go to state court first. Because of the Supreme Court’s ruling, Knick will now be able to pursue her case in federal court. Knick’s attorneys argued that property owners with complaints like Knick’s would often prefer to take their cases to federal court because they may view them as more objective than in state courts, which they said could be seen as being influenced by local politics. “This decision is a very long time coming for Rose and other property owners who have had federal courtroom doors slammed shut in their faces whenever they seek compensation for a governmental taking of their private property,” Knick’s attorney J. David Breemer said in a statement. Prior to the ruling on Friday, local governments had the power to take a case like Knick’s that was filed in state court and move it to federal court, but citizens did not have the option to begin their cases at the federal level. A 1985 Supreme Court decision had barred people with property rights claims, like Knick’s, from going to federal court. The Supreme Court’s Friday ruling overruled that decision, writing that it was “not just wrong” but also “exceptionally ill founded.”

Agreed!  Kudos to the Supremes for exercising common sense here.    This is a HUGE victory for individual property rights!  Excellent!!    🙂

5.8 Million Individuals Drop Off Food Stamps Under Trump

Over 5.8 million individuals have discontinued their participation in America’s food stamp program since President Donald Trump’s first full month in office, according to the latest U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) data. The most recent USDA data shows that 5,829,890 people discontinued their participation in food stamps received through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) since February 2017, Trump’s first full month in office. Overall food stamp participation had consistently declined since 2013 back when the Obama administration was in power and enrollment in the program reached its peak in U.S. history. After 2013, SNAP enrollment plummeted once state legislatures passed laws requiring food stamp recipients to work, attend school, volunteer, or participate in job training for a set number of hours per week to receive benefits. Currently, there are 36,302,402 people enrolled in the nation’s food stamp program. But USDA officials say that number is “preliminary” due to the government shutdown at the end of 2018, which affected how food stamps were administered in early 2019. The president has signaled that he wants to curb the nation’s dependency on food stamps and wants those coming into the country to be self-sufficient.

Agreed!!  This is more great economic news that the dominantly liberal mainstream media isn’t reporting.  Excellent!!     🙂