…Multiple reports of Democratic voter fraud have surfaced in recent weeks.
In late October, court documents filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton alleged that four women arrested by authorities had targeted elderly voters in a “voter fraud ring” during the 2016 elections which was funded by a then-Democratic Party leader.
Mark Levin reads from the following FOX NEWS piece:
Even with the Senate health care bill on hold pending the return of a key lawmaker, moderate Republicans already have extracted what critics call “payoffs” from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in exchange for their support.
Those familiar with the process, even from the other side of the aisle, told Fox News “this is how things get done.” But the sweeteners are reminiscent of the wheeling and dealing then-Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., did to pass ObamaCare, which Republicans criticized at the time.
And just as critics used nicknames like the “Cornhusker Kickback” to blast those ObamaCare add-ons, some are doing the same for the special provisions tucked into the ObamaCare overhaul.
Get ready to hear howls about what critics dub the “Polar Payoff” (for Alaska GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski); “Bayout Bailout” (for Louisiana GOP Sen. Bill Cassidy); and “Sunshine Sellout” (for Florida GOP Sen. Marco Rubio).
These provisions were added in an effort to win over votes from these senators, Capitol Hill sources told Fox News.
They are as follows:
Polar Payoff — The revised legislation requires that 1 percent of funds meant to ‘stabilize’ the insurance market are available to states “where the cost of insurance premiums are at least 75 percent higher than the national average,” sources told Fox News. Alaska is the only state that meets this benchmark under the new legislation and would receive $1.82 billion over the next eight years, sources said.
Bayou Bailout — Louisiana and Alaska — and potentially other states — would benefit from this sweetener. The provision, a major selling point for Cassidy, would tweak the formula so that states that were late to expand Medicaid could get more funding.
Sunshine Sellout — Sources said this provision was meant to benefit Rubio’s Florida. The tweak would change the way funding is calculated under the “Disproportionate Share Hospital” program, resulting in more money for Florida.
Former Nebraska Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson, who was the beneficiary of ObamaCare’s “Cornhusker Kickback” and received considerable GOP scorn at the time, told Fox News on Monday that Republicans are guilty of hypocrisy.
“When roles are reversed, it’s humorous,” Nelson told Fox News. “Republicans were criticizing Democrats for things done back then, and now, they’re engaged in the same thing in order to get the number of votes necessary.”………..
There is a law in economics, it deals with artificially propping up businesses, “goods” politicians deem necessary, production, etc. George Gilder notes this in a clip I isolated in an interview:
“A fundamental principle of information theory is that you can’t guarantee outcomes… in order for an experiment to yield knowledge, it has to be able to fail. If you have guaranteed experiments, you have zero knowledge”
R-PT’s note: this is how the USSR ended up with warehouses FULL of “widgets” (things made that it could not use or people did not want) no one needed in the real world. This economic law enforcers George Gilder’s contention that when government supports a venture from failing, no information is gained in knowing if the program actually works. Only the free-market can do this.
This applies to the real world in many ways, one being the co$t of college. Here is a very short video explaining this well:
OF course, one of my favorite videos of ALL TIME shows how students “benefit” from a subsidizing of college majors when in reality if they had to pay for college themselves it would be (a) cheaper, and (b) they would go into careers other than their majors… like sign flippers and bartenders (or other fields that are hurting):
The great conundrum of the U.S. economy today is that we have record numbers of working age people out of the labor force at the same time we have businesses desperately trying to find workers. As an example, the American Transportation Research Institute estimates there are 30,000 – 35,000 trucker jobs that could be filled tomorrow if workers would take these jobs–a shortage that could rise to 240,000 by 2022.
While the jobs market overall remains weak, demand is high for in certain sectors. For skilled and reliable mechanics, welders, engineers, electricians, plumbers, computer technicians, and nurses, jobs are plentiful; one can often find a job in 48 hours. As Bob Funk, the president of Express Services, which matches almost one-half million temporary workers with employers each year, “If you have a useful skill, we can find you a job. But too many are graduating from high school and college without any skills at all.”
The lesson, to play off of the famous Waylon Jennings song: Momma don’t let your babies grow up to be philosophy majors.
Kids commonly graduate from four year colleges with $100,000 of debt and little vocational training. A liberal arts education is valuable, but it should come paired with some practical skills.
Third, negative attitudes toward “blue collar” work. I’ve talked to parents who say they are disappointed if their kids want to become a craftsman–instead of going to college.This attitude discourages kids from learning how to make things, which contributes to sector-specific worker shortages….
(For full disclosure, my degree — theology — is one of the lowest paying degrees out there, and the lowest in employment opportunities.) In a short debate of the issue, Peter Schiff notes this “propping up” of useless degrees:
In the above discussion, Diana Carew seems to want jobs created by the government to fit the degrees earned. Otherwise, how would you force the private sector to create such opportunities unless you artificially demand [create] such opportunities? ~ There was zero unemployment in Soviet Russia, but all this “opportunity” collapsed due to economic laws… “this is how the USSR ended up with warehouses FULL of “widgets” (things made that it could not use or people did not want) no one needed in the real world. This economic law enforcers George Gilder’s contention that when government supports a venture from failing, no information is gained in knowing if the program actually works. Only the free-market can do this.” (Peter Schiff gets into the weeds a bit in this video.)
Here is another great PRAGER U video discussing the issue:
This is one of the areas Gary Johnson was correct — supply and demand:
FORBES notes well that most on the Left-end of the spectrum “don’t hate entrepreneurship and innovation,” but that their Econ 101 “part of the brain that deals with economics tends to shut down when discussing sectors like higher education (or healthcare).”
A WASHINGTON FREE BEACONpost relates findings from a Federal Reserve Bank (NY) study showing that the federal student loans have increased the cost of college tuition while at the same time college enrollment did not increase:
The expansion of federal student loans has caused tuition prices to increase without increasing college enrollment numbers, according to a report from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
The report evaluated student financial data as well as federal student aid programs “to identify the impact of increased student loan funding on tuition.”
According to the report, yearly student loan originations grew from $53 billion to $120 billion between 2001 and 2012, an increase of about 126 percent. During this time frame, average sticker-price tuition nearly doubled, rising from $6,950 to $10,200 in constant 2012 dollars.
The report found that for each dollar of federal aid applied, tuition increased as well.
“We find that each additional Pell Grant dollar to an institution leads to a roughly 55 cent increase in sticker price tuition,” the report says. “For subsidized loans, we find a somewhat larger passthrough effect of about 70 percent.”
The report makes reference to a hypothesis put forth by William Bennett, the Reagan-era secretary of education. The so-called “Bennett Hypothesis” holds that “increases in financial aid in recent years have enabled colleges and universities blithely to raise their tuitions, confident that federal loan subsidies would help cushion the increase.”
Many have compared the market for postsecondary education to the housing market…. [see video at the top]
Which brings me to finish this post with a humorous look at the hipster douche-bags scratching his or her head in regard to high tuition costs via REASON-TV:
While federal aid has been valuable to those who otherwise would not be able to afford higher education, it has created something of a paradox.
Students accept whatever aid they can get, potentially failing to weigh the long-term financial risk once they earn that degree. The thinking goes that the debt will get paid back in time once they get a well-paying job.
The higher institutions, for their part, understand that with someone else footing the bill, they have very little accountability to the student to keep their costs in line. The institution will get paid no matter their tuition and fees.
Once that student does graduate, the burden becomes theirs.
Mary Bromley, the articles author, while making some good points didn’t include the idea that getting liberal arts degrees is not prepping the student for the shift towards technological needs for the future, nor did she deal with getting degrees that are actually useful in the real world environment. Mind you, that wasn’t the main idea or push of the article and may be a good “part deux,” but one of the main reasons tuition has risen IS BECAUSE the Federal Government is involved… practical ways to keep costs down that are in the article aside.
Likewise, automation (“robots”) will increasingly replace people in a “growing number of jobs, the skills employers are now looking for are technical skills.” But that doesn’t mean people will lose work over the issue, it means that society as a whole will need to change their focus to more technologically minded degrees. Frank Roberts in an earlier article continues:
What specific skills those might be will depend on the specific job you are looking at.
But, basically those skills would include
Problem Solving Skills
[In the article much is made of jobs being filled by persons holding bachelor degrees, but, that may merely be a reflection of the over supply of degrees. It should be noted that at the same time a higher percentage of those turned down for work were also bachelor degree holders.]
So a change to practical degrees dealing with the change in society is a requirement. NOT TO MENTION the trades that support families well should be encouraged as well. (Like a master tool maker, a carpenter, or a plumber, etc., these are high paying jobs that society will always need — and jobs like these are more apprenticeship driven rather that degree driven.)
FORBES notes one study that challenges the status quo:
…Beyond.com, found that a striking 64% of hiring managers said they would consider a candidate who hadn’t gone to a day of college. At the same time, fewer than 2% of hiring managers said they were actively recruiting liberal arts grads….
A person starting out in life should consider all of the above. Their choices made now will have lasting effects — speaking from experience.
The bottom line is that Jeb or Marco wouldn’t have nominated these folks!
MARK HALPERIN: Who is going to drive policy in this administration in education and EPA and Attorney General and DHS? He’s nominated very sharply ideological activists who Ted Cruz I don’t necessarily think would have had the follow-through to nominate.
JOE: Exactly. I have a story I’ll tell off-camera about telling somebody I wasn’t ready for something [and they said], well that tells me that you are ready for it. But anyway, but again. How fascinating that the Never Trumpers and the Wall Street Journal editorial page and the Bill Kristols, and all the people that were rightly the most skeptical of Donald Trump during the primary, have to sit back going, wow, I would not have gotten this with Jeb or Marco.
Statement by the President on the Passing of Fidel Castro
At this time of Fidel Castro’s passing, we extend a hand of friendship to the Cuban people. We know that this moment fills Cubans – in Cuba and in the United States – with powerful emotions, recalling the countless ways in which Fidel Castro altered the course of individual lives, families, and of the Cuban nation. History will record and judge the enormous impact of this singular figure on the people and world around him.
For nearly six decades, the relationship between the United States and Cuba was marked by discord and profound political disagreements. During my presidency, we have worked hard to put the past behind us, pursuing a future in which the relationship between our two countries is defined not by our differences but by the many things that we share as neighbors and friends – bonds of family, culture, commerce, and common humanity. This engagement includes the contributions of Cuban Americans, who have done so much for our country and who care deeply about their loved ones in Cuba.
Today, we offer condolences to Fidel Castro’s family, and our thoughts and prayers are with the Cuban people. In the days ahead, they will recall the past and also look to the future. As they do, the Cuban people must know that they have a friend and partner in the United States of America.
President-elect Donald Trump’s statement that was just sent out (Gateway Pundit):
President-Elect Donald J. Trump Statement
“Today, the world marks the passing of a brutal dictator who oppressed his own people for nearly six decades. Fidel Castro’s legacy is one of firing squads, theft, unimaginable suffering, poverty and the denial of fundamental human rights.
“While Cuba remains a totalitarian island, it is my hope that today marks a move away from the horrors endured for too long, and toward a future in which the wonderful Cuban people finally live in the freedom they so richly deserve.
“Though the tragedies, deaths and pain caused by Fidel Castro cannot be erased, our administration will do all it can to ensure the Cuban people can finally begin their journey toward prosperity and liberty. I join the many Cuban Americans who supported me so greatly in the presidential campaign, including the Brigade 2506 Veterans Association that endorsed me, with the hope of one day soon seeing a free Cuba.”
One should read the rest of this post below over at GAY PATRIOT:
….Fidel Castro is dead at ninety. Far too long, if you ask me. Castro was a brutal, Socialist, dictator who consigned millions of his people to life in an oppressive, impoverished gulag where they enjoyed no civil liberties and no human rights. He sent troops around the world to commit atrocities against civilians; imprisoned, tortured, and murdered political opponents (or any critics of his regime), sponsored terrorism, and… oh yeah.. sent gay Cubans to concentration camps.
Here is a portion of PART DEUX of Gay Patriots posts on Castro:
Here are the facts about the left’s favorite commie:
Castro was an old-world communist dictator who hated individual freedom & maintained power by oppressing & terrorizing his own people.
Castro murdered those who disagreed with him.
Castro ran concentration camps & filled them with “undesirables,” including dissidents, homosexuals, AIDS victims, Catholics, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Afro-Cuban priests & others declared “unfit” for the moral Cuban revolution.
Castro personally asked the U.S.S.R to nuke the United States.
Che Guevara, a Castro cabinet member, said if the nukes were under Cuban control, they would have launched them “into the very heart of the United States….the victory of Socialism is well worth millions of atomic victims!”
In 1996, Castro shot down American civilian aircraft, killing 3 Americans.
Life for an average Cuban was hell under Castro. Restricted religious freedom, healthcare, food, movement, technology, transportation & regular forced separations of families.
Castro’s own daughter & sister fled his rule.
Castro banned all music by the Beatles in 1964.
On an island nation, owning or riding on a boat was illegal under the Castro regime.
There were a lot of long faces at Fox News Tuesday night, but there’s a silver lining for Sen. Marco Rubio. Now he can go be a bartender like his dad! (Have you heard him tell the story about his father being a bartender? Rubio was his pop’s best customer after the debate.)
He can wear a flowered shirt, tell yarns about his father, and if he’s asked to make any complicated concoctions: JEB CAN FIX IT!
Gov. Chris Christie will always be remembered for the noble service he performed for his country Saturday night. He must have known his campaign wasn’t lighting the world on fire, but he was damned if he was going to stand by and let that pretty-boy mountebank win.
Christie smacked Rubio down at the GOP debate by dramatically exposing the fact that Rubio’s only skill is a weird ability to regurgitate “the memorized 25-second speech that is exactly what his advisers gave him” — as the governor memorably put it.
In a surprising move, Rubio responded by regurgitating the memorized 25-second speech that was exactly what his advisers gave him. And then he did it again three more times.
This is what Rubio said, all within about 3 minutes:
(1) “But I would add this. Let’s dispel with this fiction that Barack Obama doesn’t know what he’s doing. He knows exactly what he’s doing. He is trying to change this country.”
(2) “And let’s dispel once and for all with this fiction that Barack Obama doesn’t know what he’s doing. He knows exactly what he’s doing.”
(3) “Here’s the bottom line. This notion that Barack Obama doesn’t know what he’s doing is just not true. He knows exactly what he’s doing.”
(4) “I think this notion — I think this is an important point. We have to understand what we’re going through here. We are not facing a president that doesn’t know what he’s doing. He knows what he is doing. That’s why he’s done the things he’s done.”
Far from “an important point,” it’s an incredibly boring point: The president knows what he’s doing! But Rubio kept pounding out the words as if he were announcing the theory of relativity…..
Some points out of ten posted by The American Spectator: “Ten Things You Need to Know From Last Night’s GOP Debate”
1.Carly Fiorina won. And by “won,” I mean “both debates.” She wasted everyone on stage at the “Happy Hour” kids’ table debate, managed to goad the DNC into creating her very own sexist meme, shut down Chris Matthews, and basically Ronda Rousey’ed the whole night. She punched yesterday in the face. Not a single man in the following debate seemed even remotely capable of delivering her knockout performance, and that’s something to be proud of. With a field of sixteen (eighteen? twenty? eighty?), the initial, Fox News debate — on friendly territory — was essential to solidifying your position among the front runners. Fiorina did that without hesitation. Others, in this case perpetual disappointment Rick Perry,spent the time he should have spent preparing for the debate using his surrogates to manage expectations, and made Bobby Jindal look charismatic by comparison, and Bobby Jindal is the human equivalent of notebook paper.
4.Megyn Kelly asked hardball questions of the prime time debaters, which earned her a spate of terrible Facebook fan page commentary and the honor of being called a “bimbo,” a sentiment which Donald Trump immediately endorsed. Which is convenient for Donald Trump, since he made it through the entire debate without endorsing a single policy, except, perhaps, a national program to relocate Rosie O’Donnell to an inaccessible private island. On that, he is likely to earn widespread support. But while the Donald spent the greatest amount of time yammering, among the candidates, he actually said very little. Except that you should be concerned that he intends to run third party. Which is fine. We always need more candidates to confuse elderly Floridian voters.
6. For the first time in history, observation linked Ted Cruz to Mike Huckabee, which is an intriguing development. Post-debate Luntz polling revealed that those souring on Trump were moving “back” to Cruz and Huckabee, neither of whom made a spectacular showing last night, but definitely share some of Trump’s “anti-establishment” credentials (if there is a such thing). It may turn out that the primary impetus behind Trump’s popularity was simply that neither Cruz or Huckabee had yet hit the trail — certainly Cruz seems to consider Trump his stalking horse — but if neither Cruz nor Huckabee can capitalize on the eventual Trump disengagement, the connections will sink all three. Personally, I see this as no loss. You may differ. In which case, feel free to call me a closeted liberal in the comments section as usual.
9.Marco Rubio “won” the debate itself, which is great for Marco Rubio because it’s high time he’s taken seriously as a candidate. He’s good looking, he’s got a great background story, he’s nuanced on policy and the media already hates him so much they pay for people to scour through hours of footage of Miami Zoning Commission hearings. And now he seems like he could take on the so-called “heavy hitters” he was supposed to be crushed by. Frankly, it would be fun to see him take on Carly in a one-on-one. We’d all be better for it, too.