When Biden took office, one of his first acts was the elimination of our border security. Like a power-hungry dictator, Biden simply decided to ignore our immigration laws. His catastrophic border policy resulted in untold millions of unidentified foreign citizens from around the world pouring into our country. Its impact is now being felt in cities across the country. The worst is yet to come. PETER LEMISKA - AND WE'RE ALREADY THERE!!!
Friday, September 29, 2017
SWAMP KEEPER TRUMP'S GOLDMAN SACHS APPROVED TAX PLAN FOR THE SUPER RICH
OBAMA-CLINTON-TRUMPERNOMICS:
"The tax overhaul would mean an unprecedented
windfall for the super-rich, on top of the fact that
virtually all income gains during the period of the
supposed recovery from the financial crash of 2008
have gone to the top 1 percent income bracket."
Trump’s tax plan provides massive windfall to the rich
President Donald Trump revealed his tax cut plan Wednesday, calling it “a revolutionary change.” The plan consists of an array of cuts which would provide a historic windfall for large corporations and the rich. If passed by Congress it would represent the most expansive change to the tax code since the New Deal reforms of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
The proposal was produced after months of secret talks between the so-called “Big-Six,” Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn, both multi-millionaire former employees of Wall Street firm Goldman Sachs, and leading Republicans from the House and Senate.
Trump sought to give the plan a populist touch during a speech announcing the plan in Indianapolis, framing his proposals as a boon for the middle class, American workers and American manufacturing.
“I’ve been waiting for this for a long time. We're going to cut taxes for the middle class, make the tax code simpler and more fair for everyday Americans. And we are going to bring back the jobs and wealth that have left our country and most people thought left our country for good,” Trump claimed.
However, an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) estimates approximately half of the tax cuts would go to the top 1 percent of households, those making more than $700,000 per year, for an average cut of $150,000 per year. Within in this group, the richest of the rich, the top 0.1 percent, would receive 30 percent of the tax cuts, for an average cut of $800,000 per year.
Meanwhile there would be “little discernable” benefit for working class families under Trump’s plan, according to the CBPP. A married couple with one child that earns less than $24,850 a year will receive no tax cut under the plan, while a similar family earning $48,700 will see a cut of just $180.
For individuals, the tax plan would ditch the current system of seven tax brackets and collapse them into three brackets, with 12 percent, 25 percent, and 35 percent tax rates. This would constitute a tax cut for the wealthiest individuals, who currently have a top tax rate of 39.6 percent, and an increase for the poorest individuals, with a current tax rate of 10 percent.
The proposal contains a suggestion that Congress consider creating a fourth tax rate above 35 percent, which Trump touted as a measure to ensure that the wealthiest are paying their fair share.
However, the plan does not specify what income level the new tax bracket would be associated with, nor does it explicitly tell Congress to create the fourth bracket. This was obviously placed in the plan to ensure that the president can claim he did not rescind his promise that the rich would not benefit from his tax reforms. One can expect the two big business parties to ignore this section of the proposal as a tax bill makes its way through Congress.
Significantly, the plan also calls for the abolition of the estate tax, a tax on inherited wealth. Opponents of the estate tax argue family-owned small farms are endangered by the tax. However, an analysis of data from the Tax Policy Center shows that only 50 small farms are affected by the estate tax in the United States. The overwhelming beneficiaries of this cut will be the heirs and heiresses of wealthy estates such as Trump’s own children.
Furthermore, corporations would save billions under Trump’s plan, as it calls for a reduction in the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent. A proposed transition from an international tax system to a territorial tax system means that corporations would not be taxed on their overseas earnings. This includes a one-time “repatriation tax” aimed at encouraging corporations to bring offshore profits and jobs back to the United States. The level of this tax is left for Congress to decide.
A new tax rate for “pass-through businesses” would be implemented as well. These include businesses and corporations whose profits “pass through” to their owners. The businesses would be taxed at a rate of 25 percent instead of the individual rate that their owners are currently taxed at. Approximately 95 percent of businesses in the United States are structured as “pass-throughs.” Again, this new tax rate would constitute a reduction in the amount of taxes the wealthiest corporation owners would be required to pay.
Trump administration officials have not commented on the cost of the proposed plan. One estimate from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget found that the polices in the plan would cost about $2.2 trillion over ten years.
Beyond reducing deficit spending, top Republicans claim that the resulting economic growth would compensate for the loss in revenue. During the 2016 presidential campaign Trump claimed that his tax plan would raise the economic growth rate to 4 percent.
While leading Democrats, including Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer, have postured publicly against Trump’s proposals they are eager to work behind closed doors with the president to slash the taxes for the rich.
Democratic members of the House Ways and Means Committee received an advance briefing Tuesday on the president’s proposal at the White House. On Wednesday, Democratic Senator Joe Donnelly from Indiana accompanied Trump on Air Force One to the rally in Indianapolis.
A tax plan by and for the
US oligarchy
By Fred Mazelis
29 September 2017
The tax cut proposals announced by President Donald Trump this
week constitute yet another massive transfer of wealth from the working
population to the parasitic ruling elite.
Trump on Wednesday unveiled the plan drawn up in secret talks
between congressional Republicans and administration economic spokesmen Steven
Mnuchin and Gary Cohn. The tax overhaul would mean an unprecedented windfall
for the super-rich, on top of the fact that virtually all income gains during
the period of the supposed recovery from the financial crash of 2008 have gone
to the top 1 percent income bracket.
The proposed legislation would reduce the number of income tax
brackets from seven to three. The “simplification” would increase the lowest
rate from 10 percent to 12 percent while reducing the highest tax rate from
39.6 percent to 35 percent.
All of the annual tax savings, to the tune of hundreds of
thousands of dollars, will go to the wealthiest taxpayers. The bottom third
will get nothing, many of them below the income level for income tax liability
in the first place. Broad layers of better-off workers and the middle class
will get almost nothing after the deduction for state and local taxes is
eliminated from the federal income tax. There is no proposal for an increase in
the earned income tax credit, which would help the poor, or any reduction in
payroll taxes, disproportionately hitting the working class and the working
poor.
Even more important are proposals to do away with the alternative
minimum tax (AMT), reduce the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent,
slash the tax rate on so-called “pass-through businesses” to 25 percent and
eliminate the estate tax.
The alternative minimum tax, which applies overwhelmingly to those
with annual incomes over $200,000, dates back to 1970 and was devised to
prevent the wealthy from avoiding taxes altogether through the use of itemized
deductions and other techniques. Trump himself is reported to have paid an
additional $31 million in taxes in 2005 because of the alternative minimum tax.
The reduction of taxes for pass-through businesses has been
promoted by dominant sections of the ruling class, in typical demagogic style,
as a means of aiding small entrepreneurs and family-owned enterprises. In fact,
small businesses already pay less than 25 percent in tax and this windfall would apply almost entirely to hedge funds, private equity firms, giant law
firms and other partnerships and limited liability companies (LLCs). LLCs have
become more and more common in recent years, used by multimillionaires for such
purposes as hiding ownership of luxury residences.
Among the various proposals, the elimination of the estate tax has
the greatest ideological significance. Here too, the argument has been
presented that inheritance taxes spell the ruin of family farmers and other
hardworking Americans. Nothing could be further from the truth. The estate tax
currently applies only to inheritances of more than $5.49 million, which is up
from a $1 million threshold 15 years ago. It currently affects only 0.2 percent
of individuals who leave bequests annually.
The modern estate tax in the US dates back almost exactly one
century. It was introduced as part of the 1916 legislation that enacted the
federal income tax. Against the perennial argument that it constitutes “double
taxation” by targeting savings on income, the estate tax was seen as necessary
to prevent the ever-increasing concentration of wealth. The American
bourgeoisie, from the Progressive Era of the early 20th century through the New
Deal and the post-World War II boom, saw this tax, including its redistributive
effects, as insurance against social revolution. The tax rate on inheritance
rose to 77 percent on the largest estates.
This began to change in the 1970s and 1980s, part of the social
counterrevolution that has escalated in recent decades. In 1981, under Ronald
Reagan, the top estate tax rate was reduced from 70 percent to 50 percent. It
was phased out in 2001 under the George Bush administration, but this was not
permanent. In the absence of new legislation it returned in 2011.
The demand for the removal of all taxes on inherited wealth
amounts to a modern version of aristocratic privilege. The parasitic ruling
cliques that sit atop the US economy are out to further entrench a system of
American royalty in opposition to any claim that the offspring of the
multimillionaires and billionaires should “earn their own way.” After several
decades in which the top 1 percent has doubled its share of the national
wealth, it now insists on measures that will make even the current levels of
inequality seem quaint by comparison.
Some observers have pointed to the big tax cut legislation enacted
in the first years of both the Reagan and George W. Bush administrations, in
1981 and 2001, respectively. Now, less than 20 years later, Trump seeks to make
his mark, an even bigger one, in the tax-cutting competition.
The economic crisis of 2017 is a vastly deeper one than in recent
decades, however. When Bush promoted his tax cuts, for instance, the US Treasury
forecast a surplus of $5.6 trillion over the coming decade.
Although this prediction would not in fact have come to pass even
if the tax cuts had not been enacted, today’s situation is quite different. The
forecast is for a cumulative deficit of $10.1 trillion over the next ten years, with the annual deficit reaching the stratospheric level of $1 trillion by 2022
and going up from there.
The historical pattern of the past two generations is repeating
itself today, although capitalist politics has in the interim moved very
sharply to the right. The Republicans, utilizing varieties of right-wing
populism that are verging on fascism, are spearheading the class war waged by
the super-rich. This is summed up in the person of billionaire Trump himself,
who declared, in Big Lie style last week, that “it’s time to take care of our
people, to rebuild our nation and to fight for our great American workers.”
Anti-tax demagogy has played a viciously reactionary role over the
past 50 years. For the vast majority of working people, the problems they face
have increasingly centered on obtaining decent full-time jobs at wages that
make it possible to raise a family, as well as affordable health care, housing
and education. Anti-tax campaigns have been consciously used to divert
attention from these issues.
The Democrats, more and more basing themselves on Wall Street,
differ only on tactics and tempo. They are looking for a bipartisan deal to
attack the working class. Democratic Senate leader Charles Schumer, known as
the senator from Wall Street, is ready to do business with the Trump White
House. To the extent that the Democrats criticize the Republican tax proposals,
it is primarily on grounds of “fiscal irresponsibility.” They are no less
hostile than the Republicans to any measures to redistribute wealth from the
top to the bottom.
CALL IT OBAMA-CLINTONOMICS OR TRUMPERNOMICS FOR THE SUPER RICH!
"It exposes as a bold-faced lie the claim
that President Obama made at the end
of his second term, that “things have
never been better” in America."
More than 52 million Americans live in economically distressed communities
By Sandy English
28 September 2017
A new analysis of Census data shows that the so-called economic recovery under the Obama administration was an unmitigated catastrophe for the 20 percent of the American population that live in the poorest areas of the United States and that gains of jobs and income have gone overwhelming to the top 20 percent richest areas.
“The 2017 Distressed Communities Report,” published by the Economic Innovation Group (EIG), analyzes the census data for 2011-2015 for people living in each of the nearly 7,500 American zip codes according to several criteria.
The EIG’s Distressed Communities Index (DCI) considers the percentage of the population without a high school diploma, the percentage of housing vacancies, the percentage of adults working, the percentage of the population in poverty, the median income ratio (the percentage of median income that a zip code has for its state), the change in employment from 2011 to 2015, and the change in the number of businesses in the same period.
The report divides the findings for zip codes into five quintiles based on these indicators, rated from worst- to best-performing: distressed, at risk, mid-tier, comfortable, and prosperous.
The results show that distressed communities—52.3 million people or 17 percent of the American population—experienced an average 6 percent drop in the number of adults working and a 6.3 percent average drop in the number of business establishments.
“Far from achieving even anemic growth from 2011 to 2015,” the report notes, “distressed communities instead experienced what amounts to a deep ongoing recession.”
Further, “fully one third of the approximately 44 million Americans receiving SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or food stamps) and other cash public assistance benefits (such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)) live in distressed communities.” The report notes that most distressed communities have seen zero net job growth since 2000.
Residents in these zip codes are five times more likely to die than those in prosperous zip codes. Deaths from cancer, pregnancy complications, suicide, and violence are even higher. “Mental and substance abuse disorders are 64 percent higher in distressed counties than prosperous ones, with major clusters in Appalachia and Native American communities where rates exceed four or five times the national average,” the report continues.
One other important and alarming fact which the report highlights is that over a third of the distressed zip codes contain so-called “brownfield” sites—areas which are polluted or contaminated in some way. Not only do these have impacts on real estate and business development, they present a whole array of health hazards to the very poorest Americans.
Distressed communities can be found all over the United States but are concentrated in the South: 43 percent of Mississippi’s zip codes are distressed, followed by Alabama, West Virginia, Arkansas and Louisiana. According to the report, [the South] “is home to a staggering 52 percent of all Americans living in distressed zip codes—far above its 37.5 percent share of the country’s total population.”
After this, the Southwest and Great Lakes region have the largest share. In the Northeast, most distressed communities tend to be found in urban areas and in the South, primarily in rural areas.
The biggest cities with the largest numbers of distressed zip codes are Cleveland, Ohio, Newark, New Jersey, Buffalo, New York, Detroit, Michigan and Toledo, Ohio. Mid-sized cities with the highest number of distressed zip codes include Youngstown, Ohio, Trenton, New Jersey, Camden, New Jersey, Gary, Indiana, Hartford, Connecticut and Flint, Michigan.
Urban counties with the highest number of distressed zip codes include Cook County in Illinois, with Chicago at its center, Los Angeles County in California, Harris County in Texas, with Houston at its center, and Wayne County in Michigan, encompassing Detroit. Most of these urban areas were once industrial centers and home to the industrial working class.
Distressed zip codes that have a majority of minorities living in them are more than twice as likely to be distressed as zip codes that are majority white. “In total,” the report notes, “45 percent of the country’s majority-minority zip codes are distressed and only 7 percent of them are prosperous.” At the same time there are numerous distressed communities that are almost completely white. A quarter of the total distressed population is under 18.
The report found that the economic benefits
of the recovery after the 2008 recessions
have gone to the top quintile of zip codes,
where the wealthier layers of the population
live, including not only the very rich but also
the upper middle class.
These areas, which the DCI terms prosperous, and make up roughly 85 million Americans or 27 percent of the US population, have for the most part the economic wherewithal to finance higher levels of education, have the lowest housing vacancy, highest percentage of working adults, and have had the lion’s share of job and business expansion.
“The job growth rate in the top quintile was 2.6 times higher than nationally from 2011 to 2015, and business establishments proliferated three times faster than they did at the national level,” the report notes. “Prosperous zip codes stand worlds apart from their distressed counterparts, seemingly insulated from many of the challenges with which other communities must grapple. The poverty rate is more than 20 points lower in the average prosperous community than it is in the average distressed one.”
The report makes much less of an analysis of the other three, middle quintiles, the at risk, mid-tier, and comfortable categories, but it does note some trends that address the overall trends nation-wide. “A remarkably small proportion of places fuel national increases in jobs and businesses in today’s economy. High growth in these local economic powerhouses buoys national numbers while obscuring stagnant or declining economic activity in other parts of the country.”
One of the more telling aspects of the report is that extreme poverty in the US is presided over by both capitalist parties: Democratic and Republic politicians have equal numbers of distressed communities in their constituencies. Democrats, in fact, “represent six of the 10 most distressed congressional districts.”
Another observation from the voting data, and one of the few that looks at conditions beyond the bottom and top quintiles, is worth quoting in full:
“President Trump accumulated a 3.5 million vote lead in counties that fell into the bottom three quintiles of well-being (equivalent to 9.4 percent of all votes cast in these counties). A vast array of factors determined voting patterns in the 2016 election, but it stands that the ‘continuity’ candidate performed better in the places benefiting most from the status quo, while the ‘change’ candidate performed better in the places one would expect to find more dissatisfaction.”
Broader figures and the historical view of wealth distribution in the US—that one percent of the population control 40 percent of the wealth or the decades-long decline in the percentage of the national income that goes to the working class—is not brought out in the report but the data add to a complete picture of social conditions across the United States, the character and geographical distribution of social and economic conditions in a country of more than 320 million.
The portrait provided by the EIG report is not simply one of increasing misery and poverty for the bottom 20 percent, and not only one in which only a minority of Americans are achieving anything like “prosperity,” but of growing and explosive dissent among tens of millions.
It exposes as a bold-faced lie the claim
that President Obama made at the end
of his second term, that “things have
never been better” in America.
Study: Trump plan would cut $2.4 trillion in taxes, but many would see hikes
The tax reform framework introduced by Republicans this week would cut taxes by $2.4 trillion over a decade and provide the biggest tax cuts to high-income earners, according to the first outside analysis of the plan. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)
The tax reform framework introduced by Republicans this week would cut taxes by $2.4 trillion over a decade and provide the biggest tax cuts to high-income earners, according to the first outside analysis of the plan.
While most people would get tax cuts under the plan, a minority of families at every income level would see tax hikes, the Tax Policy Center found.
The analysis suggests that Republicans will have to pull off some dexterous legislating if they want the eventual tax bill to provide no tax cuts for the wealthy and to avoid hitting middle-class families with tax hikes.
"Many individuals will see their taxes increase," said Eric Toder, the co-director of the Tax Policy Center.
Specifically, the analysis finds that taxpayers in the 80th to 95th percentiles, making about $150,000 to $300,000, would see tax increases as a group when the plan is phased in. Those people "might be considered upper-middle class," Toder said.
Speaking Friday on CNBC, White House National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn said the administration uses a "very wide" definition of "middle-class," including people making up to $160,000.
Furthermore, the Tax Policy Center analysis found that some people, across the income scale, would see tax increases. About 1 out of every 9 tax filers in the middle-fifth would see a tax hike, on average a $1,000 hit.
That's because they would be losing some of their itemized deductions, such as the deduction for state and local taxes, as well as personal exemptions. To offset those tax increases, the plan includes a doubled standard deduction and bigger child tax credits. The details that have been spelled out thus far, though, don't clearly indicate that those provisions are big enough to offset the lost deductions and exemptions.
Rep. Kevin Brady, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee who will be responsible for writing the legislation, has said the bill will lower taxes at every income level.
Cohn, however, has said that he can't guarantee that every individual in every state will get a tax cut.
Meanwhile, the average tax unit in the top 0.1 percent, earning more than $3.4 million, would receive a boost in after-tax income of more than 10 percent, the biggest such gain along the income spectrum. The average tax cut for that group would be about $723,000.
Meanwhile, the tax reform framework includes language stipulating that the ultimate legislation will make the tax code more progressive than it is today, meaning that it will benefit lower-income earners more than the rich, showing how much work the tax-writing committees have cut out for them.
Trump advisers have criticized the Tax Policy Center and its reports in the past.
On Friday, Brady faulted the report for making "overreaching and unrealistic" assumptions about how Republicans would write the legislation. "This so-called study is misleading, unfounded, and biased," he said in a statement.
When it comes to the future, an overwhelming majority of Americans have adopted a mindset that is a variation of Isiah 22:12: “Let us eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow does not matter.” Recently, federal debt surpassed the $20 Trillion mark (additional state and local debt amount to another $2.9 Trillion). That milestone was greeted by the Ruling Class and a vast preponderance of the citizenry with a yawn and a shrug of the shoulder. As the ongoing determination to promote new entitlement spending and the refusal to rein in, but instead to expand, existing programs continues unabated.
Any attempt to seriously discuss the financial fate of the nation is ignored and dismissed with the proviso that its someone else’s problem for another day down the road. In reality, this dilemma is not someone else’s problem. The average life expectancy in the United States today is 79. That means that over 225 million citizens and non-citizens in the country today will still be alive in 30 years.
And what will this nation be facing 30 years hence? Recently, the Government Accountability Office as well as a number of experts such as Price Waterhouse have projected what that scenario will be if the country remains on its present course (with no new entitlements such as single payer health care and government mandated and paid maternity leave.) Note: All dollar amounts are in 2017 Dollars.
A.Federal, State and local government spending currently amounts to $7 Trillion per year or 37% of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). By 2048 these entities combined will be spending in excess of $17 Trillion per year, or over 50% of GDP. As interest costs on the overall debt will increase from $0.4 Trillion to $2.4 Trillion, healthcare spending (includes Obamacare subsidies) will vault from $1.6 Trillion to $3.7 Trillion, Social Security and pension payments will grow from $1.4 Trillion to $3.5 Trillion, education spending from $1 Trillion to $2.4 Trillion, and welfare programs from $0.5 Trillion to $1.3 Trillion.
B.The dramatic increase in spending and borrowing combined with the inevitable necessity of increased tax rates will crowd out private and public investment thereby slowing the growth of productivity, worker’s wages and the GDP. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that by 2040 the average annual real income per person will fall by $6,000.00. Thus, by 2048 the GDP of the United States will lag significantly behind China and India, as it falls to third place among the nations of the world. The U.S. GDP will increase only 76% by 2048 while government spending increases by 142%.
C.Concurrent with and because of the spending, stagnant growth and reduced personal income, the overall government debt will increase significantly as tax proceeds (despite eventual higher rates) will not generate anything close to the revenue necessary to offset spending, as tax revenues to the Federal, State and local governments will not exceed 30% of the GDP, whereas spending will absorb 51% of the GDP. By 2048 the overall government debt (Federal, State and local may well exceed $68 Trillion as compared to $23 Trillion today. Thus, the interest costs will increase fivefold, as not only does the debt swell, but the United States will have to appeal to lenders willing to underwrite a nearly bankrupt nation. Today this country, with 5% of the world’s population, accounts for over 32% of Global debt, but by 2048 it will account for 49% of Global debt. In essence, America will be at the mercy of the rest of the world and a second-tier economy.
D.Over the next 30 years there will be inevitable recessions, global financial crises and international military encounters. The United States will, with this level of debt and spending, find itself in an increasingly precarious position, as it may not be able to successfully weather any serious economic downturn or global conflict.
E.The above statistics do not include the current Democratic Party’s love affair with single-payer healthcare or “Medicare for all.” If that program were included, the annual government expenditures in 2048 (over and above current healthcare spending and interest costs) would balloon from $17 Trillion to $20 Trillion (60% of annual GDP) (and the debt would grow from $68 Trillion to over $86 Trillion.
The tsunami that will inundate this nation is inevitable as there is no willingness, regardless of party, to confront these issues.
The Democrats and their mind-numbed followers, now fully wedded to socialism, have convinced each other, and unfortunately much of the citizenry, that there is a bottomless pit of money to be siphoned from the so-called rich and the golden goose that is Capitalism, the engine of the nation’s GDP, will continue in perpetuity to lay the gold eggs regardless of any abuse or restraint. The one-time confiscation of the wealth of all the billionaires in the U.S. would amount to $2.2 Trillion (less than 31% of all government spending in 2017). Further, Capitalism cannot thrive without capital and profit, both of which the Democrats would severely restrict and control, thus, exacerbating the scenario outlined above.
The Republicans, while cognizant of the dire future ahead, prefer to hide their heads in the sand and defer matters to another day and another Congress and another President, as they are fearful of telling the people the truth and risk losing political power. Thus, their pre-determined inability and lack of fortitude in addressing Obamacare or any long-term spending programs.
Donald Trump continues to tout new programs (such as paid maternity leave), adamantly refuses to address the out of control entitlement spending, and is content with modified single-payer health care. He claims that economic growth will take care of all the problems; however, unless he and his successors find a way to grow the economy at an annual 5-7% per year for the next 20 to 30 years, that platitude is meaningless (the highest ten-year period of GDP growth -- 6.7% -- in the past 100 years took place in 1939-1948, which included massive war production for World War II). President Trump, has no plan or desire to mitigate the disaster looming on the horizon preferring to kick the can down the road while mouthing the usual banalities about reining in spending.
Thus, the populace, instead of being aware of the disaster ahead, is taking its lead from the Ruling Class. Alternatively, the American people are blithely swimming in a sea of banalities and faux causes. Whether it is promoting transgenderism, drowning in cults of personality, defacing and tearing down statues, feverously looking for supposed racism under every rock, asserting hypothetical compassion in the promotion of open borders and amnesty for untold millions, breathlessly endorsing the false God of climate change, cheering for their side of the political spectrum to humiliate the other, or demanding that government make their lives better.
I will not be among the 225 million Americans living today that will be alive in 2048. I have been fortunate to live throughout the golden age of America’s power and influence, but regrettably to also see the impending end of this glorious and short-lived era. The true tragedy is that those 225 million refuse to understand that for them there is no tomorrow to disregard.
When it comes to the future, an overwhelming majority of Americans have adopted a mindset that is a variation of Isiah 22:12: “Let us eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow does not matter.” Recently, federal debt surpassed the $20 Trillion mark (additional state and local debt amount to another $2.9 Trillion). That milestone was greeted by the Ruling Class and a vast preponderance of the citizenry with a yawn and a shrug of the shoulder. As the ongoing determination to promote new entitlement spending and the refusal to rein in, but instead to expand, existing programs continues unabated.
Any attempt to seriously discuss the financial fate of the nation is ignored and dismissed with the proviso that its someone else’s problem for another day down the road. In reality, this dilemma is not someone else’s problem. The average life expectancy in the United States today is 79. That means that over 225 million citizens and non-citizens in the country today will still be alive in 30 years.
And what will this nation be facing 30 years hence? Recently, the Government Accountability Office as well as a number of experts such as Price Waterhouse have projected what that scenario will be if the country remains on its present course (with no new entitlements such as single payer health care and government mandated and paid maternity leave.) Note: All dollar amounts are in 2017 Dollars.
A.Federal, State and local government spending currently amounts to $7 Trillion per year or 37% of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). By 2048 these entities combined will be spending in excess of $17 Trillion per year, or over 50% of GDP. As interest costs on the overall debt will increase from $0.4 Trillion to $2.4 Trillion, healthcare spending (includes Obamacare subsidies) will vault from $1.6 Trillion to $3.7 Trillion, Social Security and pension payments will grow from $1.4 Trillion to $3.5 Trillion, education spending from $1 Trillion to $2.4 Trillion, and welfare programs from $0.5 Trillion to $1.3 Trillion.
B.The dramatic increase in spending and borrowing combined with the inevitable necessity of increased tax rates will crowd out private and public investment thereby slowing the growth of productivity, worker’s wages and the GDP. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that by 2040 the average annual real income per person will fall by $6,000.00. Thus, by 2048 the GDP of the United States will lag significantly behind China and India, as it falls to third place among the nations of the world. The U.S. GDP will increase only 76% by 2048 while government spending increases by 142%.
C.Concurrent with and because of the spending, stagnant growth and reduced personal income, the overall government debt will increase significantly as tax proceeds (despite eventual higher rates) will not generate anything close to the revenue necessary to offset spending, as tax revenues to the Federal, State and local governments will not exceed 30% of the GDP, whereas spending will absorb 51% of the GDP. By 2048 the overall government debt (Federal, State and local may well exceed $68 Trillion as compared to $23 Trillion today. Thus, the interest costs will increase fivefold, as not only does the debt swell, but the United States will have to appeal to lenders willing to underwrite a nearly bankrupt nation. Today this country, with 5% of the world’s population, accounts for over 32% of Global debt, but by 2048 it will account for 49% of Global debt. In essence, America will be at the mercy of the rest of the world and a second-tier economy.
D.Over the next 30 years there will be inevitable recessions, global financial crises and international military encounters. The United States will, with this level of debt and spending, find itself in an increasingly precarious position, as it may not be able to successfully weather any serious economic downturn or global conflict.
E.The above statistics do not include the current Democratic Party’s love affair with single-payer healthcare or “Medicare for all.” If that program were included, the annual government expenditures in 2048 (over and above current healthcare spending and interest costs) would balloon from $17 Trillion to $20 Trillion (60% of annual GDP) (and the debt would grow from $68 Trillion to over $86 Trillion.
The tsunami that will inundate this nation is inevitable as there is no willingness, regardless of party, to confront these issues.
The Democrats and their mind-numbed followers, now fully wedded to socialism, have convinced each other, and unfortunately much of the citizenry, that there is a bottomless pit of money to be siphoned from the so-called rich and the golden goose that is Capitalism, the engine of the nation’s GDP, will continue in perpetuity to lay the gold eggs regardless of any abuse or restraint. The one-time confiscation of the wealth of all the billionaires in the U.S. would amount to $2.2 Trillion (less than 31% of all government spending in 2017). Further, Capitalism cannot thrive without capital and profit, both of which the Democrats would severely restrict and control, thus, exacerbating the scenario outlined above.
The Republicans, while cognizant of the dire future ahead, prefer to hide their heads in the sand and defer matters to another day and another Congress and another President, as they are fearful of telling the people the truth and risk losing political power. Thus, their pre-determined inability and lack of fortitude in addressing Obamacare or any long-term spending programs.
Donald Trump continues to tout new programs (such as paid maternity leave), adamantly refuses to address the out of control entitlement spending, and is content with modified single-payer health care. He claims that economic growth will take care of all the problems; however, unless he and his successors find a way to grow the economy at an annual 5-7% per year for the next 20 to 30 years, that platitude is meaningless (the highest ten-year period of GDP growth -- 6.7% -- in the past 100 years took place in 1939-1948, which included massive war production for World War II). President Trump, has no plan or desire to mitigate the disaster looming on the horizon preferring to kick the can down the road while mouthing the usual banalities about reining in spending.
Thus, the populace, instead of being aware of the disaster ahead, is taking its lead from the Ruling Class. Alternatively, the American people are blithely swimming in a sea of banalities and faux causes. Whether it is promoting transgenderism, drowning in cults of personality, defacing and tearing down statues, feverously looking for supposed racism under every rock, asserting hypothetical compassion in the promotion of open borders and amnesty for untold millions, breathlessly endorsing the false God of climate change, cheering for their side of the political spectrum to humiliate the other, or demanding that government make their lives better.
I will not be among the 225 million Americans living today that will be alive in 2048. I have been fortunate to live throughout the golden age of America’s power and influence, but regrettably to also see the impending end of this glorious and short-lived era. The true tragedy is that those 225 million refuse to understand that for them there is no tomorrow to disregard.
Rural New York schools grapple with declining population, increasing poverty
By Jason Melanovski
20 September 2017
A recent report has highlighted the dire development of increasing poverty and declining enrollment many rural school districts are facing across New York state, forcing these districts to choose between making onerous cuts, combining with other districts, or closing schools within the district, thus forcing students to travel longer distances.
According to a report titled “Demographic Challenges Facing Rural Schools: Declining Enrollment and Growing Poverty” by the New York State Association of School Business Officials, the dual phenomena of increased poverty and lower enrollment are wreaking havoc on local school budgets, which are primarily funded by local property taxes.
Calling enrollment declines “omnipresent,” the report states that “96.7 percent of rural school districts had declining enrollment and 84.9 percent had drops of at least ten percent.”
While the rate and overall population in poverty is still higher in New York’s suburban and urban school districts, the poverty rate in rural areas is increasing at a noticeably faster pace.
From 2003 to 2015, the poverty rate for school-age children increased from 14 percent to 18 percent for children in rural school districts and from 19 percent to 21 percent for children in non-rural school districts. For both rural and non-rural school districts the greatest jump in poverty rates occurred between 2009 and 2011 following the 2008 financial crisis.
Another measure of the economic plight of school children is the percentage of children receiving free or reduced priced lunches. In rural school districts 48.3 percent of students receive free or reduced priced lunches, and that number rises to 53.2 percent of students in non-rural districts. A student is eligible for free or reduced priced lunch when his or her family makes less than 185 percent of the poverty level.
Although the report was released to shed light on the challenges facing rural school districts, it made clear that poverty among the state’s school children has no geographic limits. According the report, “The combination of poverty and Free- and Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) data show that a little more than one in every five schoolchildren in New York lives in poverty, while a little more than half of all school children face significant economic constraints at home.”
The report compiled data from the 340 rural school districts, which make up about half of those in New York State, but serve only a little more than 11 percent of the students.
The report noted that the population losses and increases in poverty cannot be separated from the financial crisis of 2008, stating “for a few years prior to the onset of the Great Recession, growth rates in urban and rural counties were closely related. Beginning in 2008, rural populations entered a period of sustained decline, while urban populations continued to grow, though their pace of growth slowed after 2011.”
According to United States Census data, the emptying of much of rural America can be directly connected to the shrinking number of jobs in non-metro areas, as the rural job market is now 4.26 percent smaller than it was in 2008.
Speaking to the Daily Star of Oneonta, NY, the rural Delaware Academy School District’s Superintendent Jason Thomson stated that the current 47 percent of students who qualify for free or reduced price meals is the “highest we’ve ever seen.”
In addition, many of the rural counties mentioned in the report have also been hit hard by the opioid epidemic, claiming the lives of young workers and reducing an already declining population. Tioga County, for instance, lost up to 10 percent of its population between 2002 and 2016 and averaged 16.7 opioid deaths from 2013 to 2015 according to New York state.
With rapidly declining enrollment, rural schools are forced to count on smaller and smaller budgets with each succeeding school year, resulting in cuts to classes, teachers, programs and extracurricular activities and an overall sense of living in a world with scant opportunities for future life.
As the report states, rural “schools may have to cut back on valuable academic and enrichment opportunities, from Advanced Placement courses to music and sports programs, when they no longer have the student numbers needed for viability. Any potential reductions in college readiness preparation are incredibly serious. Decreasing enrollment can also increase students’ sense of isolation as there are literally fewer peers for them to interact with.”
To add to an already dire state of morale in rural schools, despite the fact that poor rural schools often have significantly higher graduation rates than poor urban schools, diplomas from rural schools are often seen as “worthless” according to David Little, executive director of the New York State Rural Schools Association. Poor rural schools in New York are simply unable to afford the cost of offering advanced placement (AP) and college-level coursework that is seen as necessary by college admissions officers.
For its part, the New York state government and the Andrew Cuomo administration have failed to respond to the demographic and social declines in rural school districts and increase state aid. The state continues to use a formula created in 2008, prior to the financial crisis, which categorizes the majority of rural schools as “average need.” If current demographic and poverty data were used, the majority of rural schools would now be considered “high-need,” requiring increased state aid.
Increasing rural poverty is not unique to New York. It has been rising across the country after falling sharply over many decades to a record low rate in 2000 of 13.4 percent. 16.7 percent of rural Americans lived in poverty in 2015, compared to 13 percent in poverty within metropolitan areas, according to the United States Census Bureau.
US Census report shows increasing social inequality
By Eric London
15 September 2017
US Census data from 2016 released on Tuesday shows increasing social inequality amid a small gain in household income that is offset by a massive growth of personal debt and rising living costs.
The data tracks the ongoing redistribution of wealth from the working class to the wealthy as a result of the pro-Wall Street policies of both the Republican and Democratic parties. It substantiates the oligarchic character of the United States.
Social inequality
The Gini index, used to measure social inequality, with higher figures indicating a wider economic divide, rose slightly from 2015 (.479) to 2016 (.481). The 2016 figure, according to rankings in the CIA World Factbook, makes the US slightly more equal than Madagascar and less equal than Mexico.
In terms of aggregate income share, the shift from 2015 to 2016 is as follows:
The growth in inequality is even starker when traced from 2007, the year before the Wall Street crisis.
The data reflects income and not wealth, thereby providing an incomplete and conservative indication of the scale of inequality. Even within the highest quintile, the income share increased only for the top 10 percent, and, in particular, the top 5 percent.
Household income
The corporate media has portrayed the report as a sign of positive income growth, since it shows a slight rise in median income of 3.2 percent from 2015 to 2016.
But according to the Census data, the earnings of “full-time, year-round workers” remained stagnant. For men in this category, a total of 63.9 million people, earnings declined by 0.4 percent, from $51,859 in 2015 to $51,640 in 2016. For women in this category, 47.2 million people, there was a minor increase, 0.7 percent, from $41,257 in 2015 to $41,554 in 2016. In other words, families with 2 adults working full-time saw a paltry $78 increase in their yearly earnings from 2015 to 2016.
Claims of rising incomes mask the growth of inequality. The Census data shows that the household income of the 90th percentile (the 100th being the highest) was 12.53 times higher than the household income of the 10th percentile in 2016, up from 12.23 times higher in 2015 and 11.18 times higher in 2007. The degree to which income is concentrated in the richest 10 percent of the population is exemplified by the fact that the 5th percentile boasted a household income 3.82 times higher than the 50th percentile in 2016, up from 3.79 times in 2015 and 3.52 in 2007.
As Bloomberg News reported Wednesday, “Since 2007, average inflation-adjusted income has climbed more than 10 percent for households in the highest fifth of the earnings distribution, and it’s fallen 3.2 percent for the bottom quintile. Incomes of the top 5 percent jumped 12.8 percent over the period.”
For the working class, any income increase was transferred to the corporate elite in the form of rising debt payments and increasing living expenses, especially for health care.
According to figures from eHealth, a large private health exchange, average deductibles for families rose 5 percent from 2016 to 2017 (a year after the period covered by the Census report) and average individual premiums rose 22 percent over the same period.
The rising cost of student debt alone largely erases income increases seen by some young people. According to the Census, those aged 15 to 24 saw an income increase of 13.9 percent, from $36,564 in 2015 to $41,655 in 2016, while incomes for young people aged 25 to 34 rose 4.9 percent, from $58,091 to $60,932, nearly double the percentage increase for older age groups.
However, in 2016, student debt rose to an average of $30,000 per young person, up 4 percent from 2015, eliminating over 80 percent of the income rise for 25-34 year olds. For 15 to 24 year olds, the $4,000 increase in median income would hardly cover one sixth of the average debt payment, let alone make up for the fact that young people face a future in which they are unlikely to receive a pension, Social Security or Medicare.
Rising debt levels are not a phenomenon limited to young people. A Bloomberg report from August 10 notes that credit card defaults increased from the beginning of 2015—when roughly 2.5 percent of debt holders defaulted—to the end of 2016, when the total hit 3 percent. This figure subsequently climbed in 2017 to reach 3.49 percent.
Bloomberg notes: “After deleveraging in the aftermath of the last US recession, Americans have once again taken on record debt loads that risk holding back the world’s largest economy... Household debt outstanding--everything from mortgages to credit cards to car loans--reached $12.7 trillion in the first quarter [2017], surpassing the previous peak in 2008 before the effect of the housing market collapse took its toll, Federal Reserve Bank of New York data show.”
“For most Americans,” the report continues, “whose median household income, adjusted for inflation, is lower than it was at its peak in 1999, borrowing has been the answer to maintaining their standard of living. The increase in debt helps explain why the economy’s main source of fuel is providing less of a boost than in the past. Personal spending growth has averaged 2.4 percent since the recession ended in 2009, less than the 3 percent of the previous expansion and 4.3 percent from 1982-90.”
The Bloomberg report explains that income from wages minus household debt trended downward in 2015, meaning that debt is rising faster than wages, causing a loss of roughly $500 billion across the US economy in the space of just one year.
Poverty rate
Though the Census report shows that the poverty rate declined from 13.5 percent of households in 2015 to 12.7 percent in 2016, this figure is substantially higher than the 11.3 percent level that prevailed in 2000. In reality, individuals and families must make 2.5 to 3 times the official poverty rate of $12,000 for an individual, $15,500 for a married couple and $25,000 for a family of four just to make ends meet.
What the data really shows is that the poorest half of the country--over 150 million people--is in a desperate financial position, with the next poorest 40 percent facing constant financial strain and a declining share of the national income. In regard to poverty, the Census Bureau maintains figures that go up only to 200 percent of the official poverty level. The latest report shows that 95 million people—29.8 percent of the population—fall into this category. The share of those under the age of 18 in this category is much higher--39.1 percent.
This is the context for the drive by the Trump administration and both big business parties to slash corporate taxes, impose a health care “reform” that will increase costs for millions of people, and accelerate the transfer of wealth from the working class to the financial aristocracy.
Census Bureau: Mens’ Wages Remain Below 1973 Levels
Americans’ median pay packets have been flat since 1973, even though the vastly expanded federal government has justified its own salaries and its many massive spending and policy programs as a sure-fire way to boost education, productivity, and wages.
The colossal 44-year failure of the federal government to help grow American men’s wages — or even to reduce poverty rates — is laid bare in the latest report from the Census Bureau, “Income and Poverty in the United States: 2016.”
The dense report includes myriad detailed tables of data around one shocking chart, which reveals no growth in men’s wages for the past 44 years, or since President Richard Nixon was beginning his second term in office.
Median earning of full-time, year-round workers, 15 years and older, 1960 to 2016.
The sudden flatline followed a 31 percent rise in all men’s median wages from 1960 to 1972.
During the 44-year period since 1973, income among women grew by roughly 30 percent as more skilled and trained women entered the market, gained experience, and were promoted to better-paying jobs. Those opportunities and contributions are good news — but they do not change the reality that men’s income has been flat for 44 years.
In fact, the report notes that “the real median earnings of full-time, year-round working men were 1.1 percent lower in 2016 than in 2007.”
There are many explanations for the flat income, such as the massive growth in the labor supply when 30 million additional American women and roughly 30 million immigrants joined in the marketplace competition for good jobs. For example, a pro-immigration panel at the prestigious National Academies of Science estimated in 2016 that the huge government-imposed inflow of immigrants since 1965 has imposed a hidden 5 percent “immigration tax” on Americans’ pay packets.
Technology has made many individuals workers more productive but also sidelined many others, such as newspaper printers and steelworkers. Peaceful international trade has allowed men to sell more products overseas but also allowed employers to hire foreign workers instead of Americans. Whatever the combinations of reasons, the mid-point for men’s income has been flat for 43 years, according to the Census Bureau.
The flat-earnings chart needs some explanation:
It shows only inflation-adjusted, pre-tax pay packets, so it excludes the impact of inflation, taxes and government benefits, such as food-stamps and tax-breaks for children, or of Obamacare’s subsidies and spending obligations.
It shows median income, which is the midpoint of the income scale. Half the people earn above the line, half the people earn below the line. Average income would be higher, but less revealing, because a higher share of income is going to the highest earners, compared to back in the 1970s.
The chart shows the income of year-round, full-time workers, excluding part-workers or seasonal workers, or those who work on-and-off under contracts. The chart does not make distinctions by race.
The chart shows individuals’ income, not the income of households, which has fluctuated as the average number of children or adults has declined.
The chart only shows income, but not the quality of goods in the stores, such as Starbucks coffee, cheap products imported from China, high-tech music players, improved autos or better health-care. That rise in product quality from competing companies — not claimed policy improvements from federal agencies — has provided the vast majority of material gains for Americans amid flat incomes.
The details are provided on Table A-4, on page 49 of this PDF.
The median earnings for all men employed year-round was $51,640 in 2016, which is still far below the $54,030 earned by full-time men in 1973. It is also below the $51,938 earned in the 2000 Internet boom, or the $52,222 earned in the 2007 property bubble when large-scale legal and illegal immigration provided employers with millions of alternative imported workers.
The post-1973 reality of flat income is a huge contrast to the rapid growth from 1960 up to the 1973 oil shock and the reopened inflow of immigrant labor after 1965. During the twelves years 1960 to 1972, the median average wages for all males — including minorities, seasonal workers, and contract workers — rose from by 31 percent, from $31,926 to $41,013.
When the income of all men is gauged, the Bureau concluded that all men’s median income in 1973 was $41,935. It dropped after 1973 and rose back up to $43,360 in 1999 as companies competed for the few unemployed workers during the first Internet boom. Income crashed in 2008 to a depression-low of $39,636 in 2012 once the federal government’s real-estate bubble burst. Since then, income has slowly climbed back to $42,220 in 2016 amid the continuous public protest against the federal government’s cheap-labor economic strategy, which is exemplified by the bipartisan 2013 “Gang of Eight” amnesty legislation.
Other data in the report shows that the nation’s poverty rates have barely budged since the 1960s, although many people in the United States are wealthier than many people n Europe. For example, the percentage of American said to be in poverty was 11.1 percent in 1973 and 12.7 percent in 2016.
That national poverty rate climbed, in part, because of the population of Latinos spiked from 10.8 million in 1973 to 57.6 million in 2016. Poverty among Latinos was 19 percent in 2016, little changed from 1973.
The report also noted that:
The official poverty rate decreased by 0.8 percentage points between 2015 and 2016. At 12.7 percent, the 2016 poverty rate is not statistically different from 2007 (12.5 percent), the year before the most recent recession.
In real terms, median earnings of full-time, year-round working women in 2016 were 2.3 percent higher than their 2007 median, the year before the most recent recession. The real median earnings of full-time, year-round working men were 1.1 percent lower in 2016 than in 2007.
In 2017, the number and percentage of shared households remained higher than in 2007, the year before the most recent recession. In 2007, 17.0 percent of all households were shared households, totaling 19.7 million households. In 2017, 19.4 percent of all households were shared households, totaling 24.6 million households.
The same period has seen a massive growth of social inequality, with income and wealth concentrated at the very top of American society to an extent not seen since the 1920s.
“This study follows reports released over the past several months documenting rising mortality rates among US workers due to drug addiction and suicide, high rates of infant mortality, an overall leveling off of life expectancy, and a growing gap between the life expectancy of the bottom rung of income earners compared to those at the top.”
President Donald J. Trump participates a Hurricane Irma briefing call with FEMA Administrator William "Brock" Long, Monday, Sept. 11, 2017, joined by White House Chief of Staff Gen. John Kelly, left; Homeland Security and Counter Terrorism Adviser Thomas Bossert, right, and Deputy Homeland Security Adviser John J. Daly, seated, in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, D.C. ( Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)
"Having cut a deal with Democrats for help with the debt ceiling, will Trump seek a deal with Democrats on amnesty for the 'Dreamers' in return for funding for border security?"
The answer to that question, raised in my column a week ago, is in. Last night, President Donald Trump cut a deal with "Chuck and Nancy" for amnesty for 800,000 recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program who came here illegally as youngsters, in return for Democratic votes for more money for border security.
According to preening Minority Leader Pelosi, the agreement contains not a dime for Trump's Wall, and the "Dreamers" are to be put on a long glide "path to U.S. citizenship."
Trump denies this is amnesty, and says the Wall comes later.
Fallout? Among the most enthusiastic of
Trump backers, disbelief, disillusionment
and wonderment at where we go from here.
Trump's debt-ceiling deal cut the legs out from under the GOP budget hawks. But amnesty would pull the rug out from under all the folks at those rallies who cheered Trump's promise to preserve the country they grew up in from this endless Third World invasion.
For make no mistake. If amnesty is granted for the 800,000, that will be but the first wave. "There are reasons no country has a rule that if you sneak in as a minor you're a citizen," writes Mickey Kaus, author of "The End of Equality," in The Washington Post.
"We'd be inviting the world. ... (An amnesty) would have a knock-on effect. Under 'chain migration' rules established in 1965 ... new citizens can bring in their siblings and adult children, who can bring in their siblings and in-laws until whole villages have moved to the United States.
"(T)oday's 690,000 dreamers would quickly become millions of newcomers who may well be low-skilled and who would almost certainly include the parents who brought them — the ones who in theory are at fault."
Trump is risking a breach in the dam. If the populists who provided him with decisive margins in Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania feel betrayed, it's hard to blame them.
Why did Trump do it? Clearly, he relished the cheers he got for the debt ceiling deal and wanted another such victory. And with the rampant accusations of a lack of "compassion" for his cancellation of the temporary Obama administration amnesty, he decided he had had enough heat.
It is not easy to stand up for long to the gale force winds of hostile commentary that blow constantly through this city.
Trump's capitulation, if that is what turns out to be, calls to mind George H. W. Bush's decision in 1990 to raise the Reagan tax rates in a deal engineered for him by a White House-Hill coalition, that made a mockery of his "Read my lips! No new taxes!" pledge of 1988.
For agreeing to feed the beast of Big Government, rather than cut its rations as Reagan sought to do, Bush was called a statesman.
By the fall of '92, the cheering had stopped.
Can Trump not know that those congratulating him for his newfound flexibility will be rejoicing, should Bob Mueller indict his family and his friends, and recommend his impeachment down the road?
What makes pre-emptive amnesty particularly disheartening is that the Trump policy of securing the border and returning illegal immigrants to their home countries appears, from a Census Bureau report this week, to be precisely the prescription America needs.
In 2016, paychecks for U.S. households reached an average of $59,039, up 3.2 percent from 2015, a year when they had surged.
U.S. median household income is now at its highest ever.
Yet there are inequalities. Where the median family income of Asian-Americans is above $81,400, and more than $65,000 for white Americans, the median family income of Hispanic families is $47,675, and that of African-American households far less, $39,490.
Consider. Though black Americans are predominantly native-born, while high percentages of Hispanics and Asians are immigrants, from the Census numbers, Hispanics earn more and Asians enjoy twice the median family income of blacks, which is below where it was in 2000.
Still, black America remains steadfastly loyal to a party that supports the endless importation of workers who compete directly for jobs with them and their families. Writes Kaus, "The median hourly wage (of DACA recipients) is only $15.34, meaning that many are competing with hard-pressed, lower-skilled Americans."
Looking closer at the Census Bureau figures, Trumpian economic nationalism would appear to have its greatest appeal to the American working class, a huge slice of which is native-born, black and Hispanic.
The elements of that policy?
Secure the border. Halt the invasion of low-wage workers, here legally and illegally, from the Third World. Tighten the labor market to force employers to raise wages in our full-employment economy. Provide tax incentives to companies who site factories in the USA. Impose border taxes on the products of companies who move plants abroad.
Put America and American workers first.
Will any amnesty of undocumented workers do that?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
Record $135 billion a year for illegal immigration, average $8,075 each, $25,000 in NY
The swelling population of illegal immigrants and their kids is costing American taxpayers $135 billion a year, the highest ever, driven by free medical care, education and a huge law enforcement bill, according to the the most authoritative report on the issue yet.
And despite claims from pro-illegal immigration advocates that the aliens pay significant off-setting taxes back to federal, state and local treasuries, the Federation for American Immigration Reform report tallied just $19 billion, making the final hit to taxpayers about $116 billion.
State and local governments are getting ravaged by the costs, at over $88 billion. The federal government, by comparison, is getting off easy at $45 billion in costs for illegals.
President Trump, Attorney General Jeff Sessions and conservatives in Congress are moving aggressively to deal with illegals, especially those with long criminal records. But their effort is being fought by courts and some 300 so-called "sanctuary communities" that refuse to work with federal law enforcement.
The added burden on taxpayers and the unfairness to those who have applied to come into the United States through legal channels is also driving the administration's immigration crackdown.
The report, titled "The Fiscal Burden Of Illegal Immigration on U.S. Taxpayers," is the most comprehensive cost tally from FAIR. It said that the costs have jumped about $3 billion in four years and will continue to surge unless illegal immigration is stopped. It was provided in advance exclusively to Secrets.
"Clearly, the cost of doing nothing to stop illegal immigration is far too high," said FAIR Executive Director Dan Stein. "President Trump has laid out a comprehensive strategy to regain control of illegal immigration and bring down these costs," said Stein. "Building the wall, enhancing interior enforcement and mandating national E-Verify will go a long way in bringing these ridiculously high costs under control," he added.
Over 68 often shocking pages, FAIR documents the average $8,075 in state, local and federal spending for each of the of 12.5 million illegal immigrants and their 4.2 million citizen children.
Broadly, the costs include $29 billion in medical care, $23 billion for law enforcement, $9 billion in welfare, $46 billion for education.
Just consider the cost of teaching an illegal alien child who doesn't speak English. FAIR estimates an average cost of over $12,000 a year, and that can reach $25,000 in New York. Add to that welfare, health care, school lunches, and the per student price soars.
In state costs alone, California leads the list at $23 billion per year, followed by Texas at $11 billion, and New York at $7.4 billion.
And it also documents the taxes paid and how they don't come close to offsetting the costs. What's more, FAIR noted that 35 percent of the illegal population operate in an underground economy hidden from tax collectors. And worse, employers hire illegals and either pay them cheaply or under the table.
"The United States recoups only about 14 percent of the amount expended annually on illegal aliens. If the same jobs held by illegal aliens were filled by legal workers, at the prevailing market wage, it may safely be presumed that federal, state and local governments would receive higher tax payments," said FAIR.
Key findings pulled from the report:
The staggering total costs of illegal immigrants and their children outweigh the taxes paid to federal and state governments by a ratio of roughly 7 to 1, with costs at nearly $135 billion compared to tax revenues at nearly $19 billion.
The nearly $135 billion paid out by federal and state and local taxpayers to cover the cost of the presence of 12.5 million illegal aliens and their 4.2 million citizen children amounts to approximately $8,075 per illegal alien and citizen child prior to taxes paid, or $6,940 per person after taxes are paid.
On the federal level, medical ($17.14 billion) is by far the highest cost, with law enforcement coming second ($13.15 billion) and general government services ($8 billion) third.
At the state and local level, education ($44.4 billion) was by far the largest expense, followed by general public services ($18.5 billion) and medical ($12.1 billion).
The top three states based on total cost to state taxpayers for illegal immigrants and their children: California ($23 billion); Texas ($10.9 billion), and New York ($7.5 billion).
Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner's "Washington Secrets" columnist, can be contacted at pbedard@washingtonexaminer.com
Federal, State and local government spending currently amounts to $7 Trillion per year or 37% of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). By 2048 these entities combined will be spending in excess of $17 Trillion per year, or over 50% of GDP. As interest costs on the overall debt will increase from $0.4 Trillion to $2.4 Trillion, healthcare spending (includes Obamacare subsidies) will vault from $1.6 Trillion to $3.7 Trillion, Social Security and pension payments will grow from $1.4 Trillion to $3.5 Trillion, education spending from $1 Trillion to $2.4 Trillion, and welfare programs from $0.5 Trillion to $1.3 Trillion. 
No comments:
Post a Comment