The Pronk Pops Show 943, August 9, 2017, Story 1: Big Brother/Sister Alive and Well In Corporate America — An Inconvenient Truth — Google Group Think Diversity Coercion Cult — Firing James Damore Proves Points of Memo — Discrimination in Hiring and Promoting People Based on Gender, Race, Class and Ideology Instead of Achievement, Experience and Merit Leads To Class Action Lawsuits By Women — Make Google Prove The Truth Is A Falsehood — Google Will Settle The Lawsuits Quickly or Pay A Very Large Price — Public Relations Disaster Developing — Conservatives, Classical Liberals, Libertarians Individualists and Rationalists Need Not Apply — Switching From Google Search Engine To Microsoft Bing Search Engine — Videos

Posted on August 10, 2017. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Breaking News, College, Communications, Countries, Crime, Culture, Defense Spending, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Economics, Employment, Freedom of Speech, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, History, Human Behavior, Independence, Language, Law, News, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, Progressives, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Rule of Law, Scandals, Security, Spying, United States of America, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 943, August 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 942, August 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 941, August 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 940, August 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 939,  August 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 938, August 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 937, July 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 936, July 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 935, July 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 934, July 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 934, July 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 933, July 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 932, July 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 931, July 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 930, July 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 929, July 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 928, July 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 927, July 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 926, July 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 925, July 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 924, July 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 923, July 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 922, July 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 921, June 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 920, June 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 919, June 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 918, June 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 917, June 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 916, June 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 915, June 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 914, June 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 913, June 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 912, June 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 911, June 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 910, June 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 909, June 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 908, June 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 907, June 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 906, June 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 905, June 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 904, June 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 903, June 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 902, May 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 901, May 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 900, May 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 899, May 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 898, May 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 897, May 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 896, May 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 895, May 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 894, May 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 893, May 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 892, May 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 891, May 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 890, May 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 889, May 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 888, May 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 887, May 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 886, May 4, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 885, May 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 884, May 1, 2017

Image result for google firing of employee diversityImage result for george orwell quotes about truthImage result for cartoon google diversity cultImage result for diversity cartoonsImage result for cartoon google

Image result for cartoon google

Image result for george orwell quotes about truth

Image result for branco cartoons on google diversityImage result for google gulag

Image result for diversity cartoons

Story 1: Big Brother/Sister Alive and Well In Corporate America — An Inconvenient Truth — Google Group Think Diversity Coercion Cult — Firing James Damore Proves Points of Memo — Discrimination in Hiring and Promoting People Based on Gender, Race, Class and Ideology Instead of Achievement, Experience and Merit Leads To Class Action Lawsuits By Women — Make Google Prove The Truth Is A Falsehood — Google Will Settle The Lawsuits Quickly or Pay A Very Large Price — Public Relations Disaster Developing — Conservatives, Classical Liberals, Libertarians Individualists and Rationalists Need Not Apply — Switching From Google Search Engine To Microsoft Bing Search Engine — Videos

Ben Shapiro Gives BRILLIANT Analysis of Google Memo Controversy

Ben Shapiro Interviews Google Memo Guy James Damore

EXPOSED: Google’s Entirely Far Left Leadership! | Louder With Crowder

Gavin McInnes: Stop lying about Google “anti-diversity” memo

The Truth About the Google ‘Diversity’ Memo

Fired Engineer James Damore: I Feel Google Betrayed Me

2017/08/08: James Damore and his Google Memo on Diversity (complete)

Google fires employee behind gender gap memo

Google Employee James Damore, Author of Diversity Memo, is Fired

Former Google engineer fired for anti-diversity memo stands by his words

Google fires employee for “Anti-Diversity” wrong-think.

This LIBERAL Woman in Tech Salutes James Damore!

Google Diversity Memo Sparks Outrage | CNBC

Ex-Google employee reacts to memo on women in tech

The Ramifications of Google Firing James Demore

Google Head Of Diversity: Leaked Employee Memo About Gender ‘Incorrect’

CNN’s Brooke Baldwin Outright Lies About Google Memo; Mary Katharine Ham Pounces

Scott Adams tells you what he thinks about the Google ‘manifesto’ firing

Rush Limbaugh: Google Manifesto rips political correctness (08-07-2017)

Rush Limbaugh Podcast 8/8/17 | Google Manifesto Author Canned

We’ve Been Blacklisted!! 100% PROOF They Are After Conservatives!! This Must NOT Go Ignored!!!

Explosive Google employee memo: A timeline

Is Trump On The Brink? | The Ben Shapiro Show Ep. 356

The Corporate Fascists Are Here | The Ben Shapiro Show Ep. 357

Google: Free Speech and Expression Are Dead Thanks to Snowflake HR Department Thought Fascists

James Damore of Google Is An Idiot for Daring to Suggest Flaws in Diversity Tyranny

What Pisses Me Off About The Google “Anti-Diversity” Memo

Let’s Read And Examine James Damore’s Diversity Memo (Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber)

Google Fires James Damore, Confirming His Memo’s Point: The Case for a Tech First Amendment

Ben Shapiro: Google’s ideological echo chamber (audio from 08-07-2017)

The Cult of Diversity at the BBC

Thomas Sowell – The Reality Of Multiculturalism

The Least Diverse Place in America

Google Violates Labor Laws By Firing Memo Writing Employee

Full James Damore Memo — Uncensored Memo with Charts and 

Fake news site Gizmodo (previously owned by Gawker) published an edited James Damore memo. What were they hiding?

You can read the full memo with charts and citations below.

View at Medium.com

Why I Was Fired by Google

James Damore says his good-faith effort to discuss differences between men and women in tech couldn’t be tolerated in company’s ‘ideological echo chamber’

Former Google software engineer James Damore.
Former Google software engineer James Damore. PHOTO: PETER DUKE

I was fired by Google this past Monday for a document that I wrote and circulated internally raising questions about cultural taboos and how they cloud our thinking about gender diversity at the company and in the wider tech sector. I suggested that at least some of the male-female disparity in tech could be attributed to biological differences (and, yes, I said that bias against women was a factor too). Google Chief Executive Sundar Pichai declared that portions of my statement violated the company’s code of conduct and “cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace.”

My 10-page document set out what I considered a reasoned, well-researched, good-faith argument, but as I wrote, the viewpoint I was putting forward is generally suppressed at Google because of the company’s “ideological echo chamber.” My firing neatly confirms that point. How did Google, the company that hires the smartest people in the world, become so ideologically driven and intolerant of scientific debate and reasoned argument?

We all have moral preferences and beliefs about how the world is and should be. Having these views challenged can be painful, so we tend to avoid people with differing values and to associate with those who share our values. This self-segregation has become much more potent in recent decades. We are more mobile and can sort ourselves into different communities; we wait longer to find and choose just the right mate; and we spend much of our time in a digital world personalized to fit our views.

Echo chambers maintain themselves by creating a shared spirit and keeping discussion confined within certain limits. As Noam Chomsky once observed, “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.”

But echo chambers also have to guard against dissent and opposition. Whether it’s in our homes, online or in our workplaces, a consensus is maintained by shaming people into conformity or excommunicating them if they persist in violating taboos. Public shaming serves not only to display the virtue of those doing the shaming but also warns others that the same punishment awaits them if they don’t conform.

In my document, I committed heresy against the Google creed by stating that not all disparities between men and women that we see in the world are the result of discriminatory treatment. When I first circulated the document about a month ago to our diversity groups and individuals at Google, there was no outcry or charge of misogyny. I engaged in reasoned discussion with some of my peers on these issues, but mostly I was ignored.

Everything changed when the document went viral within the company and the wider tech world. Those most zealously committed to the diversity creed—that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and all people are inherently the same—could not let this public offense go unpunished. They sent angry emails to Google’s human-resources department and everyone up my management chain, demanding censorship, retaliation and atonement.

Upper management tried to placate this surge of outrage by shaming me and misrepresenting my document, but they couldn’t really do otherwise: The mob would have set upon anyone who openly agreed with me or even tolerated my views. When the whole episode finally became a giant media controversy, thanks to external leaks, Google had to solve the problem caused by my supposedly sexist, anti-diversity manifesto, and the whole company came under heated and sometimes threatening scrutiny.

It saddens me to leave Google and to see the company silence open and honest discussion. If Google continues to ignore the very real issues raised by its diversity policies and corporate culture, it will be walking blind into the future—unable to meet the needs of its remarkable employees and sure to disappoint its billions of users.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-i-was-fired-by-google-1502481290

Google has fired the employee who penned a controversial memo on women and tech

The author wrote, among other things, that females suffered from more “neuroticism.”

The search giant acts.

 

In a memo to employees, Google CEO Sundar Pichai said the employee who penned a controversial memo that claimed that women had biological issues that prevented them from being as successful as men in tech had violated its Code of Conduct, and that the post had crossed “the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace.”

He added: “To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK.”

Pichai’s wording appears to indicate that the employee is likely be fired, which some inside and outside the company have been calling for. A Google spokesperson said the company would not confirm any firing of an individual employee, but in the past others have been let go for violating its Code of Conduct.

(Update: Sources told Recode that the employee has been fired, but Google said it would not comment on individual employees. The memo’s author also confirmed his firing from the company to Bloomberg.)

Once it does happen — and it should not be long — the move is sure to attract a firestorm of criticism on both sides, putting the search giant in the crosshairs of a wider debate about gender issues taking place in Silicon Valley and across the country.

The employee memo — which was up for days without action by Google — went viral within the search giant’s internal discussion boards this weekend, with some decrying it and others defending it. Sources said the company’s top execs have been struggling with how to deal with it and the fallout, trying to decide if its troubling content crossed a line.

Apparently it did. In a memo to employees titled “Our words matter,” Google CEO Sundar Pichai said that the employee — who has been named on Twitter, although his identity could not be verified — had violated its code of conduct. (I am not publishing his name, because he — and others who disagree with him — have been threatened with violence online.)

Had the employee not belittled women’s skills, I assume, he would not be let go, but he made claims that many consider problematic, although others maintain that his myriad of claims are worthy.

One thing is clear, the memo has become radioactive at Google.

Multiple sources said the memo has caused a massive debate to go on internally, which has devolved in ways not unlike those taking place across the country. “It has been really toxic,” said one person at Google. “It’s a microcosm of America.”

Still, this is a corporation with rules and managers who rule on those rules. So, what is also true is that most free speech is allowed when it comes to the government and within society, but not necessarily within companies. In fact, it is common for people to lose their jobs for making sexist and racist remarks.

That said, Pichai also noted that the memo did raise some important issues, such as the need for more willingness at Google to include more points of view at the company, including more conservative ones.

It’s really a no-win situation for him or anyone, as these issues engender really profound and often ugly disagreement to take place.

But, as Pichai noted, words matter:

“First, let me say that we strongly support the right of Googlers to express themselves, and much of what was in that memo is fair to debate, regardless of whether a vast majority of Googlers disagree with it. However, portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace. Our job is to build great products for users that make a difference in their lives. To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK. It is contrary to our basic values and our Code of Conduct, which expects ‘each Googler to do their utmost to create a workplace culture that is free of harassment, intimidation, bias and unlawful discrimination.’”

On Sunday, Google’s head of diversity, Danielle Brown, said in a memo — her first to the company — that she would not link to the employee’s memo because “it’s not a viewpoint that I or this company endorses, promotes or encourages.”

Google does not have an easy line to walk, especially since the employee penned a piece he sent across the company that posited, among other things, that women were biologically not suited to do tech.

Titled “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber,” it begins promisingly enough (and is, for the most part, well-written):

“I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes. When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions. If we can’t have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem.”

But then, in what is pretty much the main premise, he went on in detail: “I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership.”

What followed was a list of those differences, including a claim that women were more social and artistic and could not take the stress of high-pressure jobs. Hence, “neuroticism,” or higher anxiety and lower stress tolerance, which he claimed was backed up by studies.

Perhaps most disingenuously, the author also claimed that he had no voice, even after penning a 3,000-word memo that he was able to send companywide and also was read by millions more.

In other words, he got heard.

“Psychological safety is built on mutual respect and acceptance, but unfortunately our culture of shaming and misrepresentation is disrespectful and unaccepting of anyone outside its echo chamber,” he wrote.

Well, maybe so, but it also looks like it also will lead to more serious consequences for the employee.

Ironically, Google is now hosting a conference on girls in tech.

It is also in the midst of a lawsuit with the Labor Department, which has alleged that Google has a gender gap in pay. The company has denied this, and has declined to provide salary information to the government. But Google, like many tech companies, has released its diversity statistics — men make up almost 70 percent of the staff and a full 80 percent of the technical employees.

Here is the Pichai memo in total — if you want to also read between the lines:

From: Sundar

Subject: Our words matter

This has been a very difficult few days. I wanted to provide an update on the memo that was circulated over this past week.

First, let me say that we strongly support the right of Googlers to express themselves, and much of what was in that memo is fair to debate, regardless of whether a vast majority of Googlers disagree with it. However, portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace. Our job is to build great products for users that make a difference in their lives. To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK. It is contrary to our basic values and our Code of Conduct, which expects “each Googler to do their utmost to create a workplace culture that is free of harassment, intimidation, bias and unlawful discrimination.”

The memo has clearly impacted our co-workers, some of whom are hurting and feel judged based on their gender. Our co-workers shouldn’t have to worry that each time they open their mouths to speak in a meeting, they have to prove that they are not like the memo states, being “agreeable” rather than “assertive,” showing a “lower stress tolerance,” or being “neurotic.”

At the same time, there are co-workers who are questioning whether they can safely express their views in the workplace (especially those with a minority viewpoint). They too feel under threat, and that is also not OK. People must feel free to express dissent. So to be clear again, many points raised in the memo — such as the portions criticizing Google’s trainings, questioning the role of ideology in the workplace, and debating whether programs for women and underserved groups are sufficiently open to all — are important topics. The author had a right to express their views on those topics — we encourage an environment in which people can do this and it remains our policy to not take action against anyone for prompting these discussions.

The past few days have been very difficult for many at the company, and we need to find a way to debate issues on which we might disagree — while doing so in line with our Code of Conduct. I’d encourage each of you to make an effort over the coming days to reach out to those who might have different perspectives from your own. I will be doing the same.

I have been on work related travel in Africa and Europe the past couple of weeks and had just started my family vacation here this week. I have decided to return tomorrow as clearly there’s a lot more to discuss as a group — including how we create a more inclusive environment for all.

So please join me, along with members of the leadership team at a town hall on Thursday. Check your calendar soon for details.

— Sundar

https://www.recode.net/2017/8/7/16110696/firing-google-ceo-employee-penned-controversial-memo-on-women-has-violated-its-code-of-conduct

Google Anti-Diversity Memo: Fired Engineer Wants To Sue, But Faces Hurdles

Google Fires Employee James Damore Behind Anti-Diversity Memo

The controversy surrounding the firing of former Google engineer James Damore over an internal diversity memo took another turn late Tuesday, as Damore officially filed a formal complaint with the National Labor Relations Board due to his dismissal from Google. It’s also the latest legal move for Damore, who publicly said he wants to take the search giant to court.

At the moment, Damore’s prospects for a case against Google appear to be uncertain. For Google, the company contends the memo clearly had disruptive and hostile effects within its offices. According to a post from Google CEO Sundar Pichai, the former software engineer’s memo had a negative response among Google’s staffers and, more significantly, portions of the document violated the company’scode of conduct for its employees.

Read: Google Anti-Diversity Manifesto Author Identified And Fired

While Google initially struggled to handle the early backlash to the diversity manifesto, the company’s progressive culture eventually guided its response. In past research, Jennifer Chatman, professor of management with the Haas School of Business at the University Of California, Berkeley, found that establishing political correctness norms improved creativity and novel thinking among groups of men and women by removing areas for potential uncertainty.

Chatman told International Business Times that Google’s dismissal of Damore reflected how much the company values maintaining its corporate culture and showed the degree of internal hostility caused by the diversity memo.

“You can have a culture in which people articulate values, but unless those values are actually upheld through supporting behaviors that are aligned with those values and sanctioning those that are not aligned, then you have what I would call a vacuous culture,” Chatman said. “What I think Google is doing is simply standing behind its stated values and that’s indicative of a strong culture. It’s not enough just to have the content, you actually have to enforce the cultural norms.”

google 2Damore’s memo was critical of Google’s approach to diversity hiring and staffing. Photo: Getty

Last week, Damore’s 10-page internal memo blasting Google’s approach to diversity hiring was leaked and initially made public by Motherboard. While Damore initially defends his memo’s focus, writing that he values “diversity and inclusion,” the paper prominently contends that women are not represented at higher levels in the tech industry compared to men because of automatic biological differences.

“Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50 percent representation of women in tech and leadership,” Damore writes. “Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.”

Damore’s memo argues female workers generally tend to be more neurotic and move into less detail-focused fields of work due to how they prefer “people rather than things.” It also touches on the dominance of progressive points of view within Silicon Valley and Damore also said that conservative voices are underrepresented at companies like Google.

For female engineers, coders and other technical employees, the idea that a staffer would openly argue that they were at a disadvantage because of their gender and that other employees supported this viewpoint was likely untenable for Google. As Wired reported, the memo received its share of opposition and support within Google’s internal discussion threads. In his memo, Pichai also defended the right to debate and dissenting opinions within Google, but said the memo’s language crossed a line.

Read: James Damore Files NLRB Complaint After Google Memo Firing

“To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK,” Pichai said.

In a blog post, former Google senior engineer Yonatan Zunger also points out the practical concerns of trying to continue to work with an employee with a toxic internal reputation:

And as for its impact on you: Do you understand that at this point, I could not in good conscience assign anyone to work with you? I certainly couldn’t assign any women to deal with this, a good number of the people you might have to work with may simply punch you in the face, and even if there were a group of like-minded individuals I could put you with, nobody would be able to collaborate with them. You have just created a textbook hostile workplace environment.

Legal experts have also dismissed common online opposition to the firing on free speech grounds. As a tech company, Google is a private business that’s not subject to First Amendment guidelines.

Plus, the diversity memo would have be a persistent headache for Google if it had chosen to keep Damore onboard as an employee. According to Richard Ford, professor of law at Stanford Law School, employers have a legal obligation to reject blatant instances of discriminatory behavior in the workplace and the Damore memo would’ve been a clear-cut and publicly documented example of this type of comment.

California law does offer some basic protections against alleged retaliation to political speech, but it typically focuses on organizing and activism done outside of the office. Damore’s potential case could argue that he was engaging in worker-related activism, but Ford told IBT that this would a difficult legal approach to pursue.

“Federal labor law prohibits employers from taking adverse action against employees who engaged in work related organizing advocacy (such as union organizing),” Ford said. “This is probably his best shot, but it is a big stretch: the law is designed to protect labor organizing — not general political expression or general criticism of the employer.”

 

Google Memo Full Text

Google Memo 1

Google Memo 2

Google memo 3

Google Memo 4

Google Memo 5

Google Memo 6

Google Memo 7

Google Memo 8

Google Memo 9

Google Memo 10

http://www.ibtimes.com/google-anti-diversity-memo-fired-engineer-wants-sue-faces-hurdles-2576459

 

 

 

 

 

Google Fires Engineer Over Memo Criticizing Corporate Cult of Diversity

Google employee made waves when he wrote a 10-page letter ripping the cultist approach to diversity at the campus where he worked and now he has been sent packing by the Orwellian tech giant which has found him guilty of thought crime and independent thinking, both of which are verboten in corporate America.

James Damore was fired after his epic and courageous communique that called into question Google’s policies on forced diversity, biases and the biological unsuitability of women for certain managerial roles in the high-stress corporate environment.

The memo was strictly Mr. Damore’s personal opinion and he makes a lot of very good points that are taboo in today’s corporate fascist environment in which this humble author has personally toiled in.

Take my word that corporate America is an oppressive environment policed by overzealous human resources goon squads and since the election of Donald Trump as president, has become progressively more intolerant to those with conservative viewpoints. Some corporations are even hiring third parties to aggressively monitor off-work social media use by employees, a clear violation of free speech as well as an exercise in witch hunting.

It’s hard to overstate just how bad that it has gotten in the corporate world today. Office grudges can be turned into career killers based on nothing but accusations in which a white male is guilty until proven innocent which is nearly impossible before a kangaroo court of busybodies and social engineers whose biases are sanctioned at the highest levels.

Damore’s memo was rapidly spun into him being a misogynist and a bigot and drew hate and scorn from the left as well as the personal involvement of Google CEO Sundar Pichai resulting in his termination.

Reuters is reporting “Google fires employee behind anti-diversity memo”:

Internet giant Google has fired the male engineer at the center of an uproar in Silicon Valley over the past week after he authored an internal memo asserting there are biological causes behind gender inequality in the tech industry.

James Damore, the engineer who wrote the memo, confirmed his dismissal, saying in an email to Reuters on Monday that he had been fired for “perpetuating gender stereotypes”.

Damore said he was exploring all possible legal remedies, and that before being fired, he had submitted a charge to the U.S. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) accusing Google upper management of trying to shame him into silence.

“It’s illegal to retaliate against an NLRB charge,” he wrote in the email.

Google, a unit of Alphabet Inc based in Mountain View, Calif., said it could not talk about individual employee cases.

Google Chief Executive Sundar Pichai told employees in a note on Monday that portions of the anti-diversity memo “violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace,” according to a copy of the note seen by Reuters.

Tech website Gizmodo published the memo in its entirety, read it HERE.

A few excerpts:

I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes. When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions. If we can’t have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem. Psychological safety is built on mutual respect and acceptance, but unfortunately our culture of shaming and misrepresentation is disrespectful and unaccepting of anyone outside its echo chamber. Despite what the public response seems to have been, I’ve gotten many personal messages from fellow Googlers expressing their gratitude for bringing up these very important issues which they agree with but would never have the courage to say or defend because of our shaming culture and the possibility of being fired. This needs to change.

AND

People generally have good intentions, but we all have biases which are invisible to us. Thankfully, open and honest discussion with those who disagree can highlight our blind spots and help us grow, which is why I wrote this document. Google has several biases and honest discussion about these biases is being silenced by the dominant ideology. What follows is by no means the complete story, but it’s a perspective that desperately needs to be told at Google.

Google’s biases

At Google, we talk so much about unconscious bias as it applies to race and gender, but we rarely discuss our moral biases. Political orientation is actually a result of deep moral preferences and thus biases. Considering that the overwhelming majority of the social sciences, media, and Google lean left, we should critically examine these prejudices.

Unfortunately, in today’s toxic corporate diversity culture such a memo is a suicide note.

Mr. Damore is already being smeared as an Alt-Right fanatic which is the newest catch-all term that the intolerant left uses to label anyone who disagrees with them by throwing them into a nebulous group that ranges from anyone who has ever been critical of Hillary Clinton or U.S. foreign policy towards Russia to full-blown white supremacists. Most of America never even heard the term until Clinton used it as the basis of one of her demagogic speeches on the campaign trail last year. Now Damore has become just another member of that basket of

Most of America never even heard the term until Clinton used it as the basis of one of her demagogic speeches on the campaign trail last year. Now Damore has become just another member of that basket of deplorables that holds those who do not adhere to the false religion of identity politics.

Forced diversity is to corporate America what eugenics was to the Nazis and it is only going to continue to proliferate unless there is an honest national discussion on how damaging that such practices truly are. Hopefully Damore’s letter can be the start of that conversation.

Wake up Right!Subscribe to our Morning Briefing and get the news delivered to your inbox before breakfast!

Silicon Valley Firms Are Even Whiter and More Male Than You Thought

Our exclusive data shows that Google, which just released diversity numbers, lags further behind than other major tech firms.

The gender and ethnicity of Google’s overall workforce Official Google Blog

After stalling for years, Google finally released data on the diversity of its workforce Wednesday, admitting that the company is “miles from where want to be.” Lazlo Bock, Google’s senior vice president of people operations, noted that “being totally clear about the extent of the problem is a really important part of the solution,” adding that the company is supporting code education among historically underrepresented groups.

But those efforts may not be enough. Exclusive data obtained from the Labor Department by Mother Jones shows that top Silicon Valley tech firms lag far behind the general population in diversity, and that while Google is average in its recruitment of women, it has even fewer African-American and Latino employees than other major tech firms.

Google is far from the only Silicon Valley firm that has been tight-lipped about its demographics. Though large companies are legally obligated to report race and gender stats to the federal government, tech firms such as Google, Apple, and Oracle long ago convinced the Labor Department to treat the data as a “trade secret” and withhold it from the public. Mike Swift of the San Jose Mercury News sued the department to get the numbers. In 2010, following a two-year legal battle, he ultimately settled for stats for a handful of the Valley’s largest companies.

Swift’s data went through 2005. To get an update, I filed a Freedom of Information Act request a few months ago asking the Labor Department for its latest race and gender data on the top 10 firms. In order of largest to smallest by market capitalization, it now consists of Apple, Google, Oracle, Cisco Systems, Intel, Gilead Sciences, eBay, Facebook, Hewlett-Packard, and VMware. When I reached out for comment, most of these companies didn’t get back to me. Google responded that it intended to make its stats public, as it now has. The chart up top shows stats for Google’s workforce overall. The nontech workforce is a lot more balanced. But when you look at just the tech jobs, things are far less diverse. For example, 83 percent of the tech jobs are held by men, and 94 percent of those workers are white or Asian.

 

Google’s tech workforce is far less diverse than its overall workforce. Google

The data I obtained shows that Silicon Valley’s race and gender disparities also are wider when limited to executives and top managers, and more dramatic when compared to the makeup of the state workforce. Google’s stats reflect the same: Its “leadership” is 79 percent male and 72 percent white, which would put it a bit ahead of its peers, except that the report is vague about which specific positions are being included. Here’s what things look like for the Valley’s Top 10 firms, based on our Labor Department data:

 

The data obtained by Mother Jones illustrates that “many companies pay lip service to diversity rather than making the real changes,” says Telle Whitney, president and CEO of the Anita Borg Institute, a Palo Alto-based nonprofit that promotes the recruitment and retention of women in technology.

Though the technology gender gap originates in college—only about 18 percent of computer science graduates are women—Whitney believes that the imbalance ultimately stems from the failure of Silicon Valley’s leaders to groom more women for top positions, which in turn discourages younger women from entering the field. “First it has to be a priority to have a diverse workforce,” she says. “And the priority has to come from the top.”

Not all of a tech firm’s employees work as coders or engineers. But among those people directly employed in technology positions at Bay Area tech firms, Asians have actually surpassed whites as the dominant racial group:

These numbers are driven, in part, by the heavy reliance of tech companies on the H-1B visa program, which allows US firms to import up to 65,000 foreign workers each year to fill jobs that require “specialized knowledge.” In 2012, more than 40 percent of the H-1B workers in the United States came from India, China, or South Korea. Many of them earn less money for comparable jobs than their American counterparts, which is perhaps one reason why major tech firms have lobbied furiously in Washington to increase the H-1B visa cap.

But Asian Americans are also represented at a high rate in Silicon Valley, and are overrepresented among high school students taking the AP computer science exam:

Prominent techies like to say that the Valley is a pure meritocracy, but the glaring disparities make that a dubious claim. “In polite company, I would say it’s a fallacy,” says Laura Weidman Powers, the executive director of Code2040, a San Francisco-based nonprofit that promotes racial diversity in tech hiring. “In impolite company, I would say it’s bullshit.”

Powers doesn’t think tech corporate leaders are discriminating deliberately; the factors working against black and Latino candidates are more subtle and structural. “Referrals are a huge source of inbound talent for these companies, even when you look at a company as large as a Google or a Facebook,” Powers notes. Given that most Americans run in the social networks of people who look like them, the system benefits the Valley’s dominant groups at the expense of those on the outside.

Code2040 tries to disrupt that dynamic by actively recruiting talented African American and Latino computer science graduates and plugging them into internships at tech companies. But the group still struggles to convince CEOs to make diversity a goal. “For the tech industry, this is newer,” she says. “There is a pretty pervasive mindset of ‘Oh, we’re colorblind. We just see talent.’”

The best case for increasing diversity in Silicon Valley may be financial. Powers’ group gets its name from the year 2040, when people of color are expected to make up the majority of the US population. She argues that tech firms need to hire more people who reflect and understand their customer base. “For any company that has a consumer-facing product” a few years from now, she says, “the communities that use that product will look different.”

Correction: A previous version of this post included a chart showing diversity at Silicon Valley’s top 10 companies in 1999 vs 2012. There was a misinterpretation about one of the datasets used for the chart, so we have since removed it. In addition, the article has been amended to address Google’s breakdown according to tech and nontech jobs, and “leadership” positions.

http://www.motherjones.com/media/2014/05/google-diversity-labor-gender-race-gap-workers-silicon-valley/

Diversity stats: 10 tech companies that have come clean

Tech companies often draw criticism for being exclusive and lacking diversity. Here are ten companies that have released diversity numbers to the public. See how they compare.

Diversity is a hot topic among tech companies. More and more, companies are no longer making excuses, rather, they are taking actionable steps to be more diverse in terms of both gender and ethnicity. From corporate giants to early stage startups, many companies are working towards transparency in the workplace.

The following ten companies have released workforce diversity reports. Here’s how they compare.

Google

Google was one of the first big companies to release a report detailing its diversity. Global gender data indicates that Google employees are 70% male and 30% female. Google’s ethnicity data refers to US employees only, and indicates 61% white, 30% Asian, 4% identifying as two or more races, 3% Hispanic, 2% black, and 1% other. Google also has employee resource groups for employees, including groups for Googlers of specific races, veterans, women in engineering, and LGBT employees.

Apple

Apple’s diversity report indicates the same global gender ratio as Google, with 30% female and 70% male employees. When broken down into roles specified as “tech,” that ration changes to 80% male and 20% female. Apple’s US employees are 55% white, 15% Asian, 11% Hispanic, 7% Black, 2% as two or more races, 1% other, and 9% undeclared. CEO Tim Cook was recently noticed for his participation in San Francisco’s annual Gay Pride parade.

Facebook

Facebook released its diversity report in June 2014, showing a similar trend in numbers as companies that went before it. Facebook employees are 69% male and 31% female globally. However, jobs labeled as “non-tech” are 53% male and 47% female. Facebook also only released US ethnic data, which showed a workforce with more than half of the employees identifying as white. For tech jobs at Facebook, 41% of employees identified as Asian, with 3% identifying as Hispanic, and 1% identifying as black.

Twitter

Twitter released its diversity report on the heels of Facebook, in July 2014. Globally, Twitter has the same gender spread seen at the other big companies — 70% male and 30% female. While both genders are equally represented at 50% in “non-tech” jobs, the “tech” jobs at Twitter are 90% male and 10% female. Twitter’s data on employee ethnicity was also US-only, indicating 59% white, 29% Asian, 3% Hispanic, 2% black, 3% two or more races, 2% other, 1% native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and less than 1% Native American. Twitter also has employee-led affinity groups for employees of color, LGBT employees, and female employees.

Yahoo

Yahoo made headlines when Marissa Mayer became CEO in the summer of 2012, becoming one of the first female CEOs of a highly-visible tech brand. Yahoo’s global workforce is 62% male, 37% female, and 1% un-disclosed. For “non-tech” jobs, Yahoo actually has more female employees than male. Yahoo’s data was released in June 2014, around the same time that many other tech companies were releasing their diversity numbers. At that time, Yahoo reported that its US workforce was 50% white, 39% Asian, 4% Hispanic, 2% black, 2% two or more races, and 2% other or not disclosed.

LinkedIn

Pandora

Music-streaming service Pandora lists its diversity numbers on the careers section of its website. Pandora total employee ratio is 50.8% male and 49.2% female, with tech jobs more than 82% male. Leadership at Pandora is almost 85% male. Pandora’s overall workforce is 70.9% white, 12.3% Asian, 7.2% Hispanic, 5.7% two or more races, 3% black, and 1% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander. Like others, the company has communities for different employees with Pandora Women for female employees, Pandora PRIDE for LGBT employees, and Pandora Mixtape for employees of color.

Pinterest

Pinterest was one of the bigger “startups” to share it numbers during the summer of 2014 when the Goliaths all started spilling the beans. According to the official Pinterest engineering blog, the company is 60% male and 40% female. Most of Pinterest’s gender ratio numbers show a male majority, but not in business operations. Pinterest’s business employees are 66% female and 34% male, although tech jobs are almost 80% male at Pinterest. Pinterest employees are 50% white, 42% Asian, 5% other, 2% Hispanic, and 1% black.

eBay

eBay’s employees around the world are 42% female and 58% male, with its “tech” jobs split at 76% male and 24% female. eBay’s “non-tech” jobs are only 1% off, in favor of male employees, from being even. US data shows eBay’s workforce at 61% white, 24% Asian, 7% black, 5% Hispanic, 1% multi-ethnic, and 1% other. For “tech” jobs at eBay, 55% of employees are Asian and 40% are white, with numbers for both black and Hispanic employees hovering to 2%. eBay had 33,000 employees at the time of its report on its blog, also mentioning that CEO John Donahoe launched the Women’s Initiative Network for eBay.

HP

In 2013, HP employed roughly 317,500 people worldwide, and tracked its diversity among gender and ethnicity sometimes all the way back to 2009. Worldwide, HP’s workforce was 32.5% female in 2013, with 25.6% of managers being female as well. In total, HP’s US workforce is 71.5% white, 14.22% Asian, 6.9% black, 6.06% Hispanic, 0.74% two or more races, 0.48% Native American, and 0.10% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander. In 2013, HP announced Ascend, a sponsorship program for high-performing female employees, and a Women’s Innovation Council. According to the report, HP also partners with organizations such as Leadership Education for Asian Pacifics (LEAP) and the National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering to increase cultural competency.

Also see

http://www.techrepublic.com/article/diversity-stats-10-tech-companies-that-have-come-clean/

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-943

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Advertisements
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Pronk Pops Show 929, July 17, 2017, Story 1: Downsizing The Federal Government or Draining The Swap: Trump Should Permanently Close 8 Departments Not Appoint People To Run Them — Cut All Other Department Budgets by 20% — Video — Story 2: Federal Spending Breaks $4 Trillion for Fiscal Year 2017 — Story 3: The American People and President Trump Vs. Political Elitist Establishment of The Big Government Democratic and Republican Parties — Videos

Posted on July 18, 2017. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Breaking News, Business, Cartoons, Coal, Communications, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Currencies, Defense Spending, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Education, Elections, Empires, Employment, Federal Government, Government, Government Spending, Health, Health Care, Health Care Insurance, History, House of Representatives, Human, Independence, Insurance, Law, Life, Medicare, Movies, Natural Gas, Oil, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Trump, Progressives, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Resources, Security, Senate, Social Security, Taxation, Taxes, U.S. Dollar, Unemployment, United States of America, Videos, Welfare Spending, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 929,  July 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 928,  July 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 927,  July 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 926,  July 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 925,  July 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 924,  July 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 923,  July 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 922,  July 3, 2017 

Pronk Pops Show 921,  June 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 920,  June 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 919,  June 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 918,  June 26, 2017 

Pronk Pops Show 917,  June 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 916,  June 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 915,  June 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 914,  June 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 913,  June 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 912,  June 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 911,  June 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 910,  June 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 909,  June 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 908,  June 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 907,  June 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 906,  June 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 905,  June 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 904,  June 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 903,  June 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 902,  May 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 901,  May 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 900,  May 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 899,  May 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 898,  May 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 897,  May 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 896,  May 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 895,  May 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 894,  May 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 893,  May 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 892,  May 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 891,  May 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 890,  May 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 889,  May 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 888,  May 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 887,  May 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 886,  May 4, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 885,  May 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 884,  May 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 883 April 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 882: April 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 881: April 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 880: April 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 879: April 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 878: April 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 877: April 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 876: April 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 875: April 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 874: April 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 873: April 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 872: April 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 871: April 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 870: April 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 869: April 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 868: April 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 867: April 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 866: April 3, 2017

Image result for cartoons on big government democratic and republican partiesImage result for cartoons on big fat governmentBar Chart of Government Spending by AgencyImage result for cartoons on big government democratic and republican parties

Image result for cartoons the american people and trump vs washington establishment

 

Story 1: Downsizing The Federal Government or Draining The Swap: Trump Should Permanently Close 8 Departments Not Appoint People To Run Them — Cut All Other Department Budgets by 20% — Video

Order of Establishment of the Executive Departments

Rank*
Year
Executive Departments
1
1789
2
1789
3
1789
1947
Department of War
Department of Defense (merger of War and Navy departments)
4
1789
1870
Attorney General
Department of Justice
1798
Department of the Navy
(merged with War Department in 1947)
1829
Postmaster General
(Post Office privatized in 1970)
5
1849
6
1862
1903
Department of Commerce and Labor
(Departments split in 1913)
7
1913
8
1913
9
1953
1980
10
1965
11
1966
12
1977
13
1979
14
1989
15
2002

Close Permanently The Following Federal Departments

1. Department of Agriculture

2. Department of Commerce

3. Department of Education

4. Department of Energy

5. Department of Housing and Urban Development

6. Department of Interior

7. Department of Labor

8. Department of Transportation

Keep Open The Following Federal Departments 

But Cut Budgets By 20 Percent

1. Department of Defense

2. Department of State

3. Department of Treasury

4. Department of Justice

5. Department of Veterans’ Affairs

6. Department of Health and Human Services

7. Department of Homeland Security

How to Solve America’s Spending Problem

Government: Is it Ever Big Enough?

The Bigger the Government…

The War on Work

What Creates Wealth?

The Promise of Free Enterprise

Why Capitalism Works

What is Crony Capitalism?

WH Website Asks Americans to Suggest Ways to Reorganize, Eliminate Federal Gov’t

Trump signs order to cut government costs

President Trump Signs Executive Order to Cut Government Costs

Trump orders a total examination and reorganization of federal agencies.

Downsizing the Federal Government

Dan Mitchell Commenting on Downsizing Government and Federal Bureaucracy

TAKE IT TO THE LIMITS: Milton Friedman on Libertarianism

Bureaucracy Basics: Crash Course Government and Politics #15

Types of Bureaucracies: Crash Course Government and Politics #16

Controlling Bureaucracies: Crash Course Government and Politics #17

Can the United States Reform its Way to Financial Security?

 

President Trump has filled far fewer top jobs in cabinet or cabinet-level agencies than President Barack Obama had at this point in his presidency.

The status of top jobs
25 weeks into each administration:

Confirmed
by Senate
Nominated or
Announced
Empty
Trump 33 57 120
Obama 126 43 41

Story 2: Federal Spending Breaks $4 Trillion for Fiscal Year 2017 — Videos

Bar Chart of Government Spending by Agency

The bar chart comes directly from the Monthly Treasury Statement published by the U. S. Treasury Department. <—- Click on the chart for more info.

The “Debt Total” bar chart is generated from the Treasury Department’s “Debt Report” found on the Treasury Direct web site. It has links to search the debt for any given date range, and access to debt interest information. It is a direct source to government provided budget information.

$$$ — “Deficit” vs. “Debt”— $$$

Suppose you spend more money this month than your income. This situation is called a “budget deficit”. So you borrow (ie; use your credit card). The amount you borrowed (and now owe) is called your debt. You have to pay interest on your debt. If next month you spend more than your income, another deficit, you must borrow some more, and you’ll still have to pay the interest on your debt (now larger). If you have a deficit every month, you keep borrowing and your debt grows. Soon the interest payment on your loan is bigger than any other item in your budget. Eventually, all you can do is pay the interest payment, and you don’t have any money left over for anything else. This situation is known as bankruptcy.

“Reducing the deficit” is a meaningless soundbite. If the DEFICIT is any amount more than ZERO, we have to borrow more and the DEBT grows.

Each year since 1969, Congress has spent more money than its income. The Treasury Department has to borrow money to meet Congress’s appropriations. Here is a direct link to the Congressional Budget Office web site. Check out the CBO’s assessment of the Debt. We have to pay interest* on that huge, growing debt; and it dramatically cuts into our budget.

Huge Mistake! White House Reveals Budget Deficit Will Be $250 BILLION Greater

Federal Spending to Top a Record $4 Trillion in FY2017

1. June Unemployment Report Was Better Than Expected
2. Federal Spending to Blow Through $4 Trillion in FY2017
3. What Does the Government Spend Our Tax Dollars On?
4.Even President Trump’s Federal Budget Increases Spending

Overview

Both the Congressional Budget Office and the White House Office of Management and Budget announced last week that federal spending will top $4 trillion for the first time ever in fiscal 2017, which began on October 1, 2016 and ends on September 30.

The Congressional Budget Office released its annual “Budget and Economic Outlook: 2017 to 2027” last week in which it projected that total federal spending in fiscal 2017 will hit a record $4,008,000,000,000. That’s up from the previous record of $3.853 trillion spent in fiscal 2016.

While most Americans have no idea how much our out-of-control government spends each year, much less what our enormous annual federal budget deficits are, long-time clients and readers, know this is a topic I focus on and warn about each and every year – and will again today. This is something every American voter should absolutely know about!

Yet before we get to those discussions, I will summarize last Friday’s better than expected unemployment report for June. The strong jobs report had several significant implications for the economy going forward as I will discuss below. Let’s get started.

June Unemployment Report Was Better Than Expected

Friday’s unemployment report for June was a welcome surprise, especially following the weaker than expected report for May. The Labor Department reported at the end of last week that the economy created 222,000 new jobs in June, up from only 152,000 in May – and well above the pre-report expectation of 179,000.

The increase in new jobs in June was the largest in four months and the second highest of the year. Hiring was also revised higher for May and April than previously reported. The pickup in hiring in the spring coincides with a fresh spurt of growth in the economy after a slow start to the year.

Monthly change in nonfarm payrolls

The headline unemployment rate rose slightly from 4.3% in May to 4.4% in June, but that was largely because more jobless Americans rejoined the labor force by actively looking for work last month. That’s a good thing.

Hourly pay rose 0.2% to $26.25 an hour in June, the government said. Over the last 12 months, wages have only advanced a modest 2.5% — up slightly from the rate reported for May, but still well below the usual gains at this late stage of an economic expansion.

Underemployment, which measures people who want to be working full-time but are not, rose to 8.6% in June from 8.4% in May. It‘s still far lower than in prior years but it’s never a good sign to see this measure tick up.

The number of Americans who work part-time but want a full-time job also rose a notch to 5.3 million in June. Part-time employment has been a persistent problem for job seekers since the recession ended, as many companies try to limit increases in full-time workers.

Overall, economists say the strong job gains in June reflect a healthy labor market. Some believe we are approaching the level of “full employment.”

Federal Spending to Blow Through $4 Trillion in FY2017

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reported last week that federal spending will top $4 trillion for the first time ever in fiscal 2017, which ends on September 30.

The CBO released its annual “Budget and Economic Outlook: 2017 to 2027” last week in which it projected that total federal spending in fiscal 2017 will hit a record $4.008 trillion. That’s up from the previous record of $3.853 trillion spent in fiscal 2016.

Federal spending to top $4 trillion

The record $4.008 trillion the CBO estimates the federal government will spend this fiscal year equals $33,805 for each of the 118,562,000 households the Census Bureau estimated were in the United States as of March.

I should note for the record that while federal spending will top $4 trillion for the first time this year while Donald Trump is president, this year’s spending is actually tied to Barack Obama’s budget passed in his last year in office. So don’t blame President Trump… yet.

The federal budget goes up every single year, no matter which party is in office, and no matter that our national debt will top $20 trillion later this year. Clearly, federal spending is out of control, and no one in Washington, DC has the will to stop it – including President Trump (more on this below).

Apparently, leaders in both parties no longer believe there is a limit to how much our country can borrow and spend. There is no longer any sense that our ballooning national debt will at some point trigger a new financial crisis much worse than what we experienced in late 2007-early 2009.

Worst of all, WE keep electing and re-electing these people. In that sense, it’s our own fault.

What Does the Government Spend Our Tax Dollars On?

Many (if not most) Americans don’t understand how and where the government spends our tax dollars and the tens of billions it borrows each and every year. That’s what we will take a look at in the discussion just below. Let’s start with this graphic for an overview.

Government spending

Pew Research had an excellent analysis on how the federal government spends our money (and what it borrows) earlier this year. I’ll reprint the highlights for you below (emphasis mine).

“When thinking about federal spending, it’s worth remembering that, as former Treasury official Peter Fisher once said, the federal government is basically ‘a gigantic insurance company,’ albeit one with ‘a sideline business in national defense and homeland security.’

In fiscal year 2016, which ended this past September 30, the federal government spent just under $4 trillion, and about $2.7 trillion – more than two-thirds of the total – went for various kinds of social insurance (Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare, unemployment compensation, Veterans benefits and the like).

Another $604 billion, or 15.3% of total spending, went for national defense; net interest payments on government debt was about $240 billion, or 6.1%. Education aid and related social services were about$114 billion, or less than 3% of all federal spending. Everything else – crop subsidies, space travel, highway repairs, national parks, foreign aid and much, much more – accounted for the remaining 6%.

It can be helpful to look at federal spending as a share of the overall US economy, which provides a consistent frame of reference over long periods. In fiscal 2016, total federal outlays were 21.5% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). For most of the past several decades, federal spending has hovered within a few percentage points above or below 20%.

The biggest recent exception came in the wake of the 2008 mortgage crash: In fiscal 2009, a surge in federal relief spending combined with a shrinking economy to push federal outlays to 24.4% of GDP, the highest level since World War II — when federal spending peaked at nearly 43% of GDP.

Social security, Medicare, human services a growing share of spendingMeasured as a share of GDP, the biggest long-term growth in federal spending has come in human services, a broad category that includes various kinds of social insurance, other health programs, education aid and veterans benefits.

From less than 1% of GDP during World War II (when many Depression-era aid programs were either ended or shifted to the war effort), federal spending on human services now amounts to 15.5% of GDP.

It actually was higher – 16.1% – in fiscal 2010, largely due to greater spending on unemployment compensation, food assistance and other forms of aid during the Great Recession. Now, the main growth drivers of human-services spending are Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security.

While spending on human services has grown to represent a greater share of GDP over time, the defense share has become smaller: It was 3.3% in fiscal 2016, versus 4.7% as recently as fiscal 2010. In general, and perhaps not surprisingly, defense spending consumes more of GDP during wartime (well over a third at the height of World War II) and less during peacetime.

The major exception was the Reagan-era military buildup… From a post-Vietnam low of 4.5% of GDP in fiscal 1979, defense spending eventually peaked at 6% of GDP in fiscal 1986.

Besides human services and national defense, the next-biggest category of federal spending is interest on public debt. Excluding interest paid to government trust funds (such as the Social Security and military-retirement trust funds) and various other small government loanprograms, the $240 billion in net interest paid on federal debt in fiscal 2016 represented 1.3% of GDP. [Remember that interest rates are near historic lows today.]

Even though total public debt has continued to grow (it stood at nearly $19.96 trillion in February, hitting the statutory debt limit), the dollar amount of actual interest paid fluctuates with the general interest rate environment. Rates are quite low now, but they were much higher in the 1980s and 1990s; in those decades, net interest payments often approached or exceeded 3% of GDP. END QUOTE

Even President Trump’s Federal Budget Increases Spending

Back in March, President Trump unveiled a controversial new federal budget proposal for fiscal year 2018, which begins on October 1st. The budget was a shocker in that it proposed cutting spending in every federal agency except Defense, Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs.

The new budget would slash Environmental Protection Agency spending by over 31% next year and cut State Department spending by over 28%, all in one fell swoop. It is by far the most conservative, smaller government budget we have seen in my adult lifetime.

Trump proposals for government agency budget changes

Yet as I wrote on March 21, Mr. Trump’s so-called “skinny budget” has no chance of becoming law. I bring it back up today only to point out that even with Trump’s massive government agency cuts (which will never pass), federal spending still increases in FY2018.

As noted above, the CBO and the OMB now agree that federal spending in FY2017 will be apprx. $4.008 trillion. In Trump’s proposed budget, federal spending would reach apprx. $4.094 trillion. And it goes up each year thereafter, soaring to $5.7 trillion by 2027 – even under Trump’s skinny budget.

The sad reality is that our politicians will not take definitive actions to slow the rise in our national debt. Perhaps that’s because half of American households receive direct benefits from government programs like Medicare, Social Security, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps), nutrition programs for mothers and children, subsidized housing and unemployment assistance, to name just a few.

That’s another topic for another day. The point is, federal spending is out of control, and our leaders have no intention of stopping or reversing this dangerous trend. What this means is that we are destined for another serious financial crisis at some point. The markets and our creditors will decide when and it won’t be pretty!

Wishing you well,
Gary D. Halbert

Forecasts & Trends E-Letter is published by Halbert Wealth Management, Inc. Gary D. Halbert is the president and CEO of Halbert Wealth Management, Inc. and is the editor of this publication. Information contained herein is taken from sources believed to be reliable but cannot be guaranteed as to its accuracy. Opinions and recommendations herein generally reflect the judgement of Gary D. Halbert (or another named author) and may change at any time without written notice. Market opinions contained herein are intended as general observations and are not intended as specific investment advice. Readers are urged to check with their investment counselors before making any investment decisions. This electronic newsletter does not constitute an offer of sale of any securities. Gary D. Halbert, Halbert Wealth Management, Inc., and its affiliated companies, its officers, directors and/or employees may or may not have investments in markets or programs mentioned herein. Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results. Reprinting for family or friends is allowed with proper credit. However, republishing (written or electronically) in its entirety or through the use of extensive quotes is prohibited without prior written consent.

https://www.advisorperspectives.com/commentaries/2017/07/11/federal-spending-to-top-a-record-4-trillion-in-fy2017?channel=Economic%20Insights

Social Security Will Be Paying Out More Than It Receives In Just Five Years

Tyler Durden's picture

Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

When social security was first implemented in the 1930’s, America was a very different country. Especially in regards to demographics. The average life expectancy was roughly 18 years younger than it is now, and birth rates were a bit higher than they are now. By the 1950’s, the fertility rate was twice as high as it is in the 21st century.

In other words, for the first few decades, social security seemed very sustainable. Most people would only live long enough to benefit from it for a few years, and there was an abundance of young workers who could pay into the system.

Those days are long gone. As birth rates plummet and people live longer, (which otherwise should be considered a positive development) social security’s future is looking more and more bleak.

No matter how you slice it, it doesn’t seem possible to keep social security funded. In fact, social security is going to start paying out more money than it receives in just a few short years. It may even be insolvent before the baby boomer generation dies off.

According to the Social Security Board of Trustees, the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) Trust Funds will be depleted in 2034.

When this happens, only 77 percent of benefits will be payable. That estimate is no change from last year’s estimate.

In addition, the Disability Insurance trust fund will be depleted in 2028, which is an improvement from last year’s estimate of 2023. Once that fund is depleted, 93 percent of benefits will be paid.

Right now, Social Security continues to take in through revenue more than it pays it through benefits, which is expected to continue until 2022. Once Social Security begins to pay out more than it takes in, it will be forced to liquidate the assets held by the trust funds.

In 2016, Social Security generated $957 billion in income. It only paid out $922 billion including $911 billion in benefits to 61 million beneficiaries.

But the solutions that have been proposed for this problem don’t hold much promise. For instance, we know that simply raising taxes won’t work.

But increasing the payroll tax is not a good long-term solution to fixing Social Security. For example a higher payroll tax would have negative economic effects. In addition, it’s not even clear that raising the payroll tax would even generate enough revenue.

“Some claim that the solution to preserving Social Security is to raise more taxes, but history shows that doesn’t work,” said David Barnes who is the director of policy engagement for Generation Opportunity in a statement to the Washington Free Beacon. “In fact, since Social Security was created, payroll taxes have been raised more than 20 times. Twenty times! Yet, the program is still headed towards insolvency.”

This is one reason why so many Western countries, almost all of which are suffering from declining birth rates, have been so eager to open their borders to more immigrants. They’re trying to bring in as many young workers as they can.

But that’s not going to work either. Forget about the high crime rates, terrorist attacks, and social disintegration that Europe is facing now after bringing in millions of immigrants. Even if those problems didn’t exist, immigration isn’t the solution. The West has had wide open borders for decades, and it hasn’t made a dent in the liabilities faced by social security programs (perhaps these immigrants aren’t paying as many taxes as these governments had hoped).

We could let younger generations opt out of social security to stave off future obligations, but that wouldn’t help fund the current generation of retirees. Social security is already on the path to being underfunded for them, and letting young people opt out would obviously make things worst for current retirees.

There isn’t really any viable solution for paying off the future liabilities of social security, aside from cutting the benefits or increasing the retirement age. Otherwise it’s going to run out of money eventually, which is the same story with private and public pensions. We are all paying for our retirements in one form or another, but few of us living right now are going to fully benefit from it.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-19/social-security-will-be-paying-out-more-it-receives-just-five-years

Story 3: The American People and President Trump Vs. Political Elitist Establishment of The Big Government Democratic and Republican Parties — Videos

Ronald Reagan .. “Government is the problem”

The Bigger the Government…

Government: Is it Ever Big Enough?

How Big Should Government Be? Left vs. Right #1

Big Government Kills Small Businesses

Socialist explains why we need big government and more freebies

 

Why universal basic income is gaining support, critics

July 15, 2017 Updated: July 17, 2017 11:49am

The idea of government giving every person a universal basic income has been gaining traction thanks in part to endorsements from some Silicon Valley celebs. Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, venture capitalist Marc Andreessen and others want to explore the idea.

The idea of government giving every person a universal basic income has been gaining traction thanks in part to endorsements from some Silicon Valley celebs. Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, venture capitalist Marc Andreessen and others want to explore the idea.

The idea of a universal basic income — monthly cash payments from the government to every individual, working or not, with no strings attached — is gaining traction, thanks in part to endorsements from Silicon Valley celebs.

Some see it as a way to compensate for the traditional jobs with benefits that will be wiped out by robotics, artificial intelligence, self-driving vehicles, globalization and the gig economy. Others see it as a way to reduce income inequality or to create a more efficient, less stigmatizing safety net than our current mishmash of welfare benefits.

“I think ultimately we will have to have some kind of universal basic income, I don’t think we are going to have a choice,” Tesla CEO Elon Musk said at the World Government Summit in Dubai in February.

In a commencement speech at Harvard University in May, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said, “We should explore ideas like universal basic income to give everyone a cushion to try new things.” And in a July 4 blog post,Zuckerberg praised Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend, the nearest thing to universal income in this or any country. Since 1982, Alaska has been distributing some of its oil revenue as an annual payment, ranging from about $1,000 to $3,000, to every resident including children.

Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes, venture capitalist Marc Andreessen and Y Combinator president Sam Altman have all said it’s worth exploring. Y Combinator’s nonprofit research lab started a basic income pilot with fewer than 100 people in Oakland last fall with the goal of gathering information to structure a larger research proposal, its director, Elizabeth Rhodes, said.

The concept has been around, with different names and in different countries, for centuries, said Karl Widerquist, co-founder of the Basic Income Earth Network.

It enjoyed a wave of U.S. popularity in the 1910s and ’20s and again in the ’60s and ’70s when it was championed by free-market economist Milton Friedman, Martin Luther King and, for a while, Richard Nixon.

It resurfaced again after the 2008 financial crisis, when soaring unemployment and corporate bailouts focused attention on the “99 percent.” The concept picked up steam in recent years as studies started predicting widespread unemployment because of automation.

Basic income has fans across the political spectrum, but for very different reasons. Libertarian backers would replace all or most welfare programs with a monthly cash payment as a way to prevent poverty, reduce government bureaucracy and let people decide for themselves how to use the money.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg (right), shown in May receiving an honorary degree from Harvard, also supports the universal income concept. Photo: Paul Marotta, Getty Images

Photo: Paul Marotta, Getty Images

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg (right), shown in May receiving an honorary degree from Harvard, also supports the universal income concept.

By contrast, “those left of center like the idea of using (basic income) as a supplement to the existing safety net,” said Natalie Foster, co-chairwoman of the Economic Security Project, a two-year fund devoted to researching and promoting the idea of unconditional cash.

In a “utopian version,” the money would “sit alongside existing programs” and go to every man, woman and child, Foster said. But if you made it enough to keep people above poverty — $1,000 a month is a popular number — “it starts to add up to a very significant portion of the GDP,” Foster said.

That’s why some proposals would reduce or eliminate payments to children or to adults over 65 if they are getting Social Security and Medicare. Some would limit the benefits going to high-income people, either directly or indirectly by raising their tax.

“In the simple model, everyone in the lower half (of the income distribution) would be a net beneficiary, everyone in the upper half would be net payers,” Widerquist said.

Charles Murray, a libertarian political scientist with the American Enterprise Institute, has proposed a basic income plan that would replace all transfer payments including welfare, food stamps, housing subsidies, the earned income tax credit, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. It would also eliminate farm subsidies and “corporate welfare.”

In exchange, each American older than 21 would get a monthly payment totaling $13,000 a year, of which $3,000 would go to health insurance. After $30,000 in earned income, a graduated tax would “reimburse” some of the grant until it dropped to $6,500 at $60,000 in income. However, the grant would never drop below $6,500 to compensate for the loss of Social Security and Medicare.

Murray admitted that many seniors get more than $6,500 worth of benefits a year from those two programs, which is why it would have to be phased in.

“What I’m proposing would actually be cheaper than the current system,” Murray said. It would give adults a “living income” and “liberate people” who are tied to a job or welfare program in a particular city because they can’t risk leaving to pursue a new opportunity.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk favors universal basic income to compensate workers displaced by automation. "I don’t think we are going to have a choice," he said at a February event in Dubai. Photo: KARIM SAHIB, AFP/Getty Images

Photo: KARIM SAHIB, AFP/Getty Images

Tesla CEO Elon Musk favors universal basic income to compensate workers displaced by automation. “I don’t think we are going to have a choice,” he said at a February event in Dubai.

Andy Stern, a senior fellow at the Economic Security Project, has proposed a “left-of-center” plan that would give every adult 18 to 64 a monthly cash payment of $1,000. It would replace welfare programs such as food stamps, the earned income tax credit, unemployment and Supplemental Security Income. But it would keep Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security disability.

He figures the plan would cost about $1.75 trillion a year. Ending welfare programs would save about a third of that. Another third could come from ending the tax deduction for mortgage interest and other write-offs. The remaining third could come from new sources such as a tax on carbon emissions or financial transactions.

Stern would not reduce payments to the rich or raise their taxes because that would bring back the problem he is trying to eliminate — determining who is “worthy and unworthy” to receive benefits. But many of the tax increases he envisions “would have a disproportionate effect on higher-income people,” he said.

Some opponents of guaranteed income say it will encourage laziness. Proponents say the current system discourages work by taking away some benefits as income goes up.

Zipcar founder Robin Chase, now a speaker and author, said universal income would encourage and reward important work that “does not get monetized,” such as child care and volunteer work. It would also spur business creation. “I had the luxury of taking risks because I had a husband who had a full-time job with health care. A majority of the population cannot take any risks in pursuing innovation or higher-value, non-remunerative things.”

Some believe the answer to income inequality and automation is not guaranteed income but a guaranteed job. Jared Bernstein, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, has said the federal government should provide a job with benefits to anyone who wants one and can’t get one. “A job guarantee could simultaneously lower un- and underemployment while providing critically needed labor in fields ranging from infrastructure to education to child and elder care,” Bernstein, who was an economist in President Barack Obama’s administration, wrote in the American Prospect.

Jason Furman, who chaired Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, doesn’t like guaranteed jobs or guaranteed income. Furman, now a professor at the Harvard Kennedy School, said universal income suffers from three problems.

“One is that it’s very hard to make the numbers add up. To get to (incomes) like $12,000, you need huge increases in taxes. Two, there are a lot of benefits to targeting. You only get unemployment if you don’t have a job and are looking for a new job. If anything, I might toughen the work search requirement” to receive unemployment.

Finally, he said, “I believe there is no reason that people can’t be employed in the future. We have thousands of years of experience of technological progress not leading” to mass unemployment. He pointed out that technologically advanced countries do not have higher unemployment rates than those that are less advanced.

“We should put more effort into how to create jobs and prepare people for jobs in the future,” he said. Universal basic income “is giving up on work and giving up on people. I’m not prepared to do that.”

Kathleen Pender is a San Francisco Chronicle columnist. 

http://www.sfchronicle.com/aboutsfgate/article/Why-universal-basic-income-is-gaining-support-11290211.php

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-929

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Pronk Pops Show 917, June 22, 2017, Story 1: Senate Draft Bill To Repeal Obamacare Is Obamacare Lite! No Individual and Employer Mandates and Obamacare Taxes But Subsidies Remain — The Stupid Party Again Betrays Republican Voters By Not Repealing Obamacare Completely — Conservative and Libertarian Republicans Will Oppose Senate Draft Bill — Nothing For Trump To Sign Before Independence Day! — Videos — Story 2: More Republican Voters Will Be Leaving The Party and Become Independents — Waiting For A New Limited Government Party! — Obama Damaged Democratic Party and Trump Will Damage Republican Party — No Hope and No Change With Two Party Tyranny of Big Interventionist Government — BIG Parties — Videos

Posted on June 22, 2017. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Breaking News, Budgetary Policy, Communications, Congress, Corruption, Countries, Diet, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Economics, Education, Empires, Employment, Exercise, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Food, Food, Former President Barack Obama, Freedom of Speech, Government, Government Spending, Health, Health Care, Health Care Insurance, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Human, Human Behavior, Labor Economics, Life, Lying, Media, Medicare, National Interest, News, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Trump, Progressives, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Regulation, Rule of Law, Security, Senate, Social Science, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Ted Cruz, Unemployment, United States of America, Videos, Wealth, Welfare Spending, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 917,  June 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 916,  June 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 915,  June 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 914,  June 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 913,  June 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 912,  June 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 911,  June 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 910,  June 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 909,  June 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 908,  June 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 907,  June 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 906,  June 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 905,  June 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 904,  June 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 903,  June 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 902,  May 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 901,  May 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 900,  May 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 899,  May 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 898,  May 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 897,  May 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 896,  May 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 895,  May 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 894,  May 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 893,  May 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 892,  May 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 891,  May 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 890,  May 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 889,  May 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 888,  May 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 887,  May 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 886,  May 4, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 885,  May 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 884,  May 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 883 April 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 882: April 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 881: April 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 880: April 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 879: April 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 878: April 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 877: April 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 876: April 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 875: April 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 874: April 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 873: April 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 872: April 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 871: April 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 870: April 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 869: April 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 868: April 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 867: April 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 866: April 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 865: March 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 864: March 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 863: March 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 862: March 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 861: March 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 860: March 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 859: March 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 858: March 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 857: March 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 856: March 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 855: March 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 854: March 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 853: March 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 852: March 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 851: March 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 850: March 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 849: March 1, 2017

Image result for senate draft bill does not repeal obaMACARE

Image result for CARTOONS senate draft bill does not repeal obaMACARE

Image result for branco CARTOONS senate draft bill does not repeal obaMACAREImage result for CARTOONS senate draft bill does not repeal obaMACARE

 

Story 1: Senate Draft Bill To Repeal Obamacare Is Obamacare Lite! No Individual and Employer Mandates and Obamacare Taxes But Subsidies Remain — The Stupid Party Again Betrays Republican Voters By Not Repealing Obamacare Completely — Conservative and Libertarian Republicans Will Oppose Senate Draft Bill — Nothing For Trump To Sign Before Independence Day! — Videos

Image result for ludwig von mises on government intervention into marketsImage result for ludwig von mises on government intervention into markets

“Once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of the government to protect the individual against his own foolishness, no serious objections can be advanced against further encroachments.”

“The champions of socialism call themselves progressives, but they recommend a system which is characterized by rigid observance of routine and by a resistance to every kind of improvement. They call themselves liberals, but they are intent upon abolishing liberty. They call themselves democrats, but they yearn for dictatorship. They call themselves revolutionaries, but they want to make the government omnipotent. They promise the blessings of the Garden of Eden, but they plan to transform the world into a gigantic post office. Every man but one a subordinate clerk in a bureau.”
~ Ludwig von Mises

Image result for four gop senators opposed to senate draft of repeal and replace

Image result for four gop senators opposed to senate draft of repeal and replace

 

Image result for List of pre-existing conditions

Image result for List of pre-existing conditions

Image result for four gop senators opposed to senate draft of repeal and replace

Senators Debate GOP Health Care Plan

GOP health care plan faces opposition

GOP health care bill will ruin the Republican Party: Ann Coulter

Rand Paul: Insurance Should Be Available For $1 A Day | Morning Joe | MSNBC

Senate Republicans unveil a bill to repeal Obamacare

Senate Republicans’ health care bill already in jeopardy?

Is the Senate GOP healthcare bill dead on arrival?

Why Mitch McConnell May Not Put Health Care To Vote | Morning Joe | MSNBC

GOP Health Care Bill Update (6/22/2017)

Ted Cruz: Senate GOP Healthcare Bill Doesn’t Lower Costs

Rand Paul on Senate GOP Healthcare Bill: ‘I Didn’t Run on Obamacare-Lite’

Senate health care bill to be released today

ObamaCare Is In A Death Spiral

Rush Limbaugh [Free Video] Republicans Dont Want to Repeal Obamacare

I’ve covered Obamacare since day one. I’ve never seen lying and obstruction like this.

Sen. Chris Murphy: Senate Health Care is ‘Dumber and ‘More Evil’ Than House Proposal

What’s in the Senate GOP health bill?

4 GOP senators, including Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, come out against Senate healthcare bill —

The Differences among Liberals, Conservatives and Libertarians (Robert A. Levy)

Freedom Caucus Calls For Complete Repeal Of The Affordable Care Act

Dr. Siegel breaks down the pre-existing conditions challenge

NEW: Tucker Carlson + Rand Paul Discuss Repealing/Replacing Obamacare

Image result for ludwig von mises on government intervention into markets

 

Here are the details of Senate Republican Obamacare replacement bill

  • The bill would significantly change how the federal government subsidizes individual health plans and funds Medicaid
  • GOP leaders want to have a vote on the bill before the Fourth of July recess.
  • The House’s own version of a health-care bill is deeply unpopular.
Dan Mangan | Kayla Tausche

Senate Minority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)

Former Medicare administrator: Millions will still lose coverage under Senate health-care bill  6 Hours Ago | 03:20

Senate GOP leaders on Thursday finally released their secret health-care reform bill, which would repeal Obamacare taxes, restructure subsidies to insurance customers, and both phase out Medicaid’s expansion program and cap Medicaid spending.

Republicans plan to bring the controversial bill that was drafted in secret to a quick vote next week, but face potentially fatal opposition to it from several members of their own caucus.

The 142-page bill, if passed into law, would sharply reduce financial aid that currently helps millions of people obtain health coverage, while at the same time offering a tax break to primarily wealthy Americans to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. And it would loosen rules in a way that could lead to states allowing insurers to offer less-generous health plans.

The bill would repeal, retroactive to the beginning of 2016, the Obamacare rule requiring most Americans to have some form of health coverage or pay a tax penalty fine. That repeal is expected to sharply increase the number of people who don’t have insurance, which could in turn lead insurers to raise premiums.

And it would repeal, retroactively to the beginning of 2016, the “employer mandate,” which requires large employers to offer health insurance to workers or be fined.

Read the entire bill here

The bill also would continue for at least two years to offer reimbursements to health insurance companies for subsidies that reduce out-of-pocket costs for low income customers of Obamacare plans. But those subsidies would end in 2020, which would increase deductibles and other out-of-pocket health expenses for millions of customers.

The federal government’s share of funding for Medicaid, which is jointly run with individual states, would fall over the course of seven years to end up at around 57 percent of the cost of that program, which offers health coverage to the poor.

Under Obamacare, the federal government had guaranteed that its funding for adults newly eligible for Medicaid because of the Affordable Care Act would fall to no lower than 90 percent of their costs. That expansion program would begin being phased out in 2021, and fully repealed by three years later.

In another cost-cutting move, the bill would lower the maximum income level a household could have to still qualify for federal subsidies that help reduce the premiums people pay for enrollment for individual health plans. Obamacare currently bars subsidies to families that earn more than 400 percent of the federal poverty level. The new bill would reduce that cap to 350 percent of the poverty level.

Younger people, as a group, would end up paying less of a share of their income toward their individual health plans under the bill in comparison to what they pay now under Obamacare, while older people as a group would end up paying a larger share of their income.

Health plans that offer abortion services would not be eligible for the subsidies, according to the draft released Thursday.

The federal government also would end up spending less money subsidizing people’s insurance purchases by changing how the value of those subsidies are calculated. The bill would use a less-expensive type of individual health plan to calculate those subsidies, as opposed to the pricier plan used under Obamacare.

The bill also seeks to repeal, to the start of 2017, the 3.8 percent tax on net investment income.

The Trump administration is expected to back the bill, which most GOP senators were learning the details of during a meeting Thursday morning. The bill is named the “Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017.”

“It’s going to be very good,” President Donald Trump said about an hour after the bill’s release. “A little negotiation, but it’s going to be very good.” Trump did not elaborate.

The House’s version of the bill, dubbed the American Health Care Act, is broadly unpopular among the public, and had been reportedly called “mean, mean, mean,” by Trump during a meeting with senators. Weeks earlier, Trump and House members who voted for the ACHA celebrated its passage in the Rose Garden of the White House.

A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll released Thursday found that just 16 percent of Americans thought the House bill was a good idea, with 48 percent saying it is a bad idea.

“In broad strokes, the Senate bill is just like the House: Big tax cuts, big cut in federal heath spending, big increase in the uninsured,” tweeted Larry Levitt, an Obamacare expert at the Kaiser Family Foundation.

“Under the Senate bill, low-income people would pay higher premiums for bigger deductibles,” Levitt said.

He had noted on Twitter on Wednesday that “A 60 year-old at 351% of poverty currently gets a premium subsidy of $5,151 per year on average.” The Senate bill would eliminate all of that federal financial aid if it becomes law.

Senate GOP leaders want to have a vote on the bill by late next week, before Congress’ Fourth of July recess. They do not plan to hold any hearings on the legislation, infuriating Democrats, who were frozen out of the drafting process.

To pass, Republicans must get at least 50 GOP senators to vote for the bill, since no Democrat or independent is expected to vote for it. Vice President Mike Pence would break any tie, and would be expected to vote for the bill. There are 52 Republican senators.

On Thursday, about an hour after the bill was posted online, NBC’s Chuck Todd tweeted that a group of a conservative Republican senators were meeting, and that there are at least three GOP senators, and possibly more, who plan to announce later today that they will oppose the bill.

If that number proves to be accurate, it could be a death blow to the bill.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., told NBC that he and several other members of the GOP caucus would be making a statement on the bill later Thursday.

“It looks like we’re keeping Obamacare, not repealing it,” said Paul, who declined to say whether that meant he would vote against the bill.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Ky., center, followed by Majority Whip John Cornyn, R-Texas, leaves a Republican meeting on healthcare, Thursday, June 22, 2017, on Capitol Hill in Washington.

Jacquelyn Martin | AP
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Ky., center, followed by Majority Whip John Cornyn, R-Texas, leaves a Republican meeting on healthcare, Thursday, June 22, 2017, on Capitol Hill in Washington.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Thursday, “There will be ample time to analyze” and discuss the bill before the legislation is put to a vote.

While McConnell praised the bill on the floor of the Senate, many of his Republican caucus members avoided speaking with reporters staking them out in Congress, who wanted to ask about the legislation.

Democrats promptly blasted the bill, and castigated Republicans for planning to call a vote on it just a week after its details were released.

“The Republicans want to give a tax break to the wealthiest Americans,” said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-NY, on the floor of the Senate after release of the bill. “Simply put this bill will result in higher costs, less care, and millions of Americans will lose their health insurance.”

“It’s every bit as bad as the House bill. In many ways it’s even worse,” Schumer said. “The Senate bill is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, but this wolf has even sharper teeth than the House bill.”

House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., during a press conference said, “From what I understand, their bill tracks along lines of House bill … [I] think that’s very good.”

Leslie Dach, director of the Obamacare-supporting group Protect Our Care Campaign, tore into the Senate’s bill, which, like Ryan, he compared to the House’s earlier bill.

“Senate Republicans promised to start over and write a plan that improves people’s health care,” Dach said. “Instead they doubled down on the failed House repeal approach that puts everyone’s health care last, and tax breaks for the wealthy first.”

“The heartless Senate health care repeal bill makes health care worse for everyone — it raises costs, cuts coverage, weakens protections and cuts even more from Medicaid than the mean House bill,” said Dach, who had served as senior counselor at the Department of Health and Human Services in the Obama administration.

“They wrote their plan in secret and are rushing forward with a vote next week because they know how much harm their bill does to millions of people.”

But Seema Verma, administrator for the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, praised the Senate’s bill as she criticized Obamacare, a program that CMS oversees.

“I appreciate the work of the Senate as they continue to make progress fixing the crisis in health care that has resulted from Obamacare,” Verma said. “Skyrocketing premiums, rising costs and fewer choices have caused too many Americans to drop their insurance coverage.”

“Today, Obamacare is in a death spiral and millions ofAmericans are being negatively impacted as a result. They are trapped by mandates that force them to purchase insurance they don’t want and can’t afford,” she said. “The Senate proposal is built on putting patients first and in charge of their health-care decisions, bringing down the cost of coverage and expanding choices. Congress must act now to achieve the President’s goal to make sure all Americans have access to quality, affordable coverage.”

The Congressional Budget Office said it expects to release an analysis of the bill early next week Monday. The analysis will estimate how many people are likely to become uninsured in the next decade if the bill becomes law, as well as how premiums for individual health plans would be affected.

CBO aims to release estimate for Senate health care plan early next week https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52843 

CBO aims to release estimate for Senate health care plan early next week

CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation are in the process of preparing an estimate for the Senate health care plan and aim to release it early next week.

cbo.gov

The CBO “score” would also include projections on the bill’s impact on federal spending.

The release of the draft comes more than six weeks after GOP leaders in the House barely managed to win passage for their own health-care legislation.

The House bill, the American Health Care Act, is widely unpopular, multiple polls have shown.

The nonpartisan CBO, in analyzing that bill, found that 23 million more Americans would become uninsured by 2026 if it became law than if Obamacare remained in place.

While many of those people would voluntarily cease buying insurance plans because of the elimination requirement that they have some form of health coverage or pay a fine, millions more would find their plans unaffordable because of either rising prices, the loss of government subsidies or both factors.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/22/senate-republicans-finally-unveil-their-big-obamacare-replacement-bill.html

Track the Key Changes in the GOP’s Health Plan

By Hannah Recht, Zachary Tracer and Mira Rojanasakul

Published: March 22, 2017 | Last updated: June 22, 2017
Seven years after the Affordable Care Act was enacted, Republicans are trying to follow through on their promises to repeal and replace Obamacare. On March 6, Republican House leaders introduced their health plan, and Senate Republicans followed with their own bill on June 22. Congress will need to reconcile differences in the two proposals before a bill can reach President Donald Trump’s desk. We’ll track major policy changes and their impacts as Congress drafts and revises legislation to repeal Obamacare.
House bill introduced [March 6] ⟶ First House amendments [March 20] ⟶ First House vote canceled [March 24] ⟶ Passes House [May 4] ⟶ Senate bill introduced [June 22] ⟶ Passes Senate ⟶ House and Senate negotiate and revise bill ⟶ House and Senate pass final bill ⟶ President signs, becomes law
Medicaid Financing
House billCHANGE
House bill introduced  |  March 6, 2017

Currently, the federal government generally reimburses states for a fixed percentage of Medicaid expenditures, regardless of total spending or number of enrollees. The GOP bill would limit Medicaid reimbursement by a per-enrollee cost, based on 2016 average costs.

House amendment  |  March 20, 2017

Allows states to choose from two formulas for how they get federal Medicaid funding, and boosts the funding for elderly and disabled Medicaid enrollees, relative to the initial bill.

Senate billCHANGE
Senate bill introduced  |  June 22, 2017

Like the House bill, the Senate bill would allow states to choose between two formulas for federal Medicaid funding. But starting in 2025, the Senate bill would set a lower funding growth rate than the House bill would, meaning states would receive less money. Certain Medicaid enrollees would not be subject to these limits, including people with disabilities and children.

Budget impact: In the House bill, Federal Medicaid spending would decrease by $834 billion, from 2017 to 2026, relative to current law.

Decrease in Medicaid spending from current law, House bill
Source: Congressional Budget Office
Medicaid Expansion
House billREPEAL
House bill introduced  |  March 6, 2017

The ACA allowed states to expand Medicaid to individuals making as much as 138 percent of the federal poverty level, with federal funding. The GOP bill winds down Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion starting in 2020.

House amendment  |  March 20, 2017

Won’t provide extra funding to states that newly expand Medicaid.

Senate billREPEAL
Senate bill introduced  |  June 22, 2017

Medicaid expansion funding would be phased out between 2021 and 2024.

Human impact: In the House bill, Medicaid enrollment would decrease by 14 million people by 2026, about 17 percent.

Decrease in Medicaid enrollment from current law, House bill

0M

–3

–6

–9

–12

–15

Source: Congressional Budget Office
Premium Subsidies
House billCHANGE
House bill introduced  |  March 6, 2017

The ACA introduced subsidies based on income and the cost of health insurance, with some help available to people making up to 400 percent of the poverty level, or about $47,000 for an individual. The House bill would base subsidies mainly on age, phasing out funding beginning at an income of $75,000 for an individual.

Senate billCHANGE
Senate bill introduced  |  June 22, 2017

The Senate bill would maintain the ACA’s subsidies through 2019, but change how subsidies are allocated starting in 2020. The ACA calculates subsidies based on a mid-level coverage plan, while the Senate bill would use a cheaper type of plan. Subsidies would no longer be available to those above 350 percent of the poverty level, or about $42,000 for an individual.

Human impact: Many low-income subsidy recipients would lose thousands in premium subsidies, particularly older enrollees in higher-cost areas. In the House bill, some people who currently earn too much to qualify for subsidies would receive new assistance. The Senate bill does not offer similar assistance. Instead, it would place additional limits on who qualifies for subsidy assistance, making some middle-class recipients who currently receive subsidies ineligible.

Source: Congressional Budget Office
Essential Health Benefits
House billCHANGE
House amendment  |  March 23, 2017

The ACA requires health insurance plans to cover 10 broad categories of essential health benefits, as well as to provide preventive services at no cost. The bill initially left the requirement intact, but an amendment that would repeal that requirement was added. Instead, states will define their own list of benefits that are required for plans receiving premium subsidies beginning Jan. 1, 2018.

House amendment  |  May 3, 2017

An amendment was added that would leave essential health benefits intact—reinstating the federal standard. Instead, states could opt out of the requirement and apply for a waiver to define their own list of benefits that are required for plans receiving premium subsidies beginning Jan. 1, 2020.

Senate billCHANGE
Senate bill introduced  |  June 22, 2017

Senate bill adopts changes in House bill.

Human impact: The Congressional Budget Office expects that half of the U.S. population live in states that would waive some required benefits. Plans in these states would likely have lower premiums, but they would cover less. For instance, maternity care premiums could cost an additional $1,000 per month or more. Customers seeking comprehensive coverage could face premiums and out-of-pocket charges that are significantly higher than under current law.

Budget impact: Insurers in some states could offer plans with such limited coverage that CBO does not consider them health insurance. Those plans would still be eligible for millions of dollars in federal subsidies.

Source: Congressional Budget Office
Pre-existing Conditions
House billCHANGE
House amendment  |  May 3, 2017

The ACA requires health insurers to sell plans to individuals who are sick with so-called pre-existing conditions and not charge them more than healthy customers. An amendment would allow states to apply for a waiver that would let insurers charge higher premiums to people with pre-existing conditions that had a gap in coverage of at least 63 days in the prior year. To do so, states would have to establish some method (a special “high-risk” insurance pool, or subsidies) to help sick people.

Senate billNO CHANGE
Senate bill introduced  |  June 22, 2017

Insurance companies would not be allowed to charge customers with pre-existing conditions more than healthy customers.

Human impact: In states that allow insurers to charge people with pre-existing conditions more than healthy people, those less healthy individuals would face increasingly prohibitive premiums under the House bill. Eventually, the CBO predicts, less-healthy people may not be able to afford any coverage.

Source: Congressional Budget Office
Age Rating
House billCHANGE
House bill introduced  |  March 6, 2017

Obamacare lets health insurers charge their oldest customers no more than three times as much as their youngest ones. The GOP bill introduced widens the ratio to 5 to 1.

House amendment  |  March 20, 2017

Adds a provision that would let the Senate decide whether to increase subsidies that go to older Americans.

House amendment  |  May 3, 2017

Adds a provision that would allow states to apply for a waiver to give insurers permission to charge older customers even more than the 5 to 1 ratio.

Senate billCHANGE
Senate bill introduced  |  June 22, 2017

Senate bill adopts changes in House bill.

Human impact: Premiums would significantly rise for older people and decrease for younger people. Low-income older adults would face much higher premiums than under current law, even with federal subsidies.

Source: Congressional Budget Office
State Grants
House billNEW
House bill introduced  |  March 6, 2017

Includes a new $100 billion fund designed to help states stabilize their individual health insurance markets or help low-income people get health care.

House amendment  |  March 23, 2017

Adds $15 billion to the fund to be used for maternity, newborn, mental health and substance abuse coverage.

House amendment  |  April 6, 2017

Adds $15 billion for the Federal Invisible Risk Sharing Program, designed to help insurers cover the costs of sick and expensive patients.

House amendment  |  May 3, 2017

Adds $8 billion in funding from 2018 through 2023 to help individuals afford higher premiums in states that let insurers charge sick people more.

Senate billNEW
Senate bill introduced  |  June 22, 2017

The Senate bill would include $112 billion in state grant funds, primarily to stabilize state insurance markets and cover expensive patients. It would also allocate $2 billion in 2018 for substance abuse treatment.

Human impact: The grants would lead to slightly lower premiums in the individual market and encourage insurer participation. The new funding would not be enough to significantly lower costs for people with pre-existing conditions.

Budget impact: Both bills would require more than $100 billion in additional federal spending.

Source: Congressional Budget Office
Medicaid Work Requirements
House billNEW
House amendment  |  March 20, 2017

Gives states the option of requiring some Medicaid recipients to work or pursue job training.

Senate billNEW
Senate bill introduced  |  June 22, 2017

Senate bill adopts changes in House bill.

Human impact: According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 10 million non-elderly adult Medicaid recipients who don’t receive Social Security are not working. Some of these adults would be excluded from work requirements due to disability, pregnancy or caretaker status, but many would be expected to complete job training or find employment in order to keep their insurance.

Source: Kaiser Family Foundation
Insurance Mandates
House billREPEAL
House bill introduced  |  March 6, 2017

The House bill ends Obamacare’s requirement that individuals have health coverage and that most employers offer it. Instead, when people who’ve gone uninsured decide to buy health insurance, they’ll have to pay a 30 percent surcharge on their premiums for one year.

Senate billREPEAL
Senate bill introduced  |  June 22, 2017

The Senate bill ends Obamacare’s requirement that individuals have health coverage and that most employers offer it.

Human impact: Though about 1 million people are expected to buy insurance in 2018 in order to avoid future surcharges, twice as many would choose not to purchase insurance long-term because of the House bill surcharge or insurance documentation requirements.

Budget impact: Revenue loss of $210 billion from 2017 to 2026 from repealing insurance penalties. The new premium surcharge would go to insurers directly, not the government.

Source: Congressional Budget Office
Planned Parenthood and Abortion Care
House billNEW
House bill introduced  |  March 6, 2017

Ends all federal funding for Planned Parenthood for one year. The bill also prohibits federal funds from going to insurance plans that cover abortions, other than those necessary to save the life of the woman, or in cases of rape or incest.

House amendment  |  March 20, 2017

Adds additional safeguards to prevent government funds from being used for some abortions.

Senate billNEW
Senate bill introduced  |  June 22, 2017

Senate bill adopts changes in House bill.

Human impact: Several thousand Medicaid-covered births would occur because of the loss of Planned Parenthood contraceptive and abortion care, particularly among women in areas without other providers that serve low-income patients.

Budget impact: Direct spending would decrease by $234 million between 2017 and 2026, but new births due to the Planned Parenthood provision would increase Medicaid spending by $77 million over the same period.

Source: Congressional Budget Office
Individual Taxes
House billREPEAL
House bill introduced  |  March 6, 2017

Repeals a 0.9 percent Medicare payroll surtax and a 3.8 percent investment-income tax on wealthy individuals that were introduced in the ACA, effective 2018.

House amendment  |  March 20, 2017

Ends the taxes in 2017, rather than 2018.

House amendment  |  March 23, 2017

Postpones repeal of the additional Medicare tax to 2023.

Senate billREPEAL
Senate bill introduced  |  June 22, 2017

Senate bill adopts changes in House bill.

Human impact: Wealthy individuals would get a tax break. In counties that backed Trump, taxpayers would save $6.6 billion, while taxpayers in Clinton counties would save $21.6 billion.

Budget impact: From 2017 to 2026, the repeal would lose $172 billion in Net Investment Tax revenue and about $64 billion in Medicare tax revenue from 2023 to 2026. Repealing the Medicare tax in 2017 would have resulted in an additional $63 billion loss.

Source: Congressional Budget Office
Industry Taxes
House billREPEAL
House bill introduced  |  March 6, 2017

Repeals ACA taxes imposed on health insurers, pharmaceutical companies, medical-device companies and tanning salons, effective 2018.

House amendment  |  March 20, 2017

Ends the taxes in 2017, rather than 2018.

Senate billREPEAL
Senate bill introduced  |  June 22, 2017

Repeals most taxes immediately. A tax on providers would be phased out in 2025.

Budget impact: Loss of $199 billion in tax revenue from 2017 to 2026.

Tax revenue lost, 2017–2026
Source: Congressional Budget Office
Cadillac Tax
House billCHANGE
House bill introduced  |  March 6, 2017

Obamacare imposes a tax on very generous health insurance benefits, which was delayed to 2020. The bill introduced further pushes the tax back to 2025.

House amendment  |  March 20, 2017

Delays the tax to 2026.

Senate billCHANGE
Senate bill introduced  |  June 22, 2017

Senate bill adopts changes in House bill.

Budget impact: Loss of $66 billion in tax revenue through 2026.

Tax revenue lost

$0B

–3

–6

–9

–12

–15

Source: Congressional Budget Office
Dependent Coverage
No proposed change to current law

The ACA requires health insurers to allow children to remain on their parents’ plans, up to age 26.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-healthcare-bill-changes/

The C, D, and F Rollover Republicans Want To Keep Obamacare Subsidies

This Is Not Repeal But Extending Obamacare

 

Conservative Review Scorecard of Senators

https://www.conservativereview.com/scorecard?chamber=senate&state=&party=R

 

 

Story 2: More Republican Voters Will Be Leaving The Party and Become Independents — Waiting For A New Limited Government Party! — Obama Damaged Democratic Party and Trump Will Damage Republican Party — No Hope and No Change With Two Party Tyranny of BIG Interventionist Government Parties — Videos

 

How the Republican Party went from Lincoln to Trump

From white supremacy to Barack Obama: The history of the Democratic Party

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-917

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Pronk Pops Show 861, March 27, 2017, Story 1: Downsizing or Shrinking Not Streamlining of The Federal Government or Administrative State Is What Is Required — Good Intentions Are Not Enough — Results Count — Small Limited Government — Videos — Story 2 : Attorney General Sessions Moves To Enforce Federal Law in Sanctuary Cities — Videos

Posted on March 27, 2017. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Breaking News, Budgetary Policy, Cartoons, College, Communications, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Culture, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Economics, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Freedom of Speech, Government, History, House of Representatives, Human, Law, Life, Media, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Regulation, Rule of Law, Senate, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Terror, Terrorism, United States of America, Videos, Wealth, Weather, Welfare Spending, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 861: March 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 860: March 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 859: March 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 858: March 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 857: March 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 856: March 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 855: March 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 854: March 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 853: March 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 852: March 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 851: March 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 850: March 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 849: March 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 848: February 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 847: February 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 846: February 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 845: February 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 844: February 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 843: February 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 842: February 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 841: February 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 840: February 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 839: February 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 838: February 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 837: February 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 836: February 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 835: February 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 834: February 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 833: February 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 832: February 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 831: February 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 830: February 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 829: February 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 828: January 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 827: January 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 826: January 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 825: January 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 824: January 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 823: January 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 822: January 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 821: January 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 820: January 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 819: January 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 818: January 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 817: January 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 816: January 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 815: January 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 814: January 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 813: January 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 812: December 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 811: December 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 810: December 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 809: December 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 808: December 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 807: December 5, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 806: December 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 805: December 1, 2016

 Story 1: Downsizing Not Streamlining of The Federal Government Is What Is Required — Videos – 

 

 

Image result for branco cartoons big fed government trump

Image result for sanctuary cites illegal aliens

Image result for branco cartoons sanctuary cities

Image result for cartoons sanctuary cities

Related imageImage result for cartoons big fed government

Image result for cartoons big fed government

Image result for cartoons big fed government

 

Image result for downsizing the federal government

Image result for downsizing the federal government

Sean Spicer announces new office for Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner

Jared Kushner’s New Job

Jared Kushner Will Oversee Federal Overhaul

Jared Kushner gets new White House role amid Russia questions

Trump taps Jared Kushner to lead WH Office on Government innovation

Jared Kushner gets new White House role

Milton Friedman on Libertarianism (Part 4 of 4)

TAKE IT TO THE LIMITS: Milton Friedman on Libertarianism

John Stossel – Downsizing Government

Dan Mitchell Explaining How Government Screws Up Everything

Dan Mitchell Discussing Austerity, Keynesianism, the IMF, Fiscal Policy, and Capitol Hill Squabbles

Here are the federal agencies Trump plans to cut as President

Who is Jared Kushner?

Jared Kushner is President-elect Donald Trump’s son-in-law but he’s also one of his key confidants. Here’s a closer look at the man who is expected to be a senior adviser to the president in Trump’s White House. (Video: Deirdra O’Regan/Photo: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)
March 26 at 10:00 PM
President Trump plans to unveil a new White House office on Monday with sweeping authority to overhaul the federal bureaucracy and fulfill key campaign promises — such as reforming care for veterans and fighting opioid addiction — by harvesting ideas from the business world and, potentially, privatizing some government functions.The White House Office of American Innovation, to be led by Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and senior adviser, will operate as its own nimble power center within the West Wing and will report directly to Trump. Viewed internally as a SWAT team of strategic consultants, the office will be staffed by former business executives and is designed to infuse fresh thinking into Washington, float above the daily political grind and create a lasting legacy for a president still searching for signature achievements.“All Americans, regardless of their political views, can recognize that government stagnation has hindered our ability to properly function, often creating widespread congestion and leading to cost overruns and delays,” Trump said in a statement to The Washington Post. “I promised the American people I would produce results, and apply my ‘ahead of schedule, under budget’ mentality to the government.”In a White House riven at times by disorder and competing factions, the innovation office represents an expansion of Kushner’s already far-reaching influence. The 36-year-old former real estate and media executive will continue to wear many hats, driving foreign and domestic policy as well as decisions on presidential personnel. He also is a shadow diplomat, serving as Trump’s lead adviser on relations with China, Mexico, Canada and the Middle East.

The work of White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon has drawn considerable attention, especially after his call for the “deconstruction of the administrative state.” But Bannon will have no formal role in the innovation office, which Trump advisers described as an incubator of sleek transformation as opposed to deconstruction.

The announcement of the new office comes at a humbling moment for the president, following Friday’s collapse of his first major legislative push — an overhaul of the health-care system, which Trump had championed as a candidate.

Kushner is positioning the new office as “an offensive team” — an aggressive, nonideological ideas factory capable of attracting top talent from both inside and outside of government, and serving as a conduit with the business, philanthropic and academic communities.

“We should have excellence in government,” Kushner said Sunday in an interview in his West Wing office. “The government should be run like a great American company. Our hope is that we can achieve successes and efficiencies for our customers, who are the citizens.”

The innovation office has a particular focus on technology and data, and it is working with such titans as Apple chief executive Tim Cook, Microsoft founder Bill Gates, Salesforce chief executive Marc Benioff and Tesla founder and chief executive Elon Musk. The group has already hosted sessions with more than 100 such leaders and government officials.

“There is a need to figure out what policies are adding friction to the system without accompanying it with significant benefits,” said Stephen A. Schwarzman, chief executive of the investment firm Blackstone Group. “It’s easy for the private sector to at least see where the friction is, and to do that very quickly and succinctly.”

Some of the executives involved have criticized some of Trump’s policies, such as his travel ban, but said they are eager to help the administration address chronic problems.

“Obviously it has to be done with corresponding values and principles. We don’t agree on everything,” said Benioff, a Silicon Valley billionaire who raised money for Democrat Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign.

But, Benioff added, “I’m hopeful that Jared will be collaborative with our industry in moving this forward. When I talk to him, he does remind me of a lot of the young, scrappy entrepreneurs that I invest in in their 30s.”

Kushner’s ambitions for what the new office can achieve are grand. At least to start, the team plans to focus its attention on reimagining Veterans Affairs; modernizing the technology and data infrastructure of every federal department and agency; remodeling workforce-training programs; and developing “transformative projects” under the banner of Trump’s $1 trillion infrastructure plan, such as providing broadband Internet service to every American.

In some cases, the office could direct that government functions be privatized, or that existing contracts be awarded to new bidders.

The office will also focus on combating opioid abuse, a regular emphasis for Trump on the campaign trail. The president later this week plans to announce an official drug commission devoted to the problem that will be chaired by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R). He has been working informally on the issue for several weeks with Kushner, despite reported tension between the two.

Under President Barack Obama, Trump advisers said scornfully, some business leaders privately dismissed their White House interactions as “NATO” meetings — “No action, talk only” — in which they were “lectured,” without much follow-up.

Andrew Liveris, chairman and chief executive of Dow Chemical, who has had meetings with the two previous administrations, said the environment under Trump is markedly different.

After he left a recent meeting of manufacturing chief executives with Trump, Liveris said, “Rather than entering a vacuum, I’m getting emails from the president’s team, if not every day, then every other day — ‘Here’s what we’re working on.’ ‘We need another meeting.’ ‘Can you get us more input on this?’ ”

Kushner proudly notes that most of the members of his team have little-to-no political experience, hailing instead from the world of business. They include Gary Cohn, director of the National Economic Council; Chris Liddell, assistant to the president for strategic initiatives; Reed Cordish, assistant to the president for intergovernmental and technology initiatives; Dina Powell, senior counselor to the president for economic initiatives and deputy national security adviser; and Andrew Bremberg, director of the Domestic Policy Council.

Ivanka Trump, the president’s elder daughter and Kushner’s wife, who now does her advocacy work from a West Wing office, will collaborate with the innovation office on issues such as workforce development but will not have an official role, aides said.

Powell, a former Goldman Sachs executive who spent a decade at the firm managing public-private job creation programs, also boasts a government pedigree as a veteran of George W. Bush’s White House and State Department. Bremberg also worked in the Bush administration. But others are political neophytes.

Liddell, who speaks with an accent from his native New Zealand, served as chief financial officer for General Motors, Microsoft and International Paper, as well as in Hollywood for William Morris Endeavor.

“We are part of the White House team, connected with everyone here, but we are not subject to the day-to-day issues, so we can take a more strategic approach to projects,” Liddell said.

Like Kushner, Cordish is the scion of a real estate family — a Baltimore-based conglomerate known for developing casinos and shopping malls. And Cohn, a Democrat who has recently amassed significant clout in the White House, is the hard-charging former president of Goldman Sachs.

Trump’s White House is closely scrutinized for its always-evolving power matrix, and the innovation office represents a victory for Wall Street figures such as Cohn who have sought to moderate Trump’s agenda and project a friendly front to businesses, sometimes in conflict with the more hard-line conservatism championed by Bannon and Chief of Staff Reince Priebus.

The innovation group has been meeting twice a week in Kushner’s office, just a few feet from the Oval Office, largely barren but for a black-and-white photo of his paternal grandparents — both Holocaust survivors — and a marked-up whiteboard more typical of tech start-ups. Kushner takes projects and decisions directly to the president for sign-off, though Trump also directly suggests areas of personal interest.

There could be friction as the group interacts with myriad federal agencies, though the advisers said they did not see themselves as an imperious force dictating changes but rather as a “service organization” offering solutions.

Kushner’s team is being formalized just as the Trump administration is proposing sweeping budget cuts across many departments, and members said they would help find efficiencies.

“The president’s doing what is necessary to have a prudent budget, and that makes an office like this even more vital as we need to get more out of less dollars by doing things smarter, doing things better, and by leaning on the private sector,” Cordish said.

Ginni Rometty, the chairman and chief executive of IBM, said she is encouraged: “Jared is reaching out and listening to leaders from across the business community — not just on day-to-day issues, but on long-term challenges like how to train a modern workforce and how to apply the latest innovations to government operations.”

Trump sees the innovation office as a way to institutionalize what he sometimes did in business, such as helping New York City’s government renovate the floundering Wollman Rink in Central Park, said Hope Hicks, the president’s longtime spokeswoman.

“He recognized where the government has struggled with certain projects and he was someone in the private sector who was able to come in and bring the resources and creativity needed and ultimately execute in an efficient, cost-effective, way,” Hicks said. “In some respects, this is an extension of some of the highlights of the president’s career.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-taps-kushner-to-lead-a-swat-team-to-fix-government-with-business-ideas/2017/03/26/9714a8b6-1254-11e7-ada0-1489b735b3a3_story.html?utm_term=.210c9708d9c6

 

Story 2: Attorney General Sessions Moves To Enforce Federal Law in Sanctuary Cities — 

Image result for sanctuary cites illegal aliens

WATCH: Attorney General Jeff Sessions Announces Action AGAINST Sanctuary Cities

WATCH: Jeff Sessions, Sean Spicer Press Briefing Conference (3/27/2017)

President Trump signs order to strip sanctuary cities of federal funding

Trump Will END Sanctuary Cities & The Democrats Hate How He’ll Do It

TRUMP JUST GOT EPIC REVENGE AGAINST SANCTUARY CITIES, MAYORS ARE HORRIFIED AND ILLEGALS FREAKING OUT

Tucker Carlson Grills Hartford Mayor on Sanctuary Cities – 24.02.17

Sanctuary Cities May Lose Federal Funds

Immigration Policy Under Jeff Sessions: VICE News Tonight on HBO (Full Segment)

What is a Sanctuary City? It’s Not What They’ve Been Telling You

Robert Rector – Welfare Use by Legal and Illegal Immigrants

Stop Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants – Expert Reveals the True Cost of Amnesty

Immigration Hearing 5/10/2007 — Robert Rector (Heritage)

Roy Beck on Glenn Beck

(Roy Beck) American Jobs in Peril: The Impact of Uncontrolled Immigration

How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Walsh – 1

How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the United States? Presentation by James H. Walsh, Associate General Counsel of the former INS – part 1.

Census Bureau estimates of the number of illegals in the U.S. are suspect and may represent significant undercounts. The studies presented by these authors show that the numbers of illegal aliens in the U.S. could range from 20 to 38 million.

On October 3, 2007, a press conference and panel discussion was hosted by Californians for Population Stabilization (http://www.CAPSweb.org) and The Social Contract (http://www.TheSocialContract.com) to discuss alternative methodologies for estimating the true numbers of illegal aliens residing in the United States.

This is a presentation of five panelists presenting at the National Press Club, Washington, D.C. on October 3, 2007. The presentations are broken into a series of video segments:

Wayne Lutton, Introduction: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5KHQR…

Diana Hull, part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6WvFW…

Diana Hull, part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYuRNY…

James H Walsh, part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MB0RkV…

James H. Walsh, part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbmdun…

Phil Romero: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_ohvJ…

Fred Elbel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNTJGf…

How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Walsh – 2

How Will Trump Handle Sanctuary Cites? Roy Beck Interview Founder of Numbers USA

Immigration by the Numbers — Off the Charts

Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs – NumbersUSA.com

AG Sessions says he’ll punish sanctuaries, cities could lose billions of dollars

– The Washington Times – Monday, March 27, 2017

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday he’ll begin punishing sanctuary cities, withholding potentially billions of dollars in federal money — and even clawing back funds that had been doled out in the past.

Speaking at the White House, Mr. Sessions said his department is preparing to dole out more than $4 billion in funds this year, but will try prevent any of it from going to sanctuaries.

“Countless Americans would be alive today … if these policies of sanctuary cities were ended,” Mr. Sessions said.

He said he’s carrying out a policy laid out by the Obama administration last year, which identified three grant programs — the COPS grants, Byrne grants and State Criminal Alien Assistance Program money — that already require sanctuary certification.

The Obama administration didn’t end up enforcing that policy, but Mr. Sessions said he’ll begin.

Sanctuaries are jurisdictions that thwart federal immigration agents’ efforts to deport illegal immigrants, usually be refusing to comply with detainer requests from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/27/jeff-sessions-says-hell-punish-sanctuaries-cities/

Illegal Aliens: Counting the Uncountable

By James H. Walsh
Volume 17, Number 4 (Summer 2007)
Issue theme: “How many illegal aliens are in the U.S.?”

 

 

Summary:
No exact head count exists for the ghost population of illegal aliens residing in the United States. Data compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) and by national surveys, governmental agencies, nongovernment statistics-keeping agencies, philanthropic organizations, religious charities, and immigrant advocates are used in estimates ranging from 7 million to 20 million. This article demonstrates that this number is closer to 2 times 20 million.

 

Qui vult decipi, decipiatur.
(Let him who wishes to be deceived, be deceived.)

– Latin proverb

 

No exact head count exists for the ghost population of illegal aliens residing in the United States. Data compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) and by national surveys, governmental agencies, nongovernment statistics-keeping agencies, philanthropic organizations, religious charities, and immigrant advocates are used in estimates ranging from 7 million to 20 million. I believe that number is closer to 2 times 20, and here is why.

Guessing the number of illegal aliens in the United States is like playing the lottery––more than a million to one that you will be right on. Government agencies each have their own methodology and thus their own estimate. Leading the list are the Census Bureau and the post-9/11 Department of Homeland Security (DHS)—an amalgamation of 22 federal agencies, including the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) transferred from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the former Customs Service (USC) transferred from the U.S. Treasury Department. The INS and USC had the distinction of being among the most dysfunctional agencies in the U.S. Government. Added to these are other public and private prestidigitators (listed here in alphabetical order): academics, demographers, economists, environmentalists, geographers, historians, immigration advocates, journalists, labor specialists, political scientists, religious charities, sociologists, statisticians, and welfare administrators.

Not one of these “experts” has a clue as to the exact number of illegal aliens, but this does not keep them from crafting estimates to fit their own agenda. Few have ever been to the U.S.–Mexican border, where the majority of illegal aliens cross into the United States. My high-ball estimate, at least, is based on first-hand data compiled on site. During eleven years as a renegade INS Associate General Counsel, I regularly traveled the Southern Border, as it meanders 2,000 miles from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico. My duties took me as well to the then even less secure Northern Border with Canada, which extends through often heavily wooded wilderness.

The INS, in its stormy heyday, had a chronic problem with numbers, be it the number of illegal aliens crossing U.S. borders each year, the number of visa overstays, the number of actual, in-the-flesh deportations, or the number of criminal illegal aliens (those convicted of crimes committed in the United States, after their illegal entry).

In 1994, the INS Statistics Division published a seminal statistical work on illegal aliens. Emphasizing that the figures were estimates, the report acknowledged the assistance of the Urban Institute, the Center for Social Demographic Analysis, the State University of New York, Albany, and the New York City Planning Department. The Urban Institute contributor also worked as an INS consultant, and now is with the Pew Foundation. The major players in immigration statistics do tend to quote each other. Although the report cited the INS Nonimmigrant Information System (NIIS), it failed to mention that the 1990 NIIS records were lost during a processing error. Nevertheless, the report concluded that the actual illegal alien population residing in the United States in October 1992 was “not likely to have been higher than the estimated total of 3.4 million, because the assumption used to construct the estimates was selected deliberately to avoid underestimating the population.”

At the same time, an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice Inspector General found INS statistics suspect and cited deliberate deception by senior INS officials tampering with immigration statistics. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one, false in all).

The DOJ investigation agreed with audits by the Government Accounting Office (now Government Accountability Office, GAO) that an “aura of incompetence and incestuous mismanagement” permeated the INS. Over the years, GAO auditors voiced their concerns to the INS Office of the General Counsel, which was plagued by a swinging door of political appointee General Counsels. Those who pushed for accurate counts were stilled by bureaucratic estoppel, dead-end rewrites, and persistently convoluted and distorted statistics.

U.S. Border Patrol agents confided that they were told to cap apprehensions and deportations to conform to the desires of various Administrations to create at least a public perception of border control. One method was to move deportation cases from the Border States to inland districts with fewer alien cases; thus deportations would better match depressed apprehension figures. Another method was to send illegal aliens back across the border without recording the apprehensions. That strategy failed on occasions when Mexican officials refused to accept non-Mexican deportees. Not all illegal aliens crossing the Southern Border are Mexican. These “others” have their own acronym, OTM (other than Mexican), and it is among the OTMs, that the risk of terrorism is greatest. For instance, Arabs are said to be training in South America to pass as Hispanics at the Southern Border.

Unfortunately, under DHS, things have not greatly changed, other than to rename former INS and USC units and positions. The same bureaucrats, at the behest of political appointees, still supply Congress and the White House with illegal alien numbers. Just as with the old INS, the new DHS bureaucrats are adept at rationalizing their methodology and head counts.

In addition, the U.S. Census Bureau routinely undercounts and then adjusts upward total census numbers of Hispanics and other foreign nationals residing in the United States––counting only, of course, those willing to be counted. For the year 2000, the Census Bureau reported a total U.S. population count of “about 275 million” men, women, and children. When the states and local governments challenged that number as an undercount, the total was corrected upward to 281.4 million, with no clear count of illegal aliens. The Hispanic 2000 census count was 32.8 million, but on re-count the Census Bureau adjusted this number upward to 35.3 million, a 13 percent increase.

In 2001, Northeastern University, in an independent study, estimated a total of about 13 million illegal aliens in the United States, at the same time that the INS was estimating 4 million to 6 million illegal aliens. Unquestionably, the INS had a policy of underestimating the illegal alien count in keeping with its agenda traceable back to the Immigration Act of 1965, which opened the doors to Third World immigrants.

The average number of recorded apprehensions of illegal aliens in the United States now hovers at 1.2 million a year. A DHS report, Border Apprehensions: 2005, documented 1.3 million apprehensions in 2005. For the 10-year period (1996–2005), the highest number of apprehensions, 1.8 million, occurred in 2000, and the lowest, 1 million, in 2003. These DHS statistics contradict persistent statements by other government agencies that only 400,000 to 500,000 illegal aliens enter the country each year.

Journeymen Border Patrol agents (on the job five years or more) estimate that a minimum of five illegal aliens enter the United States for each apprehension, and more likely seven. That informed estimate would raise the total number of illegal aliens entering the United States in 2003 to 8 million men, women, and children.

Immigrant apologists argue that the number of illegal aliens in the United States fluctuates: many die; many return to their homeland part of each year or after many years of work; others are granted amnesty or refugee status; and others become (LPRs) and then citizens. Logic questions some of these arguments. Why would those who pay $1,500 to $15,000 to be smuggled into the United States, risking their life, return in a matter of months or years? Why would they suffer long trips confined to over-crowded boats, trucks, or other containers to stay for a few months or years? Why would people suffer possible assaults, rape, or murder to stay a few months or years? Why would Chinese illegal aliens suffer decades of indentured servitude for a few years in the United States? Most of those illegal aliens who risk their lives sneaking into the United States are here to stay.

My estimate of 38 million illegal aliens residing in the United States is calculated, however, using a conservative annual rate of entry (allowing for deaths and returns to their homelands) of three illegal aliens entering the United States for each one apprehended. My estimate includes apprehensions at the Southern Border (by far, the majority), at the Northern Border, along the Pacific, Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico coasts, and at seaports and airports. Taking the DHS average of 1.2 million apprehensions per year and multiplying it by 3 comes to 3.6 million illegal entries per year; then multiplying that number by 10 for the 1996–2005 period, my calculations come to 36 million illegal entries into the United States. Add to this the approximately 2 million visa overstays during the same period, and the total is 38 million illegal aliens currently in the United States.

In contrast to my estimate, the head of the U.S. Border Patrol Union Local in Tucson was quoted in a May 16, 2006, Christian Science Monitor article, as estimating the total number of “illegal immigrants” (illegal aliens) in the United States, as of that date, at between 12 million and 15 million. At the same time, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in DHS put the number at 7 million; the Census Bureau estimated 8.7 million; and The Pew Hispanic Center estimate was 11.5 million to 12 million “unauthorized migrants” (illegal aliens) living in the United States. Depending on the source, the Christian Science Monitor concluded, illegal aliens in the United States in May 2006 numbered from “about 7 million up to 20 million or more.” At least the reporter was on the right track.

The current confusion of laws, regulations, DHS operating procedures, judicial decisions, and political agenda wreaks havoc on border enforcement. It is hardly reassuring that DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff, on February 16, 2007, stated that immigration reform would let U.S. law enforcement focus on catching criminals instead of “future housekeepers and landscapers.” The Secretary opined that security alone is not enough to permanently stop “illegal border jumpers” (illegal aliens). With internecine fighting reported on the rise between and among alien and drug smuggling Hispanic gangs, the Secretary noted that alien smugglers are in disarray, but he expects “flows to go up again as smugglers regroup.”

A Closer Look at the Numbers

Thus far in 2007, the U.S. population has passed 301 million. DHS statistics indicate that illegal aliens are the fastest growing segment, followed by their anchor babies. In addition, the number of Mexican illegal aliens apprehended is nine times the combined numbers of all other illegal aliens.

Still the number of illegal aliens is downplayed by the immigration lobby, which is a coalition of liberal-radical academics, liberal politicians, federal and state bureaucrats, labor unions, La Raza (“The Race,” the leading immigrant activist group), other immigrant activists, and religious organizations.

Aiding and abetting the immigrant coalition is the news media, which is committed to not identifying persons as illegal aliens, especially those who commit crimes. Only when forced to do so does the news media refer to illegal aliens, and then only as “undocumented persons” or “unauthorized immigrants.” The latest newspeak introduced the term “migrants” with the blessing of the New York Times, when the coalition realized that U.S. citizens were beginning to catch on that “undocumented immigrant” actually meant illegal alien. Finally U.S. taxpayers are becoming alarmed by the numbers of illegal aliens in their states, cities, and communities. Finally they are sensing that the actual numbers exceed the official estimates.

Illegal alien apologists must downplay the numbers because the actual costs to federal and state taxpayers are rising drastically each year. By undercounting illegal aliens, the costs to taxpayers for increased school enrollment and hospital treatment are never fully explained. Texas school officials are recruiting in Mexico for bilingual persons to teach in Texas public schools. The 2005–06 Texas school data showed at least 711,237 students had “limited” English-speaking skills. U.S. school districts are recruiting foreign nationals to come and teach in U.S. schools to accommodate illegal aliens.

Arizona will spend $1.2 billion to educate non-English-speaking children in 2007. The pro-immigrant rights Pew Hispanic Center estimates that one in nine Arizona students is an “illegal immigrant or the child of an illegal immigrant.” Others in Arizona suggest the number is more like one in four.

tsc_17_4_walsh_chart1.png

 

On Capitol Hill, Congressional staffers are quick to rely on governmental studies as accurate; the acceptance of flawed data is routine in immigration circles. The Pew Hispanic Center published a report on June 14, 2005, entitled,Unauthorized Migrants: Numbers and Characteristics by Jeffrey S. Passel, formerly with the Urban Institute and a former INS consultant. His report, illustrated with charts and diagrams, included a footnote in which he stated his preference for the term “unauthorized migrants”:

Various labels have been applied to this group of unauthorized migrants, including “undocumented immigrants,” “illegals,” “illegal aliens,” and “illegal immigrants.” The term “unauthorized migrant” best encompasses the population in our data, because many migrants now enter the country or work using counterfeit documents, and thus are not really “undocumented,” in the sense that they have documents, but not completely legal documents.

Perhaps in place of “illegal aliens,” Passel would prefer “not completely legal aliens.” His report, largely advo-babble (immigrant advocate babble) under the guise of research and statistical analysis, rehashes disingenuous data in an attempt to cloud illegal alien numbers and their impact. In a chapter on “Methods: Residual Estimates of Unauthorized Migrants,” he states that the “residual method has been used for several decades to measure unauthorized migration to the U.S.” and that “some of the first sound empirical estimates came from residual methodology applied to the 1980 Census. Variants of the method were used or discussed by the Census Bureau, the Panel on Immigration Statistics, the Bi-National (U.S.-Mexico) Study, and the Commission on Immigration Reform, INS, and a number of other organizations and researchers.” If incest is a crime, then these researchers are guilty––at least of quoting themselves and cross-referencing their colleagues.

A GAO report (May 9, 2005) on criminal illegal aliens compared a 2000 INS estimate of the total “unauthorized immigrant” (illegal alien) population residing in the United States at 7 million to a 2005 estimate of “about 10 million illegal aliens living in the United States.” Of the 55,322 criminal illegal aliens studied by the GAO, each averaged eight arrests––without deportation.

The new DHS has yet to correct the multitude of problems inherited from the INS and Customs. A GAO report (May 27, 2005) described the memorandum of understanding on respective duties and intelligence sharing signed by the newly formed Immigration and Customs Enforcement component (ICE) and the Customs and Border Protection component (CBP). As of May 2005, however, no mechanism was in place to track numbers and results of referrals between the two. Little has changed.

Recently experts at liberal think-tanks, such as the Brookings Institution, are commenting on the extraordinary explosion across the United States of diversity and immigration. These experts are just learning that “immigrants” (illegal aliens) are showing up in many more communities than the experts ever believed, such as Loudoun County, Virginia (an affluent suburb of Washington, D.C.), Palm Beach County, Florida; and Plainfield, Illinois. They had accepted as fact the under-reporting of illegal aliens by immigrant special interest groups, including Democrats in Congress and federal agencies. Finally the ghost population of illegal aliens is becoming visible, through its sheer numbers at the state and local level. Not only are U.S. citizens beginning to see the reality of unfettered illegal immigration in their own communities; they are beginning to feel the pinch.

Countable Snapshots

Although no exact numbers exist on illegal aliens residing in the United States, the following snapshots support my contention that the actual numbers far exceed the “official” estimates of the federal government.

On an inspection tour of the El Paso Border Patrol Sector, while interviewing an agent, I observed in the distance twelve illegal aliens dash through a split in a fence, and three Border Patrol agents give chase. The aliens spread out like a fireworks starburst; the agents apprehended three of them; and thus nine illegal aliens were on their way to mingle in El Paso or parts unknown. This snapshot, remember, was a 20-foot stretch of a 2,000-mile border.

In an immigration/civil rights case, a federal judge asked attorneys, “Do we really know how many undocumented immigrants we are talking about, in the United States?” School Board attorneys hemmed and hawed; finally one replied, “One expert told me 1,300 “undocumented students” were in the school district, and another said 7,000.” When the judge later asked the question again, attorneys answered that privacy laws and federal laws prohibited questions about citizenship.

The Hispanic population is skyrocketing in such diverse areas as Fort Myers, Florida; Charlotte, North Carolina; Indianapolis, Indiana; Las Vegas, Nevada; and Seattle, Washington. Illegal aliens make up an estimated 80 percent of the new population. In Nebraska, the number of illegal aliens is estimated at more than 50,000. Nationally, Hispanics, now the largest minority, have a higher fertility rate than other ethnic groups.

In early 2007, more than 1.6 million Hispanics were reported living in the greater Chicago area, the majority of them Mexicans and 80 percent of them illegal aliens. One of them, Elvira Arellaño, is being granted “sanctuary” in a Chicago store-front church. DHS officers have not breached this “sanctuary” to deport Arellaño once again. Having lived in Chicago for nine years, she can still not speak English. As one of the few people actually deported by the U.S. Government, she re-entered the United States without inspection and thus is subject to felony charges. The radical immigration advocates who support her “sanctuary” mean to make a mockery of U.S. laws.

In January 2007, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) spokeswoman estimated that 600,000 “illegal immigrants” (illegal aliens) are currently ignoring deportation orders. Illegal aliens call the written notice of a deportation order a “run letter,” and that is what they do.

Southern states have the fastest growing populations in the country. Brookings Institution demographer William Frey opined in 2006, “Immigrants are finally catching up to the fact that the South is a magnet for jobs and quality of life. They are rag-tag migrants, taking jobs created by people who come from other parts of the U.S.” Texas, Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina are among the ten most popular states with illegal aliens.

In 2005, a total of 11,400 migrants on their way to the United States took refuge in the Jesuit shelter, Casa del Migrante, in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, across the Rio Grande from Laredo, Texas; this figure was up from 4,647 in 1999.

In Palm Beach County, Florida, in 2006, according to an immigration advocate, the Hispanic population was undercounted by 3–4 to 1, with 90 percent of them illegal aliens. Thus when the 2005 Census recorded 50,000 Hispanic residents among the population of 1.2 million, the actual count was closer to 200,000, most of them illegal.

Among illegal aliens in the United States, most are of child-bearing age. The fertility rate of immigrants, legal and illegal, compared to that of U.S. citizens is 3–4:1.

In January 2007, U.S. Treasurer Anna Escobedo Cabral stated that remittances to Mexico from the United States are a driving force of Mexico’s economic growth. In 2006, these remittances were US$23 billion, an increase of 15 percent from remittances in 2005. Some of these remittances are coming from the estimated 5,000 to 30,000 Mexicans working in New Orleans to rebuild the city.

Illegal Aliens and “Comprehensive” Immigration Reform

A history of legislative chicanery and out-right misrepresentation has fed the illegal alien crisis now being felt at federal, state, and local levels in the United States. To Congress must go the majority of blame for the some 38 million illegal aliens now residing in the United States––threatening public safety and public health, stressing school and hospital budgets, damaging the environment, and draining taxpayer pocketbooks.

The new Democrat-controlled Congress is poised to repeat past legislative mistakes. The Immigration Act of 1965 (Hart-Celler Act), as part of Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty, served as an open invitation to those wishing to flee Third World countries; and the 1986 Immigration and Reform Control Act (IRCA), which promised amnesty and employer sanctions, delivered little of either. Only an estimated 2.7 million illegal aliens took advantage of the IRCA (Reagan) amnesty. This low participation rate can be traced to the reluctance of illegal aliens to believe any country would be so naive as to wave in persons who had committed a crime in crossing the border. At that time, the total illegal alien population in the United States was estimated at 4 million to 6 million. The tsunami of “border jumpers” began once word spread around the world that the United States, with the passage of IRCA, was opening its borders.

In a 2005 Pew Hispanic Center report, Jeffrey Passel did make a coherent summation: “The unauthorized population [illegal aliens] has been steadily increasing in size (and possibly by large increments since the last half of the 1990s).”

Amnesty and employer sanction provisions failed to curb the flow of illegal aliens; IRCA proved to be a legislative mistake, and the present Democrat-controlled Congress is falling into the same trap, with the support of the President. As illegal alien counts rise daily, employer sanction provisions in any 2007 immigration legislation promise to be as unenforceable as those in IRCA. Just as the Reagan amnesty was followed by a new wave of emboldened illegal aliens, the same aftermath awaits “comprehensive” immigration legislation in 2007.

U.S. citizens (for the most part, we presume) elected the current Congress to pass legislation to “form a more perfect union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” (Preamble to the U.S. Constitution, 1789).

Immigration is not the problem; the burgeoning ghost population of illegal aliens now becoming visible across the United States is. Conflicting counts of illegal aliens reflect muddled immigration policies––purposeful or not. Such policies render the nation less capable of apprehending and deporting illegal aliens (among them violent criminals and terrorists) than ever before. ■

About the author

James H. Walsh, formerly an Associate General Counsel of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in the United States Department of Justice, writes immigration commentary. During his INS tenure, Walsh was selected as a German Marshall Fund Scholar, traveled through Europe interviewing immigration officials, and published articles based on his findings. At INS, he worked with other federal agencies and with congressional committees on immigration matters. His assignments included consultations with foreign governments and international business concerns. He chaired a task force on Transit without Visa (TWOV), whose report identified weaknesses in pre-9/11 airport security.

Walsh has served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney (Middle District of Florida) and as a Special Trial Attorney in the U.S. Department of Justice Organized Crime Section. He chaired the Constitutional Rights Committee, General Law Section, of the American Bar Association, and served on the Editorial Board of The Florida Bar Journal. His articles on immigration have appeared inMigrationWorld, Social Contract, The Florida Bar Journal, and Newsmax.com.
Walsh has a B.A. in history from Spring Hill College and a J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center.

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-861

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Pronk Pops Show 846, February 24, 2017, Story 1: American Conservative Union CPAC — President Trump — The Real Enemy of The People Is Not Fake News But Big Government — Videos — Story 2: Dr. Larry Arnn on What is Conservatism? and Dan Schneider on Left Fasicism — Videos — Story 3: Classical LIberal and Libertarians Oppose Big Government Conservatives — Videos

Posted on February 25, 2017. Filed under: Blogroll, Breaking News, Communications, Congress, Countries, Culture, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, House of Representatives, Mike Pence, Senate, United States of America | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 846: February 243, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 845: February 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 844: February 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 843: February 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 842: February 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 841: February 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 840: February 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 839: February 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 838: February 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 837: February 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 836: February 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 835: February 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 834: February 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 833: February 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 832: February 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 831: February 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 830: February 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 829: February 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 828: January 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 827: January 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 826: January 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 825: January 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 824: January 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 823: January 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 822: January 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 821: January 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 820: January 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 819: January 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 818: January 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 817: January 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 816: January 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 815: January 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 814: January 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 813: January 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 812: December 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 811: December 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 810: December 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 809: December 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 808: December 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 807: December 5, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 806: December 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 805: December 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 804: November 30, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 803: November 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 802: November 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 801: November 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 800: November 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 799: November 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 798: November 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 797: November 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 796: November 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 795: November 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 794: November 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 793: November 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 792: November 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 791: November 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 790: November 4, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 789: November 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 788: November 2, 2016

 

Story 1:  American Conservative Union CPAC — President Trump — The Real Enemy of The People Is Not Fake News But Big Government — Videos — 

Image result for CPAC 2017
Image result for Trump at CPAC 2017Image result for dr. larry arn at cpac 2017Image result for Trump at CPAC 2017
Image result for cpac 2017  Trump Speech at CPAC 2017 (FULL) | ABC News

 Story 2: Dr. Larry Arnn on What is Conservatism? and Dan Schneider on Left Fasicism — Videos — 

CPAC 2017 – Dr. Larry Arnn

CPAC 2017 – Dan Schneider

FULL EVENT: President Donald Trump Speech at CPAC 2017 (2/24/2017) Donald Trump Live CPAC Speech

CPAC 2017 – Judge Jeanine Pirro

CPAC 2017 – Vice President Mike Pence’s full #CPAC Speech #CPAC2017

CPAC 2017 – How the Election Has Changed and Expanded the Pro-Life Movement

CPAC 2017 – Mark Levin and Sen. Ted Cruz

Steve Bannon, Reince Priebus Interview at CPAC 2017 | ABC News

CPAC 2017 – Sen. Jim Demint

CPAC 2017 – Ambassador John Bolton

CPAC 2017 – Nigel Farage

CPAC 2017 – Raheem Kassam

CPAC 2017 – Why Government Gets So Much Wrong

CPAC 2017 – When Did WWIII Begin? Part A: Threats at Home

CPAC 2017 – When did World War III Begin? Part B

CPAC 2017 – Armed and Fabulous

CPAC 2017 – Wayne LaPierre, NRA

CPAC 2017 – Chris Cox, NRA-ILA

CPAC 2017 – Prosecutors Gone Wild

CPAC 2017 – Kellyanne Conway

CPAC 2017 – A conversation with Carly Fiorina and Arthur Brooks

CPAC 2017 – The States vs The State Governors

CPAC 2017 – Gov. Pete Ricketts

CPAC 2017 – U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos

CPAC 2017 – Dan Schneider

CPAC 2017 – FREE stuff vs FREE-dom Panel

CPAC 2017 – Recovering from the Obama Flu: What is the Prescription for Healthcare

CPAC 2017 – Dana Loesch

CPAC 2017 – Robert Davi

CPAC 2017 – Lou Dobbs

Story 3: Classical Liberals and Libertarians Oppose Big Government Conservatives — Videos

Dan Mitchell Discussing if Trump and the GOP Will Deliver Tax Reform

Dan Mitchell Speculating on Whether Trump Will Move Policy in the Right Direction

Trump’s team walks back 20% import tax proposal

Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin On Tax Reform, Growth, Border Tax, China (Full) | Squawk Box | CNBC

CNBC: Steve Forbes on Border Adjustment Tax – “Don’t Do It” 2.8.17

Trump economic advisor on import tariffs

Sen. Tom Cotton: “I have serious concerns” w/ Border Adjustment Tax

Sen. Thune Sees U.S. Border Tax as an Open Question

Dan Mitchell Discussing Trump’s Good and Bad Approach to Business

Dan Mitchell on Trump, Tariffs, Trade, and the Economy

Dan Mitchell Fretting about GOP Border-Adjustable Tax Plan

1/26/17 Border Adjustment Taxes, Tax Reform & Trade: Panel 1

1/26/17 Border Adjustment Taxes, Tax Reform and Trade: Panel 1 Discussion and Q&A

1/26/17 Border Adjustment Taxes, Tax Reform and Trade: Panel 2 Discussion and Q&A

1/26/17 Border Adjustment Taxes, Tax Reform and Trade: Panel 2 Part 2

Dan Mitchell Commenting on Proposal for Government to Provide a Guaranteed Income

Dan Mitchell Explaining the Downside of a “Basic Income” at a Swiss Conference

Dan Mitchell Explaining Why Double Taxation Is Economically Destructive

John Allison’s Reaction to a Trump Presidency

Reason Reflects on Four Decades of Libertarian Journalism

Published on Feb 22, 2017

Three Reason editors-in-chief arrived at the International Students for Liberty Conference to discuss four decades of reporting. Marty Zupan, who edited Reason in the 1980s; Nick Gillespie, editor in the aughts; and current magazine editor Katherine Mangu-Ward have all covered world events from a libertarian perspective.

Produced by Todd Krainin. Cameras by Josh Swain and Krainin.

Reason is the planet’s leading source of news, politics, and culture from a libertarian perspective. Go to reason.com for a point of view you won’t get from legacy media and old left-right opinion magazines.

How Trump Will Reshape Foreign Policy

Published on Feb 23, 2017

“I think [Trump] kind of has a zero-sum view of the world,” says Cato Institute Senior Fellow Trevor Thrall. “‘We’re going to win, and we’re going to beat people up hard to do it.'”

Reason is the planet’s leading source of news, politics, and culture from a libertarian perspective. Go to reason.com for a point of view you won’t get from legacy media and old left-right opinion magazines.

Reason TV’s Nick Gillespie sat down with Thrall to discuss the Trump Doctrine, its potential effect on global stability, and America’s role as an indispensable nation.

Mitch Daniels on How to Cut Government & Improve Services

Millennial Support for Big Government Overblown by Media

What Millennials Think About Politics

Generational Swindle: How DC is Screwing over Millennials

What Americans Think of the Police & Millennials Think of Capitalism: Q&A with Pollster Emily Ekins

Richard Epstein: Obamacare’s Collapse, the 2016 Election, & More

Judge Andrew Napolitano on Election 2016 and Being a Pro-Life Libertarian

NAFTA Works. Just Look at Texas.

Have Republicans Turned Against Trade? We Asked Them.

George Will: Brace Yourself for the Authoritarian Moment

Camille Paglia: ‘Universities Are an Absolute Wreck Right Now’

Everything’s Awesome and Camille Paglia is Unhappy!

Conservative Political Action Conference

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Conservative Political Action Conference
CPAC logo 2017.png

The official logo for CPAC 2017
Dates March (dates vary)
Frequency Annual
Location(s) National Harbor, Maryland, U.S.
Inaugurated 1973; 44 years ago
Next event February 22 – 25, 2017
Organized by American Conservative Union
Website
cpac.conservative.org

The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC; /ˈspæk/ see-pak) is an annual political conference attended by conservativeactivists and elected officials from across the United States. CPAC is hosted by the American Conservative Union (ACU).[1] More than 100 other organizations contribute in various ways.

In 2011, ACU took CPAC on the road with its first Regional CPAC in Orlando, Florida. Since then ACU has hosted regional CPACs in Chicago, Denver, St. Louis, and San Diego. Political front runners take the stage at this convention.

Speakers have included Ronald Reagan,[2][3][4]George W. Bush,[5]Dick Cheney,[6]Pat Buchanan,[7]Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich,[5]Sarah Palin, Ron Paul,[8]Mitt Romney,[5]Tony Snow,[5]Glenn Beck,[9]Rush Limbaugh,[10]Ann Coulter,[6]Allen West,[11]Michele Bachmann,[12]Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Donald Trump,[13]Gary Johnson, Mike Pence, Jeanine Pirro, Betsy DeVos, and other conservative public figures.

History

Number of CPAC attendees over time

File:President Reagan's remarks at the Annual Conservative Political Action Conference, March 1, 1985.webm

Ronald Reagan at 1985 CPAC

Donald Trump speaking at the 2011 CPAC

Ann Coulter speaking at the 2011 CPAC

The conference was founded in 1973 by the American Conservative Union and Young Americans for Freedom as a small gathering of dedicated conservatives.[14][15] The 2010 CPAC featured co-sponsorship for the first time from the John Birch Society and GOProud. The Ronald Reagan Award was given to the Tea Party movement, which marked the first time it was ever given to a group instead of an individual.[16][17][18] The 2011 CPAC was Donald Trump’s first speaking appearance at CPAC. His appearance at CPAC was organized by GOProud, in conjunction with GOPround supporter Roger Stone, who was close with Trump. GOPround pushed for a write-in campaign for Donald Trump at CPAC’s presidential straw poll. Christopher R. Barron, co-founder of GOProud who would later not only endorse Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, but also launch LGBT for Trump, said he “would love to see Mr. Trump run for president.” For the 2012 CPAC conference, the ACU board voted to not invite GOProud or the John Birch Society to the 2012 conference.[19] The 2011 CPAC speech Trump gave is credited for helping kick-start his political career within the Republican Party.[20][21][22] The 2015 CPAC featured Jamila Bey who became the first atheist activist to address CPAC’s annual meeting.[23] The 2016 CPAC featured co-sponsorship for the first time from the Log Cabin Republicans.[24]

Controversies

In 2014, CPAC extended an invitation to the American Atheists, which was immediately withdrawn on the same day due to controversial statements.[25]

In 2017, CPAC extended an invitation to conservative blogger Milo Yiannopoulos to speak at the event, despite his history of inflammatory and controversial views[26] on feminism, racial minorities, and transgender people. Yiannopoulos had previously been banned from Twitter after allegedly inciting racial and sexual harassment towards SNL cast member Leslie Jones. The invitation was cancelled when tapes surfaced[27] in which Yiannopoulos is heard making comments interpreted as defending sexual relationships between adult men and younger boys, though he later claimed to be joking. Milo admits that he was sexually abused at the age of 13 and apologized stating that he was vehemently opposed to sexual predation and that his style of flippant provocateur was not meant to marginalize the extreme subject matter.[28]

White nationalist Richard Spencer arrived at CPAC on 23 February 2017 as a symbol of the white supremacy movement’s efforts to conform with conservatives, and was subsequently ejected.[29]

Straw poll

Straw poll results at the 2015 CPAC in National Harbor, Maryland on February 28, 2015.

The annual CPAC straw poll vote traditionally serves as a barometer for the feelings of the conservative movement. During the conference, attendees are encouraged to fill out a survey that asks questions on a variety of issues. The questions regarding the most popular possible presidential candidates are the most widely reported. One component of CPAC is evaluating conservative candidates for president, and the straw poll serves generally to quantify conservative opinion.

Year Straw Poll Winner  % of Votes Second Place  % of Votes
1976 Ronald Reagan[30][31] George Wallace
1980 Ronald Reagan
1984 Ronald Reagan
1986 Jack Kemp[32][33] George H.W. Bush
1987 Jack Kemp[34] 68% Patrick Buchanan 9%
1993 Jack Kemp[35]
1995 Phil Gramm[36] 40% Bob Dole 12%
1998 Steve Forbes[37] 23% George W. Bush 10%
1999 Gary Bauer[38][39] 28% George W. Bush 24%
2000 George W. Bush[40] 42% Alan Keyes 23%
2005 Rudy Giuliani[41] 19% Condoleezza Rice 18%
2006 George Allen[42] 22% John McCain 20%
2007 Mitt Romney[42] 21% Rudy Giuliani 17%
2008 Mitt Romney[42] 35% John McCain 34%
2009 Mitt Romney[42][43] 20% Bobby Jindal 14%
2010 Ron Paul[42][44] 31% Mitt Romney 22%
2011 Ron Paul[45] 30% Mitt Romney 23%
2012 Mitt Romney[46] 38% Rick Santorum 31%
2013 Rand Paul[47] 25% Marco Rubio 23%
2014 Rand Paul[48] 31% Ted Cruz 11%
2015 Rand Paul 26% Scott Walker 21%
2016 Ted Cruz 40% Marco Rubio 30%

Overall, Mitt Romney holds the record of winning more CPAC straw polls than any other individual, with four. Ronald Reagan, Jack Kemp and Rand Paul follow with three consecutive wins each, followed by Ron Paul with two wins. Of these five, the Pauls are the only two to win more than one straw poll, yet never appear on a Republican presidential ticket in any election (although Ron Paul did receive one Electoral College vote in 2016).[49]

Awards

Every year there are several awards given to notable conservatives. Although the exact lineup of awards varies, five awards are usually presented:

  • The “Ronald Reagan Award” is the highest award given at CPAC. It is awarded to dedicated activists, regardless of how high their profile may be on a national scale. ACU director David Keene described the award in 2008: “The winners of this award, our highest honor, are not household names, but the men and women working in the trenches who sacrifice and, in so doing, set an example for others.”[50] This award is different from the Ronald Reagan Freedom Award, which is not affiliated with CPAC.
  • The “Jeane Kirkpatrick Academic Freedom Award” is presented annually in honor of Jeane Kirkpatrick. Kirkpatrick was affiliated with the American Conservative Union for many years.
  • “Defender of the Constitution Award”
  • The “Blogger of the Year Award” is given to a leading conservative member of the blogosphere.
  • The “Charlton Heston Courage Under Fire Award” is named after the late actor and political activist Charlton Heston.

Sponsors

The 2017 CPAC sponsors were the following:[51]

Exhibitors

The 2017 CPAC exhibitors were the following:[51]

References

Larry P. Arnn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Larry Paul Arnn has served as the twelfth president of Hillsdale College in Hillsdale, Michigan, United States since May 2000.[1][2][3][4][5]

He is a political conservative who has been influenced by the thought of Leo Strauss and his teacher Harry V. Jaffa.[6]

Contents

 [show] 

Biography

Born in Pocahontas, Arkansas, Arnn received his B.A. (1974) in Political Science and Accounting from Arkansas State University.[1][3][4] He earned graduate degrees in Government from Claremont Graduate School — an M.A. in 1976 and a Ph.D. in 1985.[1][3][4] Arnn studied in England from 1977 to 1980, at the London School of Economics studying International History and then at Worcester College, Oxford University in Modern History.[3][4] While in England, he worked as Director of Research for Martin Gilbert, the official biographer of Winston Churchill.[1][3]

In 1980, Arnn become an editor for Public Research, Syndicated in the United States.[1] He was one of four founders of the Claremont Institute in Claremont, California, and served as its president from 1985 to 2000.[2][4][5] In 2000, he was named the twelfth president of Hillsdale College.[5] In this capacity, he set the ambitious goal of $400 million for the college’s Founders Campaign, beginning in 2001, and under his watch, several new buildings have arisen on the campus.

Arnn has been a trustee of the conservative Heritage Foundation since 2002.[2] In 2012 it offered its presidency to Arnn, who decided to stay in academe instead.[7]

Arnn also sits on the boards of directors of the Henry Salvatori Center for the Study of Individual Freedom in the Modern World at Claremont McKenna College, the Center for Individual Rights, and the Claremont Institute.[1] He is a member of the Mont Pelerin Society, the Churchill Centre, and the Philanthropy Roundtable.[1] As of 2014, he was listed as a member of the Council for National Policy in their directory.[8]

Discussing politics at Hillsdale, Arnn remarked, “If you take the reading of an old book on the view that it’s valuable, you have already discarded the modern Left.”[9] Arnn supported Donald Trump for President in the 2016 US election[10]

Controversies

“Dark Ones” Comment

In 2013, Arnn was criticized for his remarks about ethnic minorities when he testified before the Michigan State Legislature. In testimony against the Common Core curriculum standards, in which Arnn expressed concern about government interference with educational institutions, he recalled that shortly after he assumed the presidency at Hillsdale he received a letter from the state Department of Education that said his college “violated the standards for diversity,” adding, “because we didn’t have enough dark ones, I guess, is what they meant.” After being criticized for calling minorities “dark ones”, he explained that he was referring to “dark faces”, saying: “The State of Michigan sent a group of people down to my campus, with clipboards … to look at the colors of people’s faces and write down what they saw. We don’t keep records of that information. What were they looking for besides dark ones?”[11] Michigan House Democratic Leader Tim Greimel condemned Arnn for his comments, which he called “offensive” and “inflammatory and bigoted”, and asked for an apology.[12] The College issued a statement apologizing for Arnn’s remark, while reiterating Arnn’s concern about “state sponsored racism” in the form of affirmative action policies.[13]

Bibliography

  • Liberty and Learning: The Evolution of American Education (2004)
  • The Founders’ Key: The Divine and Natural Connection Between the Declaration and the Constitution and What We Risk by Losing It
  • Churchill’s Trial: Winston Churchill and the Salvation of Free Government” (2015)

References

  1. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g Hillsdale College faculty page Archived May 22, 2013, at the Wayback Machine.
  2. ^ Jump up to:a b c Heritage Foundation Board of Trustees
  3. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e Thomas Nelson webpage[dead link]
  4. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e John Locke Foundation webpage
  5. ^ Jump up to:a b c Claremont Institute webpage Archived June 13, 2011, at the Wayback Machine.
  6. Jump up^ Paul E. Gottfried (2011). Leo Strauss and the Conservative Movement in America. Cambridge U.P. p. 59.
  7. Jump up^ Tim Mak, “Heritage Foundation gets tough: Think tank puts punch behind its conservative ideas,” Washington Examiner Sept. 13, 2013
  8. Jump up^ 2014 Membership Directory, redacted and released by the Southern Poverty Law Center
  9. Jump up^ Arnn, Larry (September 1, 2014). “Hugh Hewitt Show” (Interview). Interview with Hugh Hewitt.
  10. Jump up^ http://scholarsandwritersforamerica.org/. Missing or empty |title= (help)
  11. Jump up^ Klein, Rebecca (2013-08-01). “Hillsdale College President Larry Arnn Under Fire For Calling Minority Students ‘Dark Ones'”. Huffington Post.
  12. Jump up^ “Statement from House Democratic Leader Tim Greimel (D-Auburn Hills) on Hillsdale College President Larry Arnn’s racist remarks: | Michigan House Democratic Caucus”. Housedems.com. 2013-07-31. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
  13. Jump up^ Higgins, Lori; Jesse, David (August 1, 2013). “Hillsdale president get heat over racial remark”. Detroit Free Press. Retrieved September 26, 2013. ‘No offense was intended by the use of that term except to the offending bureaucrats, and Dr. Arnn is sorry if such offense was honestly taken. But the greater concern, he believes, is the state-endorsed racism the story illustrates.’

External links

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_P._Arnn

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-846

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Pronk Pops Show 791, November 7, 2016, Story 1: Trump Tidal Wave Warning: American People Give Trump A 5% Margin Popular Vote Mandate — Pronk Prediction: 50% Trump vs. 45% Clinton — Trump 275 Electoral Votes vs. Clinton 263 Electoral Votes — Trump Wins Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania Becomes President Elect Trump — Narcissist Capitalist Leader In — Narcissist Socialist Appeaser Out — Do Not Blame Me I Elected The George Carlin Option — Videos — Story 2: FBI Director James Comey’s Letters — Return To Sender — FBI Investigations Of Hillary Clinton Are Not Over — Public Corruption Using State Department and Clinton Foundation Investigation Ongoing and Expanding — Videos

Posted on November 7, 2016. Filed under: 2016 Presidential Campaign, 2016 Presidential Candidates, American History, Applications, Benghazi, Blogroll, Breaking News, Bribery, Cartoons, Communications, Computers, Congress, Constitutional Law, Countries, Crime, Culture, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Economics, Education, Fast and Furious, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Foreign Policy, Fourth Amendment, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Hardware, High Crimes, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Human, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Impeachment, Independence, Iran Nuclear Weapons Deal, IRS, Law, Legal Immigration, Life, Media, Mike Pence, News, Obama, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Scandals, Second Amendment, Senate, Servers, Software, Success, Taxation, Taxes, Terror, Terrorism, Unemployment, United States Constitution, United States of America, Videos, War, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 791: November 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 790: November 4, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 789: November 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 788: November 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 787: October 31, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 786: October 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 785: October 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 784: October 26, 2016 

Pronk Pops Show 783: October 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 782: October 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 781: October 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 780: October 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 779: October 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 778: October 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 777: October 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 776: October 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 775: October 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 774: October 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 773: October 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 772: October 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 771: October 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 770: October 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 769: October 5, 2016 

Pronk Pops Show 768: October 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 767: September 30, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 766: September 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 765: September 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 764: September 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 763: September 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 762: September 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 761: September 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 760: September 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 759: September 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 758: September 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 757: September 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 756: September 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 755: September 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 754: September 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 753: September 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 752: September 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 751: September 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 750: September 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 749: September 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 748: September 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 747: August 31, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 746: August 30, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 745: August 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 744: August 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 743: August 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 742: August 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 741: August 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 740: August 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 739: August 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 738: August 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 737: August 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 736: August 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 735: August 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 734: August 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 733: August 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 732: August 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 731: August 4, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 730: August 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 729: August 1, 2016

Story 1: Trump Tidal Wave Warning: American People Give Trump A 5% Margin Popular Vote Mandate  — Pronk Prediction:  50% Trump vs. 45% Clinton — Trump 275 Electoral  Votes vs. Clinton 263 Electoral  Votes — Trump Wins Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania Becomes President Elect Trump — Narcissist Capitalist Leader In — Narcissist Socialist Appeaser Out — Do Not Blame Me I Elected The George Carlin Option — Videos

Image result for cartoons on hillary clinton on public corruption

Image result for cartoons fbi director james comey letters and hillary clinton

Image result for cartoons on hillary clinton on public corruption

Latest Polls

s
Monday, November 7
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein Bloomberg Clinton 44, Trump 41, Johnson 4, Stein 2 Clinton +3
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein IBD/TIPP Tracking Clinton 41, Trump 43, Johnson 6, Stein 2 Trump +2
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein CBS News Clinton 45, Trump 41, Johnson 5, Stein 2 Clinton +4
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein FOX News Clinton 48, Trump 44, Johnson 3, Stein 2 Clinton +4
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein ABC/Wash Post Tracking Clinton 47, Trump 43, Johnson 4, Stein 1 Clinton +4
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein Monmouth Clinton 50, Trump 44, Johnson 4, Stein 1 Clinton +6
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein Rasmussen Reports Clinton 45, Trump 43, Johnson 4, Stein 2 Clinton +2
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein NBC News/SM Clinton 47, Trump 41, Johnson 6, Stein 3 Clinton +6
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton Bloomberg Clinton 46, Trump 43 Clinton +3
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton LA Times/USC Tracking Clinton 43, Trump 48 Trump +5
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton CBS News Clinton 47, Trump 43 Clinton +4
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton IBD/TIPP Tracking Clinton 43, Trump 42 Clinton +1
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton FOX News Clinton 48, Trump 44 Clinton +4
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton ABC/Wash Post Tracking Clinton 49, Trump 46 Clinton +3
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton Monmouth Clinton 50, Trump 44 Clinton +6
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton NBC News/SM Clinton 51, Trump 44 Clinton +7
Florida: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein Quinnipiac Clinton 46, Trump 45, Johnson 2, Stein 1 Clinton +1
Florida: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein Trafalgar Group (R) Clinton 46, Trump 50, Johnson 2, Stein 1 Trump +4
Florida: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein Opinion Savvy Clinton 48, Trump 46, Johnson 3, Stein 1 Clinton +2
Ohio: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein Emerson Trump 46, Clinton 39, Johnson 7, Stein 3 Trump +7
North Carolina: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson NY Times/Siena Trump 44, Clinton 44, Johnson 3 Tie
North Carolina: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson Quinnipiac Trump 45, Clinton 47, Johnson 3 Clinton +2
Nevada: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson Emerson* Trump 46, Clinton 47, Johnson 4 Clinton +1
Nevada: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson Remington Research (R) Trump 46, Clinton 45, Johnson 3 Trump +1
New Mexico: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein Zia Poll Clinton 46, Trump 44, Johnson 6, Stein 1 Clinton +2
New Hampshire: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein Emerson Clinton 45, Trump 44, Johnson 5, Stein 3 Clinton +1
New Hampshire: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein WMUR/UNH Clinton 49, Trump 38, Johnson 6, Stein 1 Clinton +11
Missouri: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein Emerson Trump 47, Clinton 41, Johnson 7, Stein 2 Trump +6
Virginia: Trump vs. Clinton Christopher Newport Univ.* Clinton 48, Trump 42 Clinton +6
Florida Senate – Rubio vs. Murphy Quinnipiac Rubio 50, Murphy 43 Rubio +7
North Carolina Senate – Burr vs. Ross NY Times/Siena Burr 46, Ross 45 Burr +1
North Carolina Senate – Burr vs. Ross Quinnipiac Burr 47, Ross 47 Tie
Nevada Senate – Heck vs. Cortez Masto Emerson Cortez Masto 48, Heck 47 Cortez Masto +1
New Hampshire Senate – Ayotte vs. Hassan Emerson Ayotte 49, Hassan 46 Ayotte +3
New Hampshire Senate – Ayotte vs. Hassan WMUR/UNH Ayotte 45, Hassan 49 Hassan +4
Missouri Senate – Blunt vs. Kander Emerson Blunt 45, Kander 46 Kander +1
Ohio Senate – Portman vs. Strickland Emerson Portman 49, Strickland 28 Portman +21
North Carolina Governor – McCrory vs. Cooper NY Times/Siena Cooper 47, McCrory 46 Cooper +1
North Carolina Governor – McCrory vs. Cooper Quinnipiac Cooper 50, McCrory 47 Cooper +3
2016 Generic Congressional Vote Bloomberg Democrats 45, Republicans 48 Republicans +3
Sunday, November 6
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl Clinton 44, Trump 40, Johnson 6, Stein 2 Clinton +4
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl Clinton 48, Trump 43 Clinton +5
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein IBD/TIPP Tracking Clinton 43, Trump 44, Johnson 5, Stein 2 Trump +1
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton IBD/TIPP Tracking Clinton 45, Trump 44 Clinton +1
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton LA Times/USC Tracking Clinton 43, Trump 48 Trump +5
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein ABC/Wash Post Tracking Clinton 48, Trump 43, Johnson 4, Stein 2 Clinton +5
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton ABC/Wash Post Tracking Clinton 49, Trump 44 Clinton +5
Florida: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein CBS News/YouGov Clinton 45, Trump 45, Johnson 4, Stein 2 Tie
Florida: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein Remington Research (R)* Clinton 45, Trump 48, Johnson 2, Stein Trump +3
Ohio: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein CBS News/YouGov Trump 46, Clinton 45, Johnson 3, Stein 2 Trump +1
Ohio: Trump vs. Clinton Columbus Dispatch* Trump 47, Clinton 48 Clinton +1
Ohio: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein Remington Research (R)* Trump 45, Clinton 44, Johnson 4, Stein Trump +1
Michigan: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein FOX 2 Detroit/Mitchell Clinton 46, Trump 41, Johnson 7, Stein 3 Clinton +5
Virginia: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein Remington Research (R)* Clinton 46, Trump 44, Johnson 4, Stein Clinton +2
New Mexico: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein Albuquerque Journal Clinton 45, Trump 40, Johnson 11, Stein 3 Clinton +5
Wisconsin: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein Remington Research (R)* Clinton 49, Trump 41, Johnson 3, Stein Clinton +8
New York: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein Siena Clinton 51, Trump 34, Johnson 5, Stein 2 Clinton +17
Florida Senate – Rubio vs. Murphy CBS News/YouGov Rubio 47, Murphy 44 Rubio +3
Ohio Senate – Portman vs. Strickland CBS News/YouGov Portman 52, Strickland 39 Portman +13
Ohio Senate – Portman vs. Strickland Columbus Dispatch* Portman 58, Strickland 37 Portman +21
New York Senate – Long vs. Schumer Siena Schumer 67, Long 25 Schumer +42
President Obama Job Approval Gallup Approve 53, Disapprove 44 Approve +9
Saturday, November 5
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton LA Times/USC Tracking Clinton 43, Trump 48 Trump +5
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein IBD/TIPP Tracking Clinton 44, Trump 44, Johnson 5, Stein 2 Tie
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton IBD/TIPP Tracking Clinton 46, Trump 43 Clinton +3
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein Reuters/Ipsos Clinton 43, Trump 39, Johnson 6, Stein 2 Clinton +4
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton Reuters/Ipsos Clinton 44, Trump 40 Clinton +4
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein Gravis Clinton 47, Trump 45, Johnson 3, Stein 1 Clinton +2
Pennsylvania: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein Morning Call Clinton 44, Trump 40, Johnson 7, Stein 2 Clinton +4
Pennsylvania: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein Gravis Clinton 47, Trump 45, Johnson 2, Stein 2 Clinton +2
Iowa: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein Des Moines Register Trump 46, Clinton 39, Johnson 6, Stein 1 Trump +7
Iowa: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein Loras Trump 43, Clinton 44, Johnson 3, Stein 3 Clinton +1
Colorado: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein Gravis Clinton 40, Trump 40, Johnson 7, Stein 4 Tie
Washington: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein SurveyUSA Clinton 50, Trump 38, Johnson 4, Stein 2 Clinton +12
Pennsylvania Senate – Toomey vs. McGinty Gravis McGinty 45, Toomey 43 McGinty +2
Pennsylvania Senate – Toomey vs. McGinty Morning Call McGinty 42, Toomey 43 Toomey +1
Iowa Senate – Grassley vs. Judge Des Moines Register Grassley 56, Judge 33 Grassley +23
Colorado Senate – Glenn vs. Bennet Gravis Bennet 47, Glenn 44 Bennet +3
Iowa Senate – Grassley vs. Judge Loras* Grassley 53, Judge 37 Grassley +16
Washington Governor – Bryant vs. Inslee SurveyUSA Inslee 50, Bryant 43 Inslee +7
Iowa 1st District – Blum vs. Vernon Loras Blum 47, Vernon 41 Blum +6
Iowa 3rd District – Young vs. Mowrer Loras Young 44, Mowrer 39 Young +5

OMG!!! Last Update Trump 59% Hillary 34%

If You are a Voter You Should see this Video

Donald Trump Speech Today 11/07/16 Rally at Sarasota, Florida ( FULL )

The O’Reilly Factor 11/6/16 | Who Will Win Pennsylvania? – Trump Vs Clinton – Race In America

SR 1314 – Trump Will CRUSH Crooked Hillary Clinton – Latest Electoral College Map Prediction

Can GOP turn Pennsylvania red in 2016?

6 ways Trump could win 270 electoral votes and win the election

Trey Gowdy Explosive Interview Today 11/ 6/16 W Megyn Kelly FBI Director J. Comey H Clinton decision

George Carlin -Question Everything

George Carlin -“Who Really Controls America”

YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS – George Carlin

George Carlin – Why I Don’t Vote

Story 2: FBI Director James Comey’s Letters — Return To Sender — Videos  

Image result for cartoons fbi director james comey

Image result for cartoons fbi director james comey

Image result for cartoons fbi director james comey letters and hillary clinton

Image result for cartoons fbi director james comey letters and hillary clinton

Image result for cartoons fbi director james comey letters and hillary clinton

Lou Dobbs Tonight 11/6/16 James Comey clears Clinton once again after 2ND FBI email investigation

RUSH: What If Comey Says ‘THERE’S NOTHING THERE’

Rush Limbaugh EXPLAINS What Happened With FBI, Comey, Investigation of Hillary Email

FBI Director Comey releases new letter to Congress

Image result for cartoons fbi director james comey letters and hillary clinton

 

Image result for comey second letter November 6, 2016

Image result for comey letter November 6, 2016

FBI FINDS HILLARY CLINTON GUILTY! JASON CHAFFETZ AND FBI DIRECTOR COMEY AGREE

Breaking: Jim Jordan Gets FBI Director To Confirm Cover Up of Evidence Tampering

Rep. Gowdy Questions FBI Director Comey

FBI Director James Comey Reveals Findings in Hillary Clinton Email Probe – No Charges Appropriate

FBI SUBPOENA SERVED !! • U.S. REP. JASON CHAFFETZ DELIVERED A SUBPOENA TO FBI #lockherup

Read the full text of James Comey’s letter on the new Clinton emails

Here is the full text of the letter written Sunday to lawmakers by FBI Director James Comey.

In it, Comey says his agency’s review of newly discovered emails has not changed his earlier conclusion that Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton should not be prosecuted for her handling of classified information while secretary of state.

Dear Messrs. Chairmen:

I write to supplement my October 28, 2016 letter that notified you the FBI would be taking additional investigative steps with respect to former Secretary of State Clinton’s use of a personal email server. Since my letter, the FBI investigative team has been working around the clock to process and review a large volume of emails from a device obtained in connection with an unrelated criminal investigation. During that process, we reviewed all of the communications that were to or from Hillary Clinton while she was Secretary of State.

Based on our review, we have not changed our conclusions that we expressed in July with respect to Secretary Clinton.

I am very grateful to the professionals at the FBI for doing an extraordinary amount of high-quality work in a short period of time.

Sincerely yours,
James B. Comey
Director

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/11/06/read-full-text-comeys-letter-new-clinton-emails/93398304/

‘You can’t review 650,000 new emails in eight days!’ Furious Trump blasts FBI Director after Houdini Hillary is CLEARED over second email investigation sparked by Anthony Weiner’s teen sexting scandal

  • FBI announced it will not change the decision it reached in July after investigating Hillary Clinton’s emails
  • Director James Comey announced the potentially election-changing news in an email on Sunday afternoon
  • The latest finding means the Democratic nominee will not be charged with anything from the email scandal 
  • Hillary’s camp addressed Comey’s letter after it was published, saying it is ‘glad that the matter is resolved’
  • Donald Trump was quick to trash the latest decision, saying Clinton is being protected by a ‘rigged system’ 

Donald Trump blasted the FBI’s director on Sunday night, telling a crowd of 8,000 people in Michigan that he rejects the bureau’s latest move to exonerate Hillary Clinton.

FBI chief James Comey told leaders in Congress hours earlier that a review of 650,000 emails discovered on a laptop belonging to Anthony Weiner had reinforced his July 5 decision to let her off the hook.

‘The investigations into her crimes will go on for a long, long time,’ Trump said in the Detroit suburb of Sterling Heights.

‘The rank-and-file special agents in the FBI won’t let her get away with her terrible crimes – including the deletion of 33,000 emails after receiving a congressional subpoena.’

‘Right now she’s being protected by a rigged system!’ he exclaimed.

‘You can’t review 650,000 new emails in eight days! You can’t do it, folks!’

While campaigning in Sterling Heights, Michigan on Sunday evening, Donald Trump (above) addressed the FBI's announcement about closing the investigation into Clinton's email server

While campaigning in Sterling Heights, Michigan on Sunday evening, Donald Trump (above) addressed the FBI’s announcement about closing the investigation into Clinton’s email server

The Republican presidential candidate insisted that it would have been impossible for the FBI to review what has been reported to be as many as 650,000 emails in so short a time 

The Republican presidential candidate insisted that it would have been impossible for the FBI to review what has been reported to be as many as 650,000 emails in so short a time

Trump (above) said: 'The rank-and-file special agents in the FBI won't let her get away with her terrible crimes – including the deletion of 33,000 emails after receiving a congressional subpoena.

Trump (above) said: 'Right now she's being protected by a rigged system!'

Trump (above) said: ‘The rank-and-file special agents in the FBI won’t let her get away with her terrible crimes – including the deletion of 33,000 emails after receiving a congressional subpoena. Right now she’s being protected by a rigged system!’

Comey’s decision means the Democratic presidential nominee will not be charged with a crime related to her mishandling of thousands of classified documents on a homebrew email server she used while she was secretary of state.

Congressman Jason Chaffetz fist tweeted out the bombshell news Sunday afternoon before FBI Director James Comey released a letter that said the investigation was closed.

‘FBI Dir just informed us ‘Based on our review, we have not changed our conclusions that we expressed in July with respect to Sec Clinton’,’ Chaffetz wrote.

Speaking to reporters with Clinton in Cleveland, Ohio, campaign communications director Jennifer Palmieri said: ‘We have seen Director Comey’s latest letter to the [Capitol] Hill. We are glad to see that he has found, as we were confident that he would, that he has confirmed the conclusion that he reached in July, and we’re glad that this matter is resolved.’

The investigation was reopened on October 28 – sparked by a DailyMail.com story that revealed Weiner was sending sexually explicit messages to a 15-year-old girl. The emails in question were found on Weiner’s laptop.

Hillary Clinton (pictured on Sunday morning) was all smiles after being again cleared by the FBI after the investigation into her emails was reopened

Hillary Clinton (pictured on Sunday morning) was all smiles after being again cleared by the FBI after the investigation into her emails was reopened

At the rally in Michigan on Sunday, Trump (above) declared, 'Hillary Clinton is guilty. She knows it, the FBI knows it, the people know it.'

At the rally in Michigan on Sunday, Trump (above) declared, ‘Hillary Clinton is guilty. She knows it, the FBI knows it, the people know it.’

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-791

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Pronk Pops Show 755, September 14, 2016, Story 1: New York City Liberal Democrat/Republican Trump Tuning of Tax Code With Politically Popular Child Care Plan But Economically Stupid Santa Claus Socialism Mandated Entitlement Program — Not A Game Changer — vs. Fundamental Tax Reform With A Single Broad Based Consumption Tax Replacing All Federal Taxes (Income, Payroll, Capital Gains, Alternative Minimum Tax, Estate and Gift) With A Single Consumption Tax of 20% On Spending For New Goods and Services and A Tax Prebate For Adult American Citizens of $1,000 Per Month or $12,000 Per Year (For Necessities of Life)! — Efficient Fair Flat Simple Transparent — Abolishes IRS and All Tax Returns! — Fair Tax Less Now! — A Business, Job, Income, Investment, Savings and Wealth Creator — Videos –Story 2: Movement Conservatives, Constitutional Conservatives, Tea Party Patriots, Libertarians, and Classical Liberals Will Start Successful Viable Party — Independents United Against The Two Party Tyranny of Big Government Democrats and Republicans — Videos

Posted on September 14, 2016. Filed under: 2016 Presidential Campaign, 2016 Presidential Candidates, Banking System, Breaking News, Budgetary Policy, College, Communications, Computers, Congress, Corruption, Countries, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Economics, Education, Empires, Fiscal Policy, Hillary Clinton, House of Representatives, Labor Economics, Monetary Policy, Senate, Tax Policy, Trade Policy, United States of America | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 755: September 14, 2016 

Pronk Pops Show 754: September 13, 2016 

Pronk Pops Show 753: September 12, 2016 

Pronk Pops Show 752: September 9, 2016 

Pronk Pops Show 751: September 8, 2016 

Pronk Pops Show 750: September 7, 2016 

Pronk Pops Show 749: September 2, 2016 

Pronk Pops Show 748: September 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 747: August 31, 2016 

Pronk Pops Show 746: August 30, 2016 

Pronk Pops Show 745: August 29, 2016 

Pronk Pops Show 744: August 26, 2016 

Pronk Pops Show 743: August 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 742: August 24, 2016 

Pronk Pops Show 741: August 23, 2016 

Pronk Pops Show 740: August 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 739: August 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 738: August 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 737: August 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 736: August 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 735: August 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 734: August 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 733: August 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 732: August 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 731: August 4, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 730: August 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 729: August 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 728: July 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 727: July 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 726: July 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 725: July 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 724: July 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 723: July 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 722: July 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 721: July 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 720: July 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 719: July 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 718: July 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 717: July 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 716: July 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 715: July 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 714: July 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 713: July 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 712: July 5, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 711: July 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 710: June 30, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 709: June 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 708: June 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 707: June 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 706: June 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 705: June 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 704: June 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 703: June 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 702: June 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 701: June 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 700: June 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 699: June 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 698: June 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 697: June 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 696: June 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 695: June 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 694: June 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 693: June 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 692: June 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 691: June 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 690: June 1, 2016

Story 1: New York City Liberal Democrat/Republican Trump Tuning of Tax Code  With Politically Popular Child Care Plan But Economically Stupid Santa Claus Socialism Mandated Entitlement Program — Not A Game Changer — vs. Fundamental Tax Reform With A Single Broad Based Consumption Tax Replacing All Federal Taxes (Income, Payroll, Capital Gains, Alternative Minimum Tax, Estate and Gift) With A Single Consumption Tax of 20% On Spending For New Goods and Services and A Tax Prebate For Adult American Citizens of $1,000 Per Month or $12,000 Per Year (For Necessities of Life)!  — Efficient Fair Flat Simple Transparent  — Abolishes IRS and All Tax Returns! — Fair Tax Less Now! — A Business, Job, Income, Investment, Savings and Wealth Creator —  Videos —

Table 1. Summary of Federal Income Tax Data, 2013
Number of Returns* AGI ($ millions) Income Taxes Paid ($ millions) Group’s Share of Total AGI Group’s Share of Income Taxes Income Split Point Average Tax Rate
All Taxpayers 138,313,155 $9,033,840 $1,231,911 100.00% 100.00%
Top 1% 1,383,132 $1,719,794 $465,705 19.04% 37.80% $428,713 27.08%
1-5% 5,532,526 $1,389,594 $255,537 15.38% 20.74% 18.39%
Top 5% 6,915,658 $3,109,388 $721,242 34.42% 58.55% $179,760 23.20%
5-10% 6,915,658 $1,034,110 $138,621 11.45% 11.25% 13.40%
Top 10% 13,831,316 $4,143,498 $859,863 45.87% 69.80% $127,695 20.75%
10-25% 20,746,973 $2,008,180 $202,935 22.23% 16.47% 10.11%
Top 25% 34,578,289 $6,151,678 $1,062,798 68.10% 86.27% $74,955 17.28%
25-50% 34,578,289 $1,843,925 $134,805 20.41% 10.94% 7.31%
Top 50% 69,156,578 $7,995,603 $1,197,603 88.51% 97.22% $36,841 14.98%
Bottom 50% 69,156,578 $1,038,237 $34,307 11.49% 2.78% $36,841 3.30%
*Does not include dependent filers.

FULL SPEECH: Donald Trump Unveils Child Care Policy in Aston, PA 9/13/16

RUSH: Trump’s Child Care Plan Is ‘DICEY’

The cost of Trump’s child care plan

Trump on child care plan, tax returns, ‘deplorables’ remark

Ivanka Trump on the importance of child-care reforms

Forbes sounds off on Trump’s child care speech

Donald Trump Child Care Plan – Cavuto

O’Reilly: Trump’s Child-Care Plan ‘Not the Usual Republican Smaller Gov’t Situation’

Will Trump’s child care plan move the needle with women?

FairTax: Fire Up Our Economic Engine (Official HD)

Congressman Woodall Discusses the FairTax

Pence on the Fair Tax

The Case for the Fair Tax

Sen. Moran Discusses FairTax Legislation on U.S. Senate Floor

The FairTax for Dummies – Simple to Understand

Mike Huckabee: The fair tax is a superior alternative

Watch Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson Defend the Fair Tax | Fortune

Freedom from the IRS! – FairTax Explained in Detail

John Stossel – Busybodies and Their Regulations

John Stossel Inconvenient Taxes Part 1 of 5

John Stossel Inconvenient Taxes Part 2 of 5

John Stossel Inconvenient Taxes Part 3 of 5

John Stossel Inconvenient Taxes Part 4 of 5

John Stossel Inconvenient Taxes Part 5 of 5

Milton Friedman – Orwellian Newspeak

The FairTax: It’s Time

The Origins of the FairTax

U.S. Debt Clock

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

CHILD CARE REFORMS THAT WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN

Fact Sheet for Donald J. Trump’s New Child Care Plan: Click Here


Current Policies Hold Families Back

Over the past 40 years, the labor force participation of women with children under 18 has grown from 47 percent in 1975 to 70 percent today. Raising a child is now the single greatest expense for most American families—even exceeding the cost of housing in much of the country. Almost two-thirds (64 percent) of mothers with children under 6 are working outside of the home.

Government policies are stuck in the past, and make already difficult choices regarding care arrangements even more difficult. Outdated policies in many cases cause women to make choices that are not the best for either their families or the economy.

Today’s workforce includes 73.5 million women representing 47 percent of the entire US labor force. Over 24 million of those women have children under age 18; almost 10 million of them have children under age 6. Women are the primary breadwinners in 40 percent of American households with children under the age of 18, but hold 62 percent of minimum wage jobs. The number of families headed by single mothers has doubled in the last 30 years; about two-thirds of these mothers work in “dead-end, poorly compensated jobs without flexibility or benefits.” Government policies must be especially helpful for these women.

Current federal policies regarding child and dependent care do not reflect either the needs of American families or the contributions of women to the American workforce. The high cost of quality care burdens working families while the tax code provides disincentives for women to reenter or enter the workforce.

Our plan will transform child and dependent care to meet the needs of 21st century families, empowering parents—not bureaucrats.


The Trump Plan Will Empower Parents and Achieve the Following Goals:

1. Help every family with the costs of childcare and eldercare.
2. Empower families to choose the care that is right for their family.
3. Create a new, dynamic market for family-based and community-based solutions.
4. Incentivize employers to provide childcare at the workplace.
5. Provide 6 weeks of paid leave to new mothers before returning to work.


Details of Donald J. Trump’s Plan for Child and Dependent Care:

Exclude the costs of child and elder care from tax

In a world where almost two-thirds of mothers with children under age 6 are employed, the cost of childcare is an unavoidable family expense. In business, other such expenditures are tax-deductible, but they are not for families. The Trump plan will exclude childcare costs from the income tax from birth to age 13, the period where children need supervised care, and will include adoptive parents as well as foster parents who are legal guardians of the child. The exclusion (also known as an above-the-line deduction) will cover up to 4 children per family.

The exclusion would apply to a variety of different kinds of childcare—institutional, private, nursery school, afterschool care, and enrichment activities—affording choice to parents. The deduction would be limited to the average cost of childcare in the state of residence for the age of the child.

Importantly, the benefit would be provided to families who use stay-at-home parents or grandparents as well as those who use paid caregivers. This would level the playing field for parents when it comes to determining what’s in a family’s best interest. It would also be a belated recognition by the federal government of the economic value of the work provided by stay-at-home parents.

Similarly, the Trump plan would also allow an above-the-line deduction for eldercare costs necessary to keep a family member working outside the home. It would apply to costs like home care or adult day care costs for elderly dependents when those expenses are needed to keeping family members in the workforce. The deduction would be limited to $5,000 per year.

While an above-the-line deduction is a significant tax benefit, it may not provide sufficient relief to the lowest-earning taxpayers. To get real benefits to lower-income taxpayers who can’t use the exclusion against the income tax because they have no income tax liability, the Trump plan would also provide them a boost in the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). This boost would be half of the payroll taxes paid by the lower earning parent, and would be subject to an income limitation of $31,200.

For a parent making $15 per hour at a full-time job, the EITC boost in the Trump plan could mean as much as $1,200 extra per year. Importantly, when parents fill out their taxes they can check a box to directly deposit any portion of their EITC into their childcare savings account (discussed in more detail below). This will encourage saving, and make it easier for low-income parents to receive their federal match.

Allowing every family, whether they take the standard or itemized deduction, to deduct childcare expenses from tax will help get the incentives right for women who opt to work outside the home. The current tax code discourages their work.

The tax code combines the income of both spouses in a family when determining the marginal tax rate, so the additional income earned by a mother who returns to the workforce is taxed at the highest rate that applies to the family. The above-the-line deduction for child and elder care mitigates this effect.

Experts agree that childcare is properly expensed to ameliorate the effects of a tax code written over 65 years ago for a workforce that no longer exists. Dual-earner families were not prevalent in 1949 when the current tax regime for families was put in place. Today, however, almost two-thirds of married couples are dual-earners, more than twice the number of single-earner married couples.

As AEI economist Alan Viard put it, “Under basic tax policy principles, workers should be allowed to deduct the expenses of earning the income on which they are taxed. Child care meets the economic definition of a work-related expense — parents are less likely to work when child care becomes more expensive….Families should be free to make their own child care choices, based on the options available to them, their understanding of their children’s needs, and their moral values, without interference from the tax system.”

Changes in the family, workforce, and the large proportion of women who work outside the home require us to fix the broken tax code. Excluding the costs of childcare from taxation will help every family with the costs of child and dependent care. The Trump plan will promote strong families and grow the workforce, which will increase productivity and spur economic growth. Most importantly, it will provide families real choice in making decisions about how to provide care for their loved ones.


Create Child Care Savings Accounts

After finding the right care for their circumstances, families should also have an option to set aside extra money to further foster their child’s development. The Trump plan will provide Americans the option of opening dependent care savings accounts (DCSAs) so that they can plan for future expenses relating to child and elder care.

Annual contributions to a dependent care savings account and earnings on the account will not be subject to tax. Immediate family members and employers will also be able to set aside funds in these accounts, which will be established for the benefit of specific individuals, including unborn children. Total contributions could not exceed $2,000 per year from all sources, but balances in a DCSA will rollover from year-to-year so that substantial amounts could be accumulated over a period of years.
When established for a child, parents can use the accumulated funds to enroll their kids in a school of their choice or for other enrichment activities that prepare them for their future. Funds remaining in the account when the child reaches 18 can be used for higher education expenses. To encourage low-income families to establish DCSAs for their children, the government will provide a 50 percent match on parental contributions of up to $1,000 per year. That’s an extra $500 per child for families that qualify. This will encourage savings, and position families to be better able to withstand the unexpected costs of childrearing.

When established for an elderly dependent, the funds can be used for adult day care, in-home or long-term care services. The ability to set aside funds tax-free would be particularly helpful to women, low-income workers and minorities, who are typically primary care providers that reduce paid time worked in order to provide care. The ability to set aside funds for elder care is critically important because taking time off from working to care for elderly family members reduces a woman’s financial readiness for retirement, and can increase a woman’s risk of living in poverty in old age.

The flexibility and security provided by the dependent care savings account under the Trump plan will be of great benefit to all who participate, enabling them to save tax-free for the expected costs of family life. Additionally, this will help increase the low US savings rate (currently 5.7 percent), where 47 percent of Americans cannot meet an unexpected expense of $400 without resorting to borrowing or selling personal property.


Create a new, dynamic market for family-based and community-based solutions

Finding quality childcare is a challenge, particularly in low-income and rural communities. The Trump plan will reduce regulations that disproportionately favor center-based care to create a new, dynamic market for family-based and community-based solutions. Families will be given the power and information to choose who will be providing care and where that care will be provided without fear of loss of government benefits. The marketplace will be free to develop alternatives that provide care where needed, and at the times when people who work irregular hours need care.

Current federal efforts to reduce childcare costs, such as the pre-tax flexible spending accounts available to many workers, are biased toward center-based care. The lack of choice limits options for people who work irregular hours and those who live in rural communities where choices for center-based care are not available nearby. Federal regulations already in the pipeline likely will limit choices further. Devolving regulatory authority to the states to set guidelines appropriate to the needs of its residents for items like staffing and facility size would be a priority in the Trump administration.

As the Independent Women’s Forum put it in a recent report: “Analysts have found that day-care regulations, particularly related to child-to-staff ratios, are costly and fail to improve the quality of care received by the children. Moreover, they may be counterproductive since they require day-care providers to focus on quantity of caregivers, rather than the quality of those professionals. State policymakers should relax staff size regulations so that day-care centers can reallocate funds to other priorities, such as attracting and retaining more highly-skilled workers, and reducing prices for parents.”

In addition, informal networks of friends and relatives are an important source of childcare that is convenient and trusted. These flexible arrangements can also help meet the need for care during nontraditional hours. Moms helping moms and grandparents caring for children should be facilitated not discouraged. The costs of such care will be excluded from tax under the Trump plan if allowed by the state.

Reducing regulations to allow the market to work will result in innovative solutions that meet the particular circumstances faced by families in the communities where they live. Such solutions will not be arrived at through Washington bureaucracy and a one-size-fits-all solution.

Incentivize employers to provide childcare at the workplace

The 2014 National Survey of Employers found that only 7 percent of employers offered childcare at or near the worksite. The Trump plan will incentivize employers to provide childcare at the workplace by making the existing tax credit for employer-based childcare facilities more effective, and will allow the same income tax exclusion allowed to individuals to businesses that contribute to an employees’ cost of childcare.

Legislation enacted in 2001 included a bipartisan incentive for on-site childcare. That law gave companies that provide appropriately-licensed on-site childcare centers a tax credit of up to 25 percent of facility expenditures, plus 10 percent of resource and referral costs, up to a limit of $150,000 per calendar year; a portion of the credit is recaptured if the center is kept in service for less than 10 tax years. The Trump plan would increase the cap, shorten the recapture period, and devise ways for companies to pool resources in order to make the credit more attractive.

Because breakdowns in employee childcare networks of care cost U.S. businesses $4.4 billion annually as a consequence of avoidable employee absenteeism, both businesses and families will benefit from the increased availability of convenient, reliable, care. On-site child care centers save employees time—as much as 30 minutes per morning—which will ultimately be to the employers’ benefit as parents are more productive knowing that their children are accessible to them in case of an emergency. Such facilities could also provide back-up or emergency care for employees with family-based or in-home care.

Further, allowing businesses the same exclusion from income for their contributions to their employees’ childcare will give businesses the opportunity to provide a benefit that helps their employees remain in the workforce. This may be particularly attractive to small businesses that are unable to provide worksite care and take full advantage of the tax credit for on-site childcare centers.

Enabling businesses to make it more convenient for parents with children to work makes good business sense, and helps all working women.


Provide 6 weeks of maternity leave to new mothers

The United States is the only developed country that does not provide cash benefits for new mothers. According to the U.S. Department of Labor: “Only 12 percent of U.S. private sector workers have access to paid family leave through their employer”. Each year, 1.4 million women who work give birth without any paid leave from their employer.

The Trump plan will enhance Unemployment Insurance (UI) to include 6 weeks of paid leave for new mothers so that they can take time off of work after having a baby. This would triple the average 2 weeks of paid leave received by new mothers, which will benefit both the mother and the child.

Providing a temporary unemployment benefit for eight weeks through the UI system would cost $2.5 billion annually at an average benefit of $300 per week. This cost could be offset through changes in the existing UI system, such as by reducing the $5.6 billion per year in improper payments or implementing the proposals included in the administration’s FY 2017 budget regarding program integrity. Providing the benefit through UI—paid for through program savings—will not be financially onerous to small businesses when compared with mandating paid leave.

An analysis of a similar program in California has shown that unmarried, nonwhite, and non-college educated mothers receive the most benefit. The Trump plan for paid maternity leave will advance the interests of disadvantaged mothers without raising taxes.


The Trump plan promotes economic freedom for women

Families make decisions about whether to work outside of the home or not based on the cost and availability of child and elder care. Many women stop paid work to provide care because other options are not readily available. This often limits their careers, and is fundamental to the wage disparities that women face. As noted above, in 2014, single women without children made 94 cents on a man’s dollar, but married mothers with children under 18 made only 81 cents.

A one-size-fits-all solution ignores the reality of today’s modern family dynamics. It is essential to empower women who choose to work outside the home to do so, without penalty, while also supporting women who make the important choice to work inside the home, caring for their families.

Child and elder care policies proposed under the Trump Plan will foster economic and family growth. Policies like paid maternity leave, treating childcare like a business expense, and enabling innovative care models will keep women in the workforce if that is what she chooses. Retaining women in the workforce is essential, not just for the woman’s benefit but for that of her family, her employer, her community and her country—helping to Make America Great Again

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/child-care-reforms-that-will-make-america-great-again 

– SEPTEMBER 13, 2016 –

FACT SHEET: DONALD J. TRUMP’S NEW CHILD CARE PLAN

Today Donald J. Trump Will Unveil An Innovative Plan To Bring Federal Policies In Line With The Needs Of Today’s Working Parents

NEW YORK, NY – Today Mr. Trump will proposes an innovative plan to bring federal tax policies in line with the needs of today’s families. His plan is not for the wealthy, but rather provides the biggest benefit to working- and middle-class families. This plan is needed because child care expenses are one of the largest expenses in many families, complicating a family’s decision on how to care for young children. The Trump reforms will allow a family to make the choice of whether a parent should work outside the home or not without bias from the tax code. Having employed and empowered thousands of women at every level throughout his entire career, Donald Trump understands the needs of the modern workforce.


Proposals Contained In Mr. Trump Child Care Plan


PROPOSAL:
The Trump plan will rewrite the tax code to allow working parents to deduct from their income taxes child care expenses for up to four children and elderly dependents.

  • The deduction is available for taxpayers who take the standard deduction as well as itemize deductions, and will be capped at the average cost of care for the state of residence. Individuals earning more than $250,000 (or $500,000 if filing jointly) will not be eligible for the deduction. For a family earning $70,000 per year in the 12 percent tax bracket with $7,000 in child care expenses, the deduction would reduce taxes by $840 per year.
  • The plan will offer child care spending rebates to lower-income taxpayers through the existing Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). This could mean almost $1,200 per year per eligible family.
  • Mr. Trump’s plan will ensure stay-at-home parents will receive the same tax deduction as working parents, offering compensation for the job they’re already doing, and allowing them to choose the child care scenario that’s in their best interest.


PROPOSAL:
The Trump plan would create new Dependent Care Savings Accounts (DCSAs) so that families can set aside extra money to foster their children’s development and offset elder care for their parents or adult dependents. These new accounts are available to everyone, and allow both tax-deductible contributions and tax-free appreciation year-to-year-unlike current law Dependent Care Flexible Spending Accounts (FSAs), which are available only if it is offered by an employer and does not allow balances to accumulate.

  • When established for a minor, funds from a DCSA can be applied to traditional child care, after-school enrichment programs and school tuition-contributing to school choice. To help lower-income parents, the government will match half of the first $1,000 deposited per year.
  • When established for an elderly dependent, a DCSA can cover a variety of services, including in-home nursing and long-term care.


PROPOSAL:
Mr. Trump’s plan will provide regulatory reform to promote new family-based and community-based solutions, and also add incentives for employers to provide child care at the workplace. The ability to set aside funds will be particularly helpful to women, low-income workers and minorities, who are statistically more likely to reduce time working outside the home in order to provide unpaid care.


PROPOSAL:
The Trump plan will guarantee six weeks of paid maternity leave by amending the existing unemployment insurance (UI) that companies are required to carry. The benefit would apply only when employers don’t offer paid maternity leave, and would be paid for by offsetting reductions in the program so that taxes are not raised. This enhancement will triple the average paid leave received by new mothers.


Frequently Asked Questions About The Trump Child Care Plan


Q: How Will The Plan Be Paid For?

  • The child care plan is part of the comprehensive tax, trade, energy and regulation reform plan proposed by Donald Trump at the Detroit Economic Club. More details about his tax plan will be discussed later this week at the New York Economic Club. The child care plan itself can more than be offset by additional growth. About two-thirds of the entire Trump tax reform program will offset by the increases in economic activity that accompany pro-growth tax reform, better trade deals, regulatory and immigration reform, and unleashing American energy. The remaining one-third will be offset by minor changes in the current trajectory of spending for federal agency operations, excluding Defense, Veterans, Social Security and Medicare.


Q: Will The Benefits Already Provided For Child Care Expenses, Like The Dependent Care Flexible Spending Account And Child Tax Credit, Be Eliminated Under The Trump Plan?

  • No, the benefits provided by the Trump child care plan are in addition to the benefits available under current law. Current programs do not serve the large numbers of families that would benefit from the Trump plan, but if a family finds that it benefits more from existing programs, they would still be available. The only restriction would be that the same child care spending cannot be used for multiple benefits programs—no double-dipping.


Q: Will Same-Sex Couples Receive The Benefits?

  • The benefits would be available in the same way that the IRS currently recognizes same-sex couples: if the marriage is recognized under state law, then it is recognized under federal law.


Q: Will The Maternity Leave Policy Cause Employers To View Women As Less Desirable Employees Because Of Paid Leave?

  • No. The cost to an employer of hiring should not be affected by this fully-offset policy, so the employer should not view hiring women as adding to their costs of Unemployment Insurance. Further, employers in a competitive marketplace should not eliminate existing maternity care benefits to instead take advantage of the UI system. The UI benefit would only equal what would be paid to a laid-off employee, which is much less than a workers’ regular paycheck. This should prevent abuse while providing a safety net for the sake of the health of mother and child.

 

Donald J. Trump’s Plan Is More Complete Than Hillary Clinton’s Plan

Point One: Hillary Clinton does not have a plan to provide relief to most Americans faced with high child care costs. She claims she wants to cap a family’s child care expense at 10 percent of income, but provides no details. The Trump plan would provide relief to every working- and middle-income earner who has child care expenses. For example, the Trump plan would reduce taxes by $840 per year a family for earning $70,000 per year in the 12 percent tax bracket with $7,000 in child care expenses; Hillary Clinton’s plan would provide no relief to this family.

Point Two: Hillary Clinton prefers institutional child care that does not meet the needs of workers in rural areas or who have schedules that require working on a night shift or on call. The Trump plan would give states the flexibility to establish standards that fit the needs of state residents without compromising quality.

Point Three: Hillary Clinton would force businesses to pay for 12 weeks of fully-paid family leave at their expense. The Trump plan proposes 6 weeks of partial pay through the existing Unemployment Insurance system, fully paid for within the program.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/fact-sheet-donald-j.-trumps-new-child-care-plan

The problem with Donald Trump’s plan for child care

By Max Ehrenfreund August 8

A Donald Trump campaign hat is beneath a chair before Trump speaks to the Detroit Economic Club on Aug. 8. (Eric Thayer/Reuters)
In a speech on economic policy in Detroit Monday, Donald Trump put forward a new idea for helping American families pay for child care: Allow taxpayers to deduct child-care expenses from their incomes. Under Trump’s proposal, families with children would save money when paying their taxes, and the government would essentially pay part of the cost of looking after their kids.

Experts on child care are skeptical, though. The cost of the plan for the government could be exorbitant, and it is not clear how the policy would help poor and middle-class families. More affluent families would likely save the most money under the plan.

“I’m most concerned about a single mother who doesn’t earn a lot of money and who has a couple of kids at home,” said Michael Strain, an economist at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. “The benefits of this policy will not accrue to the people who most need help.”

Trump offered few other details about his plan. In general, though, deductions such as the one proposed by Trump overwhelmingly benefit wealthy families. For example, the wealthiest fifth of households claims 73 percent of the savings from the deduction for mortgage interest and 84 percent of the savings from the charitable deduction, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

There are a few reasons that these deductions primarily benefit wealthy families. First, many working-class households do not pay any federal taxes on their income. Second, even those that do pay income taxes generally opt to take the standard deduction from their income, rather than itemizing expenses like child care. From the few words that Trump offered in his speech, it was not clear whether his plan would provide additional benefits for these households beyond the current standard deduction.

[The big difference between Donald Trump’s and Hillary Clinton’s child care plans]

For example, just 6 percent of households with less than $20,000 in income itemized their deductions, according to the Congressional Research Service. Among those with between $20,000 and $50,000, 22 percent itemized. By contrast, 84 percent of those with between $100,000 and $200,000 itemized.

Third, the same deduction is worth more in savings to wealthier households, because those households pay taxes on their income at a greater rate.
Suppose a family paying taxes at a marginal rate of 15 percent is able to deduct $1,000 from their income. They would avoid $150 in taxes as a result. But if another family — likely wealthier — is paying taxes at a marginal rate of 35 percent, the same deduction would be worth $350 to them. That is one reason that wealthier households are more likely to itemize their expenses.

Finally, more affluent households spend more on child care anyway, so they could deduct more from their income under Trump’s plan.

A recent report from the Agriculture Department on the cost of raising children in the United States estimates that a typical single-parent household with less than $62,000 in income spends $3,600 on a child’s care and education through the age of 5.

By contrast, the typical husband and wife with more than $107,000 in annual income spend nearly $11,000 on child care, according to the report — about three times as much.

In his speech, Trump implied that there might be a limit on the amount that families could deduct for child care, and that families that spend more than average would not be able to deduct all of their expenses.

“My plan will also help reduce the cost of child care by allowing parents to fully deduct the average cost of child-care spending from their taxes,” Trump said.

Wonkbook newsletter
Your daily policy cheat sheet from Wonkblog.
Sign up
It’s not yet clear how Trump would calculate average child-care expenses. Since Trump still has not specified exactly what kinds of child-care expenses would be eligible for deduction, it is impossible to know exactly how different families would fare.

It is also impossible to know what the total costs to the federal government would be. Trump said that additional details on his plan would be forthcoming.

In any case, Strain expects the total to be large, and given that the government would be giving up so much tax revenue primarily to benefit affluent families, he argues the proposal is misguided.

Since Trump has promised to broadly reduce other taxes as well, the deduction would presumably force the government to borrow more money, increasing the national debt.
“Combined with Mr. Trump’s tax plan, his child-care plan just makes his overall fiscal policy that much more irresponsible,” Strain said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/08/08/the-problem-with-donald-trumps-plan-for-child-care/

 

Comparing Trump and Clinton’s Child Care Plans

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump Tuesday unveiled his new proposal to help families with the high cost of child care expenses.

It’s a policy issue he has not focused on throughout his long career (although he has inaccurately said a child care program offered for guests of his resorts is available for his employees’ child care needs). He also repeatedly said in the past that it’s up to women to take the lead in child care.

The issue is, however, important to his daughter, Ivanka Trump, a working mom of three, who previewed the idea during her convention speech in July. He told a rally in Iowa earlier in the day she said, “Daddy, daddy, we have to do this.”

In need of the women’s vote, two months later – and less than two months before Election Day – Trump has unveiled his plan. Polls consistently show that he is losing to Clinton among women voters and he is making a direct appeal to them by releasing a plan tailored for middle and upper middle-class women in suburban Philadelphia, where many of those voters reside in a critical battleground state.

The night before the plan’s roll out, Trump claimed that his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, is running a campaign “with no policy, no solutions, and no new ideas.”

In fact, Clinton has had her plans for early child care in place since before she announced her candidacy in the spring of 2015. Clinton’s final public event before declaring her presidential bid last April was to launch a new initiative at an early childhood development center in a poor neighborhood of Brooklyn with New York City First Lady Chirlane McCray. The issue has remained central to her candidacy. (And it’s an issue she has worked on since her first job out of law school at the Children’s Defense Fund.)

Now that both candidates have proposals, it’s worth comparing the two.

Paid Family Leave

Trump: Trump doesn’t offer leave for fathers, but his maternity leave plan would guarantee six weeks of paid maternity leave in the form of unemployment insurance, which is capped at a percentage of income in many states.

Clinton: Clinton’s plan guarantees 12 weeks of paid family leave – for mothers and fathers with at least two-thirds of their salary. It would be paid for by raising taxes on the wealthy.

Cost of Child Care

Trump: Working parents – and parents who stay home to care for children – can deduct the costs on their taxes via the Earned Income Tax Credit. The campaign estimates that middle class families could receive a $1,200 tax break.

Trump also proposes a Dependent Care Savings Account that allow the accumulation of funds and are tax deductible and appreciate tax free. Dependent care accounts already exist but must be used by the end of the year and only available through an employer.

Clinton: She wants to cap child care costs at ten percent of a family’s income. To do that, she’d rely on tax cuts or state block grants for the government to subsidize costs exceeding ten percent.

Obama Stumps for Clinton, Does Not Mention Her Health 0:33

What It Means

Experts say that Trump’s plan is a good start and a recognition that the issue is important to women and families, but Vivien Labaton, co-executive director of Make It Work Action, said Trump’s plan offers less than Clinton’s.

“His childcare proposal is really designed for the Ivanka Trump’s of the country more than the working families who need help,” Labaton said.

She said any plan, including Trump’s, that offers a tax rebate won’t work for many lower income families. Many struggling families don’t make enough to pay taxes and other struggling families who do pay taxes need up-front relief up before tax time.

“Clinton’s plan goes much further in calling for a much larger investment in child care,” Labaton said. “There are still details to learn about her plan but she seems to recognize the crisis that it is.”

Labaton would like Trump to also address the low wages of caregivers, something Clinton has talked about but not given specific solutions.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/comparing-trump-clinton-s-child-care-plans-n647711

Summary of the Latest Federal Income Tax Data, 2015 Update

November 19, 2015

The Internal Revenue Service has recently released new data on individual income taxes for calendar year 2013, showing the number of taxpayers, adjusted gross income, and income tax shares by income percentiles.[1]

The data demonstrates that the U.S. individual income tax continues to be progressive, borne mainly by the highest income earners.

Key Findings

  • In 2013, 138.3 million taxpayers reported earning $9.03 trillion in adjusted gross income and paid $1.23 trillion in income taxes.
  • Every income group besides the top 1 percent of taxpayers reported higher income in 2013 than the previous year. All income groups paid higher taxes in 2013 than the previous year.
  • The share of income earned by the top 1 percent of taxpayers fell to 19.0 percent in 2013. Their share of federal income taxes fell slightly to 37.8 percent.
  • In 2012, the top 50 percent of all taxpayers (69.2 million filers) paid 97.2 percent of all income taxes while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 2.8 percent.
  • The top 1 percent (1.3 million filers) paid a greater share of income taxes (37.8 percent) than the bottom 90 percent (124.5 million filers) combined (30.2 percent).
  • The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a higher effective income tax rate than any other group, at 27.1 percent, which is over 8 times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent (3.3 percent).

Reported Income Decreased in 2013, but Taxes Increase

Taxpayers reported $9.03 trillion in adjusted gross income (AGI) on 138.3 million tax returns in 2013. While the U.S. economy grew in 2013, total AGI fell by $8 billion from 2012 levels. Furthermore, there were 2.2 million more returns filed in 2013 than 2012, meaning that average AGI fell by $1,131 per return.

The most likely explanation behind lower AGI in 2013 is unusually high capital gains realizations in 2012.[2] Because the top tax rate on long-term capital gains and qualified dividends was set to rise from 15 percent to 23.8 percent in 2013, many high-income Americans realized their capital gains in 2012, to take advantage of low tax rates.  As capital gains realizations fell to normal levels in 2013, overall AGI decreased. Accordingly, only the top 1 percent of taxpayers saw a decrease in income in 2013; all other groups saw their income increase.

Despite the decrease in overall income reported, taxes paid increased by $46 billion to $1.232 trillion in 2013. Taxes paid increased for all income groups.

The share of income earned by the top 1 percent fell to 19.04 percent of total AGI, down from 21.86 percent in 2012. The share of the income tax burden for the top 1 percent also fell slightly, from 38.09 percent in 2012 to 37.80 percent in 2013.

Table 1. Summary of Federal Income Tax Data, 2013
Number of Returns* AGI ($ millions) Income Taxes Paid ($ millions) Group’s Share of Total AGI Group’s Share of Income Taxes Income Split Point Average Tax Rate
All Taxpayers 138,313,155 $9,033,840 $1,231,911 100.00% 100.00%
Top 1% 1,383,132 $1,719,794 $465,705 19.04% 37.80% $428,713 27.08%
1-5% 5,532,526 $1,389,594 $255,537 15.38% 20.74% 18.39%
Top 5% 6,915,658 $3,109,388 $721,242 34.42% 58.55% $179,760 23.20%
5-10% 6,915,658 $1,034,110 $138,621 11.45% 11.25% 13.40%
Top 10% 13,831,316 $4,143,498 $859,863 45.87% 69.80% $127,695 20.75%
10-25% 20,746,973 $2,008,180 $202,935 22.23% 16.47% 10.11%
Top 25% 34,578,289 $6,151,678 $1,062,798 68.10% 86.27% $74,955 17.28%
25-50% 34,578,289 $1,843,925 $134,805 20.41% 10.94% 7.31%
Top 50% 69,156,578 $7,995,603 $1,197,603 88.51% 97.22% $36,841 14.98%
Bottom 50% 69,156,578 $1,038,237 $34,307 11.49% 2.78% $36,841 3.30%
*Does not include dependent filers.

Source: Internal Revenue Service.

High-Income Americans Paid the Majority of Federal Taxes

In 2013, the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers (those with AGIs below $36,841) earned 11.49 percent of total AGI. This group of taxpayers paid approximately $34 billion in taxes, or 2.78 percent of all income taxes in 2013.

In contrast, the top 1 percent of all taxpayers (taxpayers with AGIs of $428,713 and above), earned 19.04 percent of all AGI in 2013, but paid 37.80 percent of all federal income taxes.

In 2013, the top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined. The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid $465 billion, or 37.80 percent of all income taxes, while the bottom 90 percent paid $372 billion, or 30.20 percent of all income taxes.

Chart 1.

High-Income Taxpayers Pay the Highest Average Tax Rates

The 2013 IRS data shows that taxpayers with higher incomes pay much higher average income tax rates than lower-income taxpayers.

The bottom 50 percent of taxpayers (taxpayers with AGIs below $36,841) faced an average income tax rate of 3.3 percent. Other taxpayers face much higher rates: for example, taxpayers with AGIs between the 10th and 5th percentile ($127,695 and $179,760) pay an average effective rate of 13.4 percent – four times the rate paid by those in the bottom 50 percent.

The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI of $428,713 and above) paid the highest effective income tax rate at 27.1 percent, 8.19 times the rate faced by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers.

Chart 2.

Taxpayers at the very top of the income distribution, the top 0.1 percent (with AGIs over $1.86 million), paid an even higher average tax rate, of 27.9 percent.

The average tax rate of the top 1 percent of taxpayers rose significantly in 2013, from 21.9 percent in 2012 to 27.1 percent in 2013. This increase in the average tax rate of the 1 percent was largely due to several changes to the federal tax code, imposed at the end of 2012 as part of the “fiscal cliff” tax deal: a new 39.6 percent income tax bracket, a higher top rate on capital gains and dividends, and the reintroduction of the Pease limitation on itemized deductions.[3]

Appendix

Table 2. Number of Federal Individual Income Tax Returns Filed, 1980–2013 (in thousands)
Year Total Top 0.1% Top 1% Top 5% Between 5% & 10% Top 10% Between 10% & 25% Top 25% Between 25% & 50% Top 50% Bottom 50%
1980 93,239 932 4,662 4,662 9,324 13,986 23,310 23,310 46,619 46,619
1981 94,587 946 4,729 4,729 9,459 14,188 23,647 23,647 47,293 47,293
1982 94,426 944 4,721 4,721 9,443 14,164 23,607 23,607 47,213 47,213
1983 95,331 953 4,767 4,767 9,533 14,300 23,833 23,833 47,665 47,665
1984 98,436 984 4,922 4,922 9,844 14,765 24,609 24,609 49,218 49,219
1985 100,625 1,006 5,031 5,031 10,063 15,094 25,156 25,156 50,313 50,313
1986 102,088 1,021 5,104 5,104 10,209 15,313 25,522 25,522 51,044 51,044
The Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line are not strictly comparable.
1987 106,155 1,062 5,308 5,308 10,615 15,923 26,539 26,539 53,077 53,077
1988 108,873 1,089 5,444 5,444 10,887 16,331 27,218 27,218 54,436 54,436
1989 111,313 1,113 5,566 5,566 11,131 16,697 27,828 27,828 55,656 55,656
1990 112,812 1,128 5,641 5,641 11,281 16,922 28,203 28,203 56,406 56,406
1991 113,804 1,138 5,690 5,690 11,380 17,071 28,451 28,451 56,902 56,902
1992 112,653 1,127 5,633 5,633 11,265 16,898 28,163 28,163 56,326 56,326
1993 113,681 1,137 5,684 5,684 11,368 17,052 28,420 28,420 56,841 56,841
1994 114,990 1,150 5,749 5,749 11,499 17,248 28,747 28,747 57,495 57,495
1995 117,274 1,173 5,864 5,864 11,727 17,591 29,319 29,319 58,637 58,637
1996 119,442 1,194 5,972 5,972 11,944 17,916 29,860 29,860 59,721 59,721
1997 121,503 1,215 6,075 6,075 12,150 18,225 30,376 30,376 60,752 60,752
1998 123,776 1,238 6,189 6,189 12,378 18,566 30,944 30,944 61,888 61,888
1999 126,009 1,260 6,300 6,300 12,601 18,901 31,502 31,502 63,004 63,004
2000 128,227 1,282 6,411 6,411 12,823 19,234 32,057 32,057 64,114 64,114
The IRS changed methodology, so data above and below this line are not strictly comparable.
2001 119,371 119 1,194 5,969 5,969 11,937 17,906 29,843 29,843 59,685 59,685
2002 119,851 120 1,199 5,993 5,993 11,985 17,978 29,963 29,963 59,925 59,925
2003 120,759 121 1,208 6,038 6,038 12,076 18,114 30,190 30,190 60,379 60,379
2004 122,510 123 1,225 6,125 6,125 12,251 18,376 30,627 30,627 61,255 61,255
2005 124,673 125 1,247 6,234 6,234 12,467 18,701 31,168 31,168 62,337 62,337
2006 128,441 128 1,284 6,422 6,422 12,844 19,266 32,110 32,110 64,221 64,221
2007 132,655 133 1,327 6,633 6,633 13,265 19,898 33,164 33,164 66,327 66,327
2008 132,892 133 1,329 6,645 6,645 13,289 19,934 33,223 33,223 66,446 66,446
2009 132,620 133 1,326 6,631 6,631 13,262 19,893 33,155 33,155 66,310 66,310
2010 135,033 135 1,350 6,752 6,752 13,503 20,255 33,758 33,758 67,517 67,517
2011 136,586 137 1,366 6,829 6,829 13,659 20,488 34,146 34,146 68,293 68,293
2012 136,080 136 1,361 6,804 6,804 13,608 20,412 34,020 34,020 68,040 68,040
2013 138,313 138 1,383 6,916 6,916 13,831 20,747 34,578 34,578 69,157 69,157
Source: Internal Revenue Service.
Table 3. Adjusted Gross Income of Taxpayers in Various Income Brackets, 1980–2013 (in Billions of Dollars)
Year Total Top 0.1% Top 1% Top 5% Between 5% & 10% Top 10% Between 10% & 25% Top 25% Between 25% & 50% Top 50% Bottom 50%
1980 $1,627 $138 $342 $181 $523 $400 $922 $417 $1,339 $288
1981 $1,791 $149 $372 $201 $573 $442 $1,015 $458 $1,473 $318
1982 $1,876 $167 $398 $207 $605 $460 $1,065 $478 $1,544 $332
1983 $1,970 $183 $428 $217 $646 $481 $1,127 $498 $1,625 $344
1984 $2,173 $210 $482 $240 $723 $528 $1,251 $543 $1,794 $379
1985 $2,344 $235 $531 $260 $791 $567 $1,359 $580 $1,939 $405
1986 $2,524 $285 $608 $278 $887 $604 $1,490 $613 $2,104 $421
The Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line are not strictly comparable.
1987 $2,814 $347 $722 $316 $1,038 $671 $1,709 $664 $2,374 $440
1988 $3,124 $474 $891 $342 $1,233 $718 $1,951 $707 $2,658 $466
1989 $3,299 $468 $918 $368 $1,287 $768 $2,054 $751 $2,805 $494
1990 $3,451 $483 $953 $385 $1,338 $806 $2,144 $788 $2,933 $519
1991 $3,516 $457 $943 $400 $1,343 $832 $2,175 $809 $2,984 $532
1992 $3,681 $524 $1,031 $413 $1,444 $856 $2,299 $832 $3,131 $549
1993 $3,776 $521 $1,048 $426 $1,474 $883 $2,358 $854 $3,212 $563
1994 $3,961 $547 $1,103 $449 $1,552 $929 $2,481 $890 $3,371 $590
1995 $4,245 $620 $1,223 $482 $1,705 $985 $2,690 $938 $3,628 $617
1996 $4,591 $737 $1,394 $515 $1,909 $1,043 $2,953 $992 $3,944 $646
1997 $5,023 $873 $1,597 $554 $2,151 $1,116 $3,268 $1,060 $4,328 $695
1998 $5,469 $1,010 $1,797 $597 $2,394 $1,196 $3,590 $1,132 $4,721 $748
1999 $5,909 $1,153 $2,012 $641 $2,653 $1,274 $3,927 $1,199 $5,126 $783
2000 $6,424 $1,337 $2,267 $688 $2,955 $1,358 $4,314 $1,276 $5,590 $834
The IRS changed methodology, so data above and below this line are not strictly comparable.
2001 $6,116 $492 $1,065 $1,934 $666 $2,600 $1,334 $3,933 $1,302 $5,235 $881
2002 $5,982 $421 $960 $1,812 $660 $2,472 $1,339 $3,812 $1,303 $5,115 $867
2003 $6,157 $466 $1,030 $1,908 $679 $2,587 $1,375 $3,962 $1,325 $5,287 $870
2004 $6,735 $615 $1,279 $2,243 $725 $2,968 $1,455 $4,423 $1,403 $5,826 $908
2005 $7,366 $784 $1,561 $2,623 $778 $3,401 $1,540 $4,940 $1,473 $6,413 $953
2006 $7,970 $895 $1,761 $2,918 $841 $3,760 $1,652 $5,412 $1,568 $6,980 $990
2007 $8,622 $1,030 $1,971 $3,223 $905 $4,128 $1,770 $5,898 $1,673 $7,571 $1,051
2008 $8,206 $826 $1,657 $2,868 $905 $3,773 $1,782 $5,555 $1,673 $7,228 $978
2009 $7,579 $602 $1,305 $2,439 $878 $3,317 $1,740 $5,058 $1,620 $6,678 $900
2010 $8,040 $743 $1,517 $2,716 $915 $3,631 $1,800 $5,431 $1,665 $7,096 $944
2011 $8,317 $737 $1,556 $2,819 $956 $3,775 $1,866 $5,641 $1,716 $7,357 $961
2012 $9,042 $1,017 $1,977 $3,331 $997 $4,328 $1,934 $6,262 $1,776 $8,038 $1,004
2013 $9,034 $816 $1,720 $3,109 $1,034 $4,143 $2,008 $6,152 $1,844 $7,996 $1,038
Source: Internal Revenue Service.
 Table 4. Total Income Tax after Credits, 1980–2013 (in Billions of Dollars)
Year Total Top 0.1% Top 1% Top 5% Between 5% & 10% Top 10% Between 10% & 25% Top 25% Between 25% & 50% Top 50% Bottom 50%
1980 $249 $47 $92 $31 $123 $59 $182 $50 $232 $18
1981 $282 $50 $99 $36 $135 $69 $204 $57 $261 $21
1982 $276 $53 $100 $34 $134 $66 $200 $56 $256 $20
1983 $272 $55 $101 $34 $135 $64 $199 $54 $252 $19
1984 $297 $63 $113 $37 $150 $68 $219 $57 $276 $22
1985 $322 $70 $125 $41 $166 $73 $238 $60 $299 $23
1986 $367 $94 $156 $44 $201 $78 $279 $64 $343 $24
The Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line are not strictly comparable.
1987 $369 $92 $160 $46 $205 $79 $284 $63 $347 $22
1988 $413 $114 $188 $48 $236 $85 $321 $68 $389 $24
1989 $433 $109 $190 $51 $241 $93 $334 $73 $408 $25
1990 $447 $112 $195 $52 $248 $97 $344 $77 $421 $26
1991 $448 $111 $194 $56 $250 $96 $347 $77 $424 $25
1992 $476 $131 $218 $58 $276 $97 $374 $78 $452 $24
1993 $503 $146 $238 $60 $298 $101 $399 $80 $479 $24
1994 $535 $154 $254 $64 $318 $108 $425 $84 $509 $25
1995 $588 $178 $288 $70 $357 $115 $473 $88 $561 $27
1996 $658 $213 $335 $76 $411 $124 $535 $95 $630 $28
1997 $727 $241 $377 $82 $460 $134 $594 $102 $696 $31
1998 $788 $274 $425 $88 $513 $139 $652 $103 $755 $33
1999 $877 $317 $486 $97 $583 $150 $733 $109 $842 $35
2000 $981 $367 $554 $106 $660 $164 $824 $118 $942 $38
The IRS changed methodology, so data above and below this line are not strictly comparable.
2001 $885 $139 $294 $462 $101 $564 $158 $722 $120 $842 $43
2002 $794 $120 $263 $420 $93 $513 $143 $657 $104 $761 $33
2003 $746 $115 $251 $399 $85 $484 $133 $617 $98 $715 $30
2004 $829 $142 $301 $467 $91 $558 $137 $695 $102 $797 $32
2005 $932 $176 $361 $549 $98 $647 $145 $793 $106 $898 $33
2006 $1,020 $196 $402 $607 $108 $715 $157 $872 $113 $986 $35
2007 $1,112 $221 $443 $666 $117 $783 $170 $953 $122 $1,075 $37
2008 $1,029 $187 $386 $597 $115 $712 $168 $880 $117 $997 $32
2009 $863 $146 $314 $502 $101 $604 $146 $749 $93 $842 $21
2010 $949 $170 $355 $561 $110 $670 $156 $827 $100 $927 $22
2011 $1,043 $168 $366 $589 $123 $712 $181 $893 $120 $1,012 $30
2012 $1,185 $220 $451 $699 $133 $831 $193 $1,024 $128 $1,152 $33
2013 $1,232 $228 $466 $721 $139 $860 $203 $1,063 $135 $1,198 $34
Table 5. Adjusted Gross Income Shares, 1980–2013 (Percent of Total AGI Earned by Each Group)
Year Total Top 0.1% Top 1% Top 5% Between 5% & 10% Top 10% Between 10% & 25% Top 25% Between 25% & 50% Top 50% Bottom 50%
1980 100% 8.46% 21.01% 11.12% 32.13% 24.57% 56.70% 25.62% 82.32% 17.68%
1981 100% 8.30% 20.78% 11.20% 31.98% 24.69% 56.67% 25.59% 82.25% 17.75%
1982 100% 8.91% 21.23% 11.03% 32.26% 24.53% 56.79% 25.50% 82.29% 17.71%
1983 100% 9.29% 21.74% 11.04% 32.78% 24.44% 57.22% 25.30% 82.52% 17.48%
1984 100% 9.66% 22.19% 11.06% 33.25% 24.31% 57.56% 25.00% 82.56% 17.44%
1985 100% 10.03% 22.67% 11.10% 33.77% 24.21% 57.97% 24.77% 82.74% 17.26%
1986 100% 11.30% 24.11% 11.02% 35.12% 23.92% 59.04% 24.30% 83.34% 16.66%
The Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line are not strictly comparable.
1987 100% 12.32% 25.67% 11.23% 36.90% 23.85% 60.75% 23.62% 84.37% 15.63%
1988 100% 15.16% 28.51% 10.94% 39.45% 22.99% 62.44% 22.63% 85.07% 14.93%
1989 100% 14.19% 27.84% 11.16% 39.00% 23.28% 62.28% 22.76% 85.04% 14.96%
1990 100% 14.00% 27.62% 11.15% 38.77% 23.36% 62.13% 22.84% 84.97% 15.03%
1991 100% 12.99% 26.83% 11.37% 38.20% 23.65% 61.85% 23.01% 84.87% 15.13%
1992 100% 14.23% 28.01% 11.21% 39.23% 23.25% 62.47% 22.61% 85.08% 14.92%
1993 100% 13.79% 27.76% 11.29% 39.05% 23.40% 62.45% 22.63% 85.08% 14.92%
1994 100% 13.80% 27.85% 11.34% 39.19% 23.45% 62.64% 22.48% 85.11% 14.89%
1995 100% 14.60% 28.81% 11.35% 40.16% 23.21% 63.37% 22.09% 85.46% 14.54%
1996 100% 16.04% 30.36% 11.23% 41.59% 22.73% 64.32% 21.60% 85.92% 14.08%
1997 100% 17.38% 31.79% 11.03% 42.83% 22.22% 65.05% 21.11% 86.16% 13.84%
1998 100% 18.47% 32.85% 10.92% 43.77% 21.87% 65.63% 20.69% 86.33% 13.67%
1999 100% 19.51% 34.04% 10.85% 44.89% 21.57% 66.46% 20.29% 86.75% 13.25%
2000 100% 20.81% 35.30% 10.71% 46.01% 21.15% 67.15% 19.86% 87.01% 12.99%
The IRS changed methodology, so data above and below this line are not strictly comparable.
2001 100% 8.05% 17.41% 31.61% 10.89% 42.50% 21.80% 64.31% 21.29% 85.60% 14.40%
2002 100% 7.04% 16.05% 30.29% 11.04% 41.33% 22.39% 63.71% 21.79% 85.50% 14.50%
2003 100% 7.56% 16.73% 30.99% 11.03% 42.01% 22.33% 64.34% 21.52% 85.87% 14.13%
2004 100% 9.14% 18.99% 33.31% 10.77% 44.07% 21.60% 65.68% 20.83% 86.51% 13.49%
2005 100% 10.64% 21.19% 35.61% 10.56% 46.17% 20.90% 67.07% 19.99% 87.06% 12.94%
2006 100% 11.23% 22.10% 36.62% 10.56% 47.17% 20.73% 67.91% 19.68% 87.58% 12.42%
2007 100% 11.95% 22.86% 37.39% 10.49% 47.88% 20.53% 68.41% 19.40% 87.81% 12.19%
2008 100% 10.06% 20.19% 34.95% 11.03% 45.98% 21.71% 67.69% 20.39% 88.08% 11.92%
2009 100% 7.94% 17.21% 32.18% 11.59% 43.77% 22.96% 66.74% 21.38% 88.12% 11.88%
2010 100% 9.24% 18.87% 33.78% 11.38% 45.17% 22.38% 67.55% 20.71% 88.26% 11.74%
2011 100% 8.86% 18.70% 33.89% 11.50% 45.39% 22.43% 67.82% 20.63% 88.45% 11.55%
2012 100% 11.25% 21.86% 36.84% 11.03% 47.87% 21.39% 69.25% 19.64% 88.90% 11.10%
2013 100% 9.03% 19.04% 34.42% 11.45% 45.87% 22.23% 68.10% 20.41% 88.51% 11.49%
Source: Internal Revenue Service.
Table 6. Total Income Tax Shares, 1980–2013 (Percent of Federal Income Tax Paid by Each Group)
Year Total Top 0.1% Top 1% Top 5% Between 5% & 10% Top 10% Between 10% & 25% Top 25% Between 25% & 50% Top 50% Bottom 50%
1980 100% 19.05% 36.84% 12.44% 49.28% 23.74% 73.02% 19.93% 92.95% 7.05%
1981 100% 17.58% 35.06% 12.90% 47.96% 24.33% 72.29% 20.26% 92.55% 7.45%
1982 100% 19.03% 36.13% 12.45% 48.59% 23.91% 72.50% 20.15% 92.65% 7.35%
1983 100% 20.32% 37.26% 12.44% 49.71% 23.39% 73.10% 19.73% 92.83% 7.17%
1984 100% 21.12% 37.98% 12.58% 50.56% 22.92% 73.49% 19.16% 92.65% 7.35%
1985 100% 21.81% 38.78% 12.67% 51.46% 22.60% 74.06% 18.77% 92.83% 7.17%
1986 100% 25.75% 42.57% 12.12% 54.69% 21.33% 76.02% 17.52% 93.54% 6.46%
The Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line are not strictly comparable.
1987 100% 24.81% 43.26% 12.35% 55.61% 21.31% 76.92% 17.02% 93.93% 6.07%
1988 100% 27.58% 45.62% 11.66% 57.28% 20.57% 77.84% 16.44% 94.28% 5.72%
1989 100% 25.24% 43.94% 11.85% 55.78% 21.44% 77.22% 16.94% 94.17% 5.83%
1990 100% 25.13% 43.64% 11.73% 55.36% 21.66% 77.02% 17.16% 94.19% 5.81%
1991 100% 24.82% 43.38% 12.45% 55.82% 21.46% 77.29% 17.23% 94.52% 5.48%
1992 100% 27.54% 45.88% 12.12% 58.01% 20.47% 78.48% 16.46% 94.94% 5.06%
1993 100% 29.01% 47.36% 11.88% 59.24% 20.03% 79.27% 15.92% 95.19% 4.81%
1994 100% 28.86% 47.52% 11.93% 59.45% 20.10% 79.55% 15.68% 95.23% 4.77%
1995 100% 30.26% 48.91% 11.84% 60.75% 19.62% 80.36% 15.03% 95.39% 4.61%
1996 100% 32.31% 50.97% 11.54% 62.51% 18.80% 81.32% 14.36% 95.68% 4.32%
1997 100% 33.17% 51.87% 11.33% 63.20% 18.47% 81.67% 14.05% 95.72% 4.28%
1998 100% 34.75% 53.84% 11.20% 65.04% 17.65% 82.69% 13.10% 95.79% 4.21%
1999 100% 36.18% 55.45% 11.00% 66.45% 17.09% 83.54% 12.46% 96.00% 4.00%
2000 100% 37.42% 56.47% 10.86% 67.33% 16.68% 84.01% 12.08% 96.09% 3.91%
The IRS changed methodology, so data above and below this line are not strictly comparable.
2001 100% 15.68% 33.22% 52.24% 11.44% 63.68% 17.88% 81.56% 13.54% 95.10% 4.90%
2002 100% 15.09% 33.09% 52.86% 11.77% 64.63% 18.04% 82.67% 13.12% 95.79% 4.21%
2003 100% 15.37% 33.69% 53.54% 11.35% 64.89% 17.87% 82.76% 13.17% 95.93% 4.07%
2004 100% 17.12% 36.28% 56.35% 10.96% 67.30% 16.52% 83.82% 12.31% 96.13% 3.87%
2005 100% 18.91% 38.78% 58.93% 10.52% 69.46% 15.61% 85.07% 11.35% 96.41% 3.59%
2006 100% 19.24% 39.36% 59.49% 10.59% 70.08% 15.41% 85.49% 11.10% 96.59% 3.41%
2007 100% 19.84% 39.81% 59.90% 10.51% 70.41% 15.30% 85.71% 10.93% 96.64% 3.36%
2008 100% 18.20% 37.51% 58.06% 11.14% 69.20% 16.37% 85.57% 11.33% 96.90% 3.10%
2009 100% 16.91% 36.34% 58.17% 11.72% 69.89% 16.85% 86.74% 10.80% 97.54% 2.46%
2010 100% 17.88% 37.38% 59.07% 11.55% 70.62% 16.49% 87.11% 10.53% 97.64% 2.36%
2011 100% 16.14% 35.06% 56.49% 11.77% 68.26% 17.36% 85.62% 11.50% 97.11% 2.89%
2012 100% 18.60% 38.09% 58.95% 11.22% 70.17% 16.25% 86.42% 10.80% 97.22% 2.78%
2013 100% 18.48% 37.80% 58.55% 11.25% 69.80% 16.47% 86.27% 10.94% 97.22% 2.78%
Source: Internal Revenue Service.
Table 7. Dollar Cut-Off, 1980–2013 (Minimum AGI for Tax Returns to Fall into Various Percentiles; Thresholds Not Adjusted for Inflation)
Year Top 0.1% Top 1% Top 5% Top 10% Top 25% Top 50%
1980 $80,580 $43,792 $35,070 $23,606 $12,936
1981 $85,428 $47,845 $38,283 $25,655 $14,000
1982 $89,388 $49,284 $39,676 $27,027 $14,539
1983 $93,512 $51,553 $41,222 $27,827 $15,044
1984 $100,889 $55,423 $43,956 $29,360 $15,998
1985 $108,134 $58,883 $46,322 $30,928 $16,688
1986 $118,818 $62,377 $48,656 $32,242 $17,302
The Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line are not strictly comparable.
1987 $139,289 $68,414 $52,921 $33,983 $17,768
1988 $157,136 $72,735 $