Theft plagues U.S. union offices: Millions of dollars stolen in hundreds of locations

Theft plagues U.S. union offices: Millions of dollars stolen in hundreds of locations

Phoebe Wall Howard, Detroit Free Press

As the UAW, Fiat Chrysler and federal investigators unravel a scandal over the misappropriation of millions of dollars meant for worker training, federal records show embezzling from union offices is endemic around the country.

U.S. Department of Labor documents obtained by the Detroit Free Press reveal embezzlement from hundreds of union offices nationwide over the past decade. In just the past two years, more than 300 union locations have discovered theft, often resulting in more than one person charged in each instance, the records show.

Two UAW incidents uncovered in 2017, one in Michigan and the other in New Jersey, exceed the $1 million mark, among the biggest labor theft cases in a decade.

Cases involved unions representing nurses, aerospace engineers, firefighters, teachers, film and TV artists, air traffic controllers,

musicians, bus inspectors, bakery workers, roofers, postal workers, machin-ists, ironworkers, steelworkers, dairy workers, plasterers, train operators, plumbers, stagehands, engineers, electricians, heat insulators, missile range workers and bricklayers.

For the UAW, its two biggest cases involved members working handin- hand with corrupt auto industry executives. The UAW says that illustrates its constitution provides the intended checks and balances that essentially require two keys and conspiracy to steal.

In the Fiat Chrysler case in Detroit, money provided by auto companies for worker training was embezzled from 2009 to 2015 by men who were supposed to be working together to negotiate a labor contract rather than divvying up hundreds of thousands of dollars in personal gifts. The case is working its way through the court system, so far resulting in charges against four people.

In the other multimillion-dollar case, charges were filed on Jan. 9, 2017, against a former UAW president in New Jersey accused of hatching a scheme with a health insurance broker to steal $1 million from the union’s self-insured health plan and defraud Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of about $5.5 million.

In addition to the UAW, federal records show the biggest embezzlement cases resulting in criminal charges over the past decade have unfolded in the courts over the past three years:

❚ Laborers Local 657 in Washington, D.C., saw its business manager sentenced to four years in prison in February 2017 for embezzlement and was ordered to pay $1,632,000 in restitution. Two contractors were sent to prison and ordered to pay restitution, too.

❚ The International Brotherhood of Boilermakers Local 154 in Pittsburgh saw its former business manager plead guilty in September to embezzling $1.5 million, plus tax evasion.

❚ A former financial secretary for the International Longshoremen’s Association Local 970 in Norfolk, Va., was sentenced in February 2017 to 41 months in prison after stealing $1,072,669 from the union by making cash withdrawals and using money to buy gas, food, clothing, shoes, toys,entertainment and home improvement supplies.

❚ A former executive director of the Hawaii Painting & Decorating Contractors Association pleaded guilty in May 2016 to embezzling approximately $1,483,800 from the Hawaii Painters Trade Promotion & Charity Fund, which comes out of the hourly wages of Painters District Council 50 in Honolulu.

❚ A former union business manager for Allied Novelty and Production Workers Local 223 in New York and former president of Teamsters Local 810 in August 2016 pleaded guilty to soliciting and receiving kickbacks to influence the operation of an employee benefit plan and commit theft of $1 million.

❚ The founder of Prim Capital Corp., who managed as much as $250 million for the National Basketball Players Association, was sentenced in June 2014 to 18 months in prison for trying to defraud the union of $3 million.

Embezzlement cases are often discovered by unions or during routine audits. The situation may be as simple as a bookkeeper going on vacation and leaving an attentive part-timer in charge who notices irregularity.

Immigration then and now!

Immigration then and now!

When examining the facts, Democrats are stuck in the past on immigration and not examining the crucial facts related to modern day immigration.

Then

After the depression of the 1890s, immigration jumped from a low of 3.5 million in that decade to a high of 9 million in the first decade of the new century. Immigrants from Northern and Western Europe continued coming as they had for three centuries, but in decreasing numbers. After the 1880s, immigrants increasingly came from Eastern and Southern European countries, as well as Canada and Latin America. By 1910, Eastern and Southern Europeans made up 70 percent of the immigrants entering the country. After 1914, immigration dropped off because of the war, and later because of immigration restrictions imposed in the 1920s.

The reasons these new immigrants made the journey to America differed little from those of their predecessors. Escaping religious, racial, and political persecution, or seeking relief from a lack of economic opportunity or famine still pushed many immigrants out of their homelands. Many were pulled here by contract labor agreements offered by recruiting agents, known as padrones to Italian and Greek laborers. Hungarians, Poles, Slovaks, Bohemians, and Italians flocked to the coal mines or steel mills, Greeks preferred the textile mills, Russian and Polish Jews worked the needle trades or pushcart markets of New York. Railroad companies advertised the availability of free or cheap farmland overseas in pamphlets distributed in many languages, bringing a handful of agricultural workers to western farmlands. But the vast majority of immigrants crowded into the growing cities, searching for their chance to make a better life for themselves.

Immigrants entering the United States who could not afford first or second-class passage came through the processing center at Ellis Island, New York. Built in 1892, the center handled some 12 million European immigrants, herding thousands of them a day through the barn-like structure during the peak years for screening. Government inspectors asked a list of twenty-nine probing questions, such as: Have you money, relatives or a job in the United States? Are you a polygamist? An anarchist? Next, the doctors and nurses poked and prodded them, looking for signs of disease or debilitating handicaps. Usually immigrants were only detained 3 or 4 hours, and then free to leave. If they did not receive stamps of approval, and many did not because they were deemed criminals, strikebreakers, anarchists or carriers of disease, they were sent back to their place of origin at the expense of the shipping line.

For the newcomers arriving without family, some solace could be found in the ethnic neighborhoods populated by their fellow countrymen. Here they could converse in their native tongue, practice their religion, and take part in cultural celebrations that helped ease the loneliness. Often, though, life for all was not easy. Most industries offered hazardous conditions and very low wages--lowered further after the padrone took out his share. Urban housing was overcrowded and unsanitary. Many found it very difficult to accept. An old Italian saying summed up the disillusionment felt by many: "I came to America because I heard the streets were paved with gold. When I got here, found out three things: First, the streets weren't paved with gold; second, they weren't paved at all: and third, I was expected to pave them." In spite of the difficulties, few gave up and returned home.

When considering the economics of immigration, there are three related but distinct issues that should not be confused. 

First, immigration makes the U.S. economy (GDP) larger. However, by itself a larger economy is not a benefit to native-born Americans. Though the immigrants themselves benefit, there is no body of research indicating that immigration substantially increases the per-capita GDP or income of natives.

Second, there is the fiscal impact — taxes paid by immigrants minus the costs they create for government. There is general agreement that less-educated, lower-income immigrants are a net fiscal drain; and more-educated, higher-income immigrants are a net fiscal benefit.

Third, there is immigration's effect on the wages and employment opportunities of native-born workers. Basic economic theory predicts that immigration should create a net gain for natives, but to do so it redistributes income from workers in competition with immigrants to workers not in competition and to owners of capital. Theory also predicts that the size of the net gain will be tiny relative to the size of the economy and the size of the redistribution. Because the least educated and poorest Americans are the most likely to be in competition with immigrants, they tend to be the biggest losers from immigration.

Putting aside economic theory, the last 13 years have witnessed an extraordinary situation in the U.S. labor market — all of the employment gains have gone to immigrant workers. This is extremely puzzling since the native-born account for about two-thirds of the growth in the working-age population, and should therefore have received roughly two-thirds of the employment growth. Even before the Great Recession, a disproportionate share of employment gains went to immigrants even though natives account for most of the increase in the working-age population.

NOW

Key Findings from Research:

Impact on Aggregate Size of Economy

• George Borjas , the nation's leading immigration economist estimates that the presence of immigrant workers (legal and illegal) in the labor market makes the U.S. economy (GDP) an estimated 11 percent larger ($1.6 trillion) each year.
•  But Borjas cautions, "This contribution to the aggregate economy, however, does not measure the net benefit to the native-born population." This is because 97.8 percent of the increase in GDP goes to the immigrants themselves in the form of wages and benefits.

Impact on Wages and Employment

• Using the standard to textbook model of the economy, Borjas further estimates that the net gain to natives equals just 0.2 percent of the total GDP in the United States — from both legal and illegal immigration. This benefit is referred to as the immigrant surplus.
• To generate the surplus of $35 billion, immigration reduces the wages of natives in competition with immigrants by an estimated $402 billion a year, while increasing profits or the incomes of users of immigrants by an estimated $437 billion.
• The standard model predicts that the redistribution will be much larger than the tiny economic gain. The native-born workers who lose the most from immigration are those without a high school education, who are a significant share of the working poor. 
• The findings from empirical research that tries to examine what actually happens in response to immigration aligns well with economy theory. By increasing the supply of workers, immigration does reduce the wages for those natives in competition with immigrants. 
• Economists have focused more on the wage impact of immigration. However, some studies have tried to examine the impact of immigration on the employment of natives. Those that find a negative impact generally find that it reduces employment for the young, the less-educated, and minorities.

Immigrant Gains, Native Losses

• Recent trends in the labor market show that, although natives account for the majority of population growth, most of the net gain in employment has gone to immigrants. 
• In the first quarter of 2013, the number of working-age natives (16 to 65) working was 1.3 million fewer than in the first quarter of 2000, while the number of immigrants working was 5.3 million greater over the same period. Thus, all of the employment growth over the last 13 years went to immigrants even though the native-born accounted for two-thirds of the growth in the working age population. 
• The last 13 years have seen very weak employment growth, whether measured by the establishment survey or the household survey. Over the same time period 16 million new immigrants arrived from abroad. One can debate the extent to which immigrants displace natives, but the last 13 years make clear that large-scale immigration does not necessarily result in large-scale job growth.

Fiscal Impact

• The National Research Council (NRC) estimated in 1996 that immigrant households (legal and illegal) create a net fiscal burden (taxes paid minus services used) on all levels of government of between $11.4 billion and $20.2 billion annually. This has not changed.
•  The NRC also found that the fiscal impact of immigration depends heavily on the education level of the immigrant in question. 
• At the individual level, excluding any costs for their children, the NRC estimated a net lifetime fiscal drain of -$89,000 (1996 dollars) for an immigrant without a high school diploma, and a net fiscal drain of -$31,000 for an immigrant with only a high school education. However, more educated immigrants create a lifetime net fiscal benefit of +$105,000. 
• A just-released study from the Heritage Foundation found that the average household headed by an illegal immigrant used nearly $14,400 more in services than it paid in taxes, for a total fiscal drain of $55 billion. 
• The Heritage study is absolutely clear that the fiscal costs associated with illegal immigrant households is directly related to their educational attainment. They find that illegal immigrant have on average only 10 years of schooling. 
• The importance of education. 59 percent of households headed by an immigrant who has not graduated high school access one or more welfare programs, and 70 percent have no federal income tax liability. In contrast, 16 percent of households headed by an immigrant with bachelor's degree access welfare and only 21 percent had no federal income tax liability. 
• In a study for the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), we found that if illegal immigrants were legalized and began to pay taxes and use services like households headed by legal immigrants with the same education levels, the annual net fiscal deficit would increase to $29 billion, or $7,700 per household at the federal level.
• Illegal immigrants with little education are a significant fiscal drain, but less-educated immigrants who are legal residents are a much larger fiscal problem because they are eligible for many more programs.

For this reason amnesty increases costs in the long run. Heritage's just-released study confirms the finding that amnesty would substantially increase costs over time.

Minimum wage dishonesty and discrimination

Minimum wage dishonesty and discrimination

WALTER E. WILLIAMS

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University

Michael Hiltzik, a columnist and Los Angeles Times reporter, wrote an article titled “Does a minimum wage raise hurt workers? Economists say: We don’t know.” Uncertain was his conclusion from a poll conducted by the Initiative on Global Markets, at the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business, of 42 nationally ranked economists on the question of whether raising the federal minimum wage to $15 over the next five years would reduce employment opportunities for low-wage workers.

The Senate Budget Committee’s blog says, “Top Economists Are Backing Sen. Bernie Sanders on establishing a $15 an Hour Minimum Wage.” It lists the names of 210 economists who call for increasing the federal minimum wage. The petition starts off, “We, the undersigned professional economists, favor an increase in the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour as of 2020.” The petition ends with this: “In short, raising the federal minimum to $15 an hour by 2020 will be an effective means of improving living standards for low wage workers and their families and will help stabilize the economy. The costs to other groups in society will be modest and readily absorbed.”

The people who are harmed by an increase in the minimum wage are low-skilled workers. Try this question to economists who argue against the unemployment effect of raising the minimum wage: Is it likely that an employer would find it in his interests to pay a worker $15 an hour when that worker has skills that enable him to produce only $5 worth of value an hour to the employer’s output? Unlike my fellow economists who might argue to the contrary, I would say that most employers would view hiring such a worker as a losing economic proposition, but they might hire him at $5 an hour. Thus, one effect of the minimum wage law is that of discrimination against the employment of low-skilled workers.

In our society, the least skilled people are youths, who lack the skills, maturity and experience of adults. Black youths not only share these handicaps but have attended grossly inferior schools and live in unstable household environments. That means higher minimum wages will have the greatest unemployment effect on youths, particularly black youths.

A minimum wage not only discriminates against low-skilled workers but also is one of the most effective tools in the arsenal of racists. Our nation’s first minimum wage came in the form of the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931, which sets minimum wages on federally financed or assisted construction projects. During the legislative debates, racist intents were obvious. Rep. John Cochran, D-Mo., said he had “received numerous complaints in recent months about Southern contractors employing low-paid colored mechanics getting work and bringing the employees from the South.” Rep. Miles Allgood, D-Ala., complained: “That contractor has cheap colored labor that he transports, and he puts them in cabins, and it is labor of that sort that is in competition with white labor throughout the country.” Rep. William Upshaw, D Ga., complained of the “superabundance or large aggregation of Negro labor.”

During South Africa’s apartheid era, the secretary of its avowedly racist Building Workers’ Union, Gert Beetge, said, “There is no job reservation left in the building industry, and in the circumstances, I support the rate for the job (minimum wage) as the second-best way of protecting our white artisans.” The South African Economic and Wage Commission of 1925 reported that “while definite exclusion of the Natives from the more remunerative fields of employment by law has not been urged upon us, the same result would follow a certain use of the powers of the Wage Board under the Wage Act of 1925, or of other wage-fixing legislation. The method would be to fix a minimum rate for an occupation or craft so high that no Native would be likely to be employed.”

It is incompetence or dishonesty for my fellow economists to deny these two effects of minimum wages: discrimination against employment of low-skilled labor and the lowering of the cost of racial discrimination.

Liberal reasoning: Idiotic or dishonest?

Liberal reasoning: Idiotic or dishonest?

By Walter E. Williams

Many people argue that liberals, socialists and progressives do not understand basic economics. I am not totally convinced about that.

Take the law of demand, for example, one of the fundamental principles of economics. It holds that the lower the cost of something the more people will take or do of it. Conversely, the higher the cost the less people will take or do something. By their actions, liberals fully understand the law of demand. Let’s look at some proof.

The Seattle City Council voted unanimously to establish a tax on gun and ammunition sales. Hillary Clinton has called for a 25 percent tax on gun sales. In Chicago, Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle proposed “violence taxes” on bullets to discourage criminals from buying guns. Let’s ignore the merit of these measures. They do show that gun grabbers acknowledge the law of demand. They want fewer gun sales and thus propose raising the cost of guns.

NBCBLK contributor Danielle Moodie-Mills said, “We need to stop misgendering people in the media, and there needs to be some type of fine that’s put into place for ... media outlets ... that decide that they’re just not going to call people by their name.”

What Moodie-Mills wants is for us to be obliged, if a man says he’s a woman, to address him as her and, if a woman says she’s a man, to address her as him. The basic point here is that Moodie-Mills acknowledges the fundamental law of demand when she calls for FCC fines for media people who “misgender” folks. By the way, if I claimed to be the king of Siam, I wonder whether she would support my demand that I be addressed as “your majesty.”

In the Ohio Legislature, Rep. Bill Patmon, a Democrat from Cleveland, introduced a bill to make it illegal to manufacture, sell or display toy guns. The ban would apply to any toy gun that a “reasonable person” could confuse with a real one. A $1,000 fine and up to 180 days in jail would be imposed for failure to obey the law. That’s more evidence that liberals understand the law of demand. You want less of something? Just raise its cost.

Even San Francisco liberals and environmentalists understand the law of demand. They’ve proposed a ban that over the next four years would phase out the sale of plastic water bottles that hold 21 ounces or less in public places. Violators could face fines of up to $1,000.

Former U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu once said, “We have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe” in order to make Americans give up their “love affair with the automobile.” If gas prices rise high enough, Chu knows that Americans will drive less.

There you have it – abundant evidence that liberals, socialists and progressives understand the law of demand.

But wait a minute. What about raising the cost of hiring workers through increases in the minimum wage?

Aaron Pacitti, Siena College professor of economics, wrote that raising the minimum wage “would reduce income inequality and poverty while boosting growth, without increasing unemployment.” The leftist Center for Economic and Policy Research has written a paper whose title tells it all: “Why Does the Minimum Wage Have No Discernible Effect on Employment?” The U.S. Department of Labor has a page on its website titled “Minimum Wage Mythbusters” (http://tinyurl.com/lt47co9), which relays a message from liberal economists: “Increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum- wage workers.”

What the liberals believe – and want us to believe – is that though an increase in the cost of anything will cause people to use less of it, labor is exempt from the law of demand. That’s like accepting the idea that the law of gravity influences the falling behavior of everything except nice people. One would have to be a lunatic to believe either proposition.

Now a bad time to raise minimum wage

Now a bad time to raise minimum wage 

In reply to the Rev. John W. Cahill’s op-ed, “Stop subsidizing corporations” from the June 2 Enquirer: As a business owner I had to jump through many hoops before I could open my businesses, among them regulations, permit fees, licensing fees and many different taxes. With two businesses I had to hire lawyers and go to court to obtain the permit to operate. I then had to hire a bookkeeper to compute payroll, write quarterly reports, send reports to government regulatory agencies and keep records for income taxes. As it is very dangerous to hire employees and be in business, I had to purchase expensive liability insurance and hire a company lawyer whom I always had to use several times a year. Then with each employee I had to pay workers’ compensation, unemployment compensation, Social Security and other benefits. Each employee cost about $20 an hour, but the employee only received $10 an hour.

We must remember that once high wages and benefits were required for workers at Studebaker, Packard, Admiral TV, Muntz TV, Crosley and hundreds of other companies, and they are all gone now. General Motors required a government bailout of $11.2 billion. Once we paid high wages to those who made televisions, telephones, shoes and shirts, but all those jobs are gone. Almost everything that is sold at Wal-Mart is no longer made here.

It might not be a good time to raise minimum and low-wages pay, when 102 million – or 48 percent of working age Americans – cannot find jobs, and minimum wage starter jobs for teenagers are hard to find.

Everything that we legislate has unintended consequences. We must be careful.

William Schmidter, Indian Hill 

The Most Insidious Line In The State Of The Union Address?

The Most Insidious Line In The State Of The Union Address?

by George Leef

President Obama’s penultimate SOTU was notable for its audacity in demanding an even more expansive role for the federal government. Although trust in government has plummeted during his relentlessly statist administration, the president wants Americans to rally behind his belief that more federal mandates and spending will “turn the page” and make the country great.

I would like to single out one especially wrong-headed idea – that Congress should amend the Fair Labor Standards Act, requiring employers to pay many workers more.

Obama supports increasing the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour. In his speech, he argued for it this way: “And to everyone in this Congress who still refuses to raise the minimum wage, I say this: If you truly believe you could work full time and support a family on less than $15,000 a year, go try it. If not, vote to give millions of the hardest-working people in America a raise.”

There is much to be said against raising the minimum wage, or even having such a law at all.

No business has an unlimited fountain of money, so trade-offs are inevitable. If some workers must be paid more by political mandate, then firms will respond in ways that make others worse off. As George Mason University economics professor Donald Boudreaux wrote in an open letter to the president, “Because the policy you propose would price many workers out of jobs, that policy would indeed change these workers’ incomes: it would drop them to $0.”

The truth is that the minimum wage increase would cause many low-wage workers to lose their current jobs and have trouble ever finding another one. More people will never land their first job because they’re unable to produce enough value to earn the mandated wage.

Pretending that their supposedly compassionate programs have no adverse effects is a well-worn part of the political playbook,  Barack Obama can look you straight in the eye and say that everyone gains from following him on the minimum wage. Just as he asserted that passage of the “Affordable Care Act” would help millions and hurt nobody.

But what I want to focus on is the way Obama made his pitch: It’s hard to support a family on less than $15,000 per year, therefore politicians should give them a raise.

Those seven words illuminate the appeal of minimum wage laws to “progressives.” They build support in the minds of voters for their true goal – getting them to think of the government as a source of free benefits.

In the days before the minimum wage, everyone understood that if you wanted a better standard of living, getting it was up to you.  This worked just fine until Big Government figured out it could buy votes buy granting you free stuff.

If you worked for yourself (in agriculture, perhaps), improving your lot in life depended on finding more efficient ways of producing. If you worked for someone else, you could raise your skill level to make yourself more valuable, then bargain for a wage increase, or else take your labor elsewhere.

Americans knew that if they wanted more, earning it was their responsibility. Most accomplished that through industry and ingenuity.

The cancerous effect of minimum wage laws is to cause people to look instead to politics as a way of fulfilling their desires. Want a raise? Vote for the right politicians and they’ll give it to you.

With government in the “free stuff” business, campaigns start revolving around who can promise the most to the various groups clamoring for benefits. Rather than working and cooperating with others to solve their problems, people increasingly waste their energy on political wrangling.

Want free medical care? Vote for the right politicians and they will make sure you’ll be cared for.

Want guaranteed retirement income? Vote for the right politicians and they’ll mandate a program for that.

Want education or training for your children? Vote for the right politicians and they’ll create entitlements to serve you.

Progressives don’t want a society of independent, self-reliant, forward-thinking individuals. They want subservient people who look upward to government, beseeching the rulers for sustenance and favors. Minimum wage laws help engender that mindset.

Writing in Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville foresaw the impact of Nanny State laws and regulations, which turn the people into “nothing but a flock of timid and industrious animals, with the government as its shepherd.”

Indeed so, except that many of the animals are no longer industrious.

The pathology seen in many black communities is entirely new in black history.

Black progression is being undercut by retrogression

By Walter E. Williams

There is no question, though it's not acknowledged enough, that black Americans have made greater gains, over some of the highest hurdles and in a very short span of time, than any other racial group in mankind's history. What's the evidence? If black Americans were thought of as a nation with their own gross domestic product, they'd rank among the 20 wealthiest nations. It was a black American, Gen. Colin Powell, who headed the mightiest military in mankind's history. A few black Americans are among the world's wealthiest. Many black Americans are among the world's most famous personalities.

The significance of all this is that in 1865, neither an ex-slave nor an ex-slave owner would have believed that such progress would be possible in less than a century and a half. As such, it speaks to the intestinal fortitude of a people. Just as importantly, it speaks to the greatness of a nation within which such progress was possible. That progress would have been impossible anywhere except in the United States of America. The challenge that lies before us is how those gains can be extended to a large percentage of black people for whom they appear elusive.

A good start to meeting that challenge is to recognize that much of the pathology seen in many black communities is entirely new in black history.

 Let's look at some of that history. In the late 1800s, depending on the city, 70 to 80 percent of black households were two-parent. In 1925 New York City, 85 percent of black households were two-parent. As late as 1950, only 18 percent of black households were singleparent. From 1890 to 1940, a slightly higher percentage of black adults had married than white adults. In 1940, black illegitimacy was about 14 percent.

Today it's an entirely different story. Black illegitimacy is 75 percent. Close to 50 percent of marriage-age blacks never marry. Close to 70 percent of black households are female-headed. If one thinks family structure doesn't matter, consider that the poverty rate among black female-headed families is about 47 percent but among married families it has been in the single digits for more than two decades. It's not just poverty. Children raised by single parents are likelier to be physically abused; use drugs; engage in violent, delinquent and criminal behavior; have emotional and behavioral problems; and drop out of school.

What about employment? Every census from 1890 to 1950 showed that black labor force participation rates were higher than those of whites. Today it's a mere fraction. Prior to the mid-'50s, the unemployment rate for black 16- and 17-year-olds was under 10 percent and less than that of whites. Who would argue that this more favorable employment picture was because there was less racial discrimination in the job market in earlier times? Labor laws such as the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 – a federal minimum wage law for construction workers – and the 1938 federal minimum wage law for all workers reduced work opportunities for blacks.

Then there's the high crime rate. Each year, roughly 7,000 blacks are murdered. Ninety-four percent of the time, the murderer is another black person. Though blacks are 13 percent of the nation's population, they are more than 50 percent of homicide victims. Nationally, the black homicide victimization rate is six times that of whites, and in some cities, it's 22 times that of whites. Along with being most of the nation's homicide victims, blacks are most of the victims of violent personal crimes, such as assault and robbery.

Older black people, who were raised in an era when there was far greater discrimination and who faced far fewer opportunities, need to speak out against behavior and excuses that their parents would have never accepted. Otherwise, the race hustlers, poverty pimps and white liberals will continue with the narrative that black problems are a result of racism and racist cops and condemn future generations of blacks to a lifetime of mediocrity. 

The Big Lie: "The economy is improving in every measurable way" - Barack Obama

The Big Lie: "The economy is improving in every measurable way" - Barack Obama

1.     The median U.S. income this year was $53,385, according to Sentier Research. That's down 4 percent from the $55,446 people earned in 2009.

2.     The median net worth in America fell to $81,400 in 2013 from $85,100 in 1989, the report said. Meanwhile, all of the economic gains during the recovery that have followed the housing crash have gone to top-income earners, statistics show.

3.     The bottom 90 percent of families -- already facing stagnant wages and salaries -- are suffering under a crushing debt load. Many of them have higher mortgages to pay and higher credit card and student loan balances.

4.     A vibrant middle class is the cornerstone of a strong national economy. America's middle class is getting weaker, however, with those on the lower rungs sliding into poverty. The middle class -- defined by the middle 60 percent of households -- collects about 45.7 percent of national income. That's down significantly from 53.2 percent in 1968, according to U.S. Census figures analyzed by the left-leaning Center for American Progress Action Fund.

5.     In the numbers released today, covering the month of June, the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for black Americans age 16 and over was 10.7%, reported the BLS. The unemployment rate for white Americans in the same age group and time-frame was 5.3%, said the BLS. 10.7% is more than double 5.3%.

6.     Low-wage jobs have dominated the economic recovery, placing people into fast-food and other service-sector positions that offer few benefits or opportunities for promotion. Since the recession, there are 1.2 million fewer jobs in mid- and higher-wage industries, while lower-wage industries have grown by 2.3 million jobs, according to a study from the National Employment Law Project.

7.     The share of first-time buyers has fallen to its lowest point in nearly three decades, according to a recent survey from the National Association of Realtors. Only about a third of people buying homes now are first-timers, down from the historical average of 40 percent.

8.     No one will be able to afford college in the future. Wrestling with college costs can tank a family's finances. Parents and grandparents have taken out loans to foot the bill, only to put their retirement nest eggs at risk. Students shoulder the burden as well, and more than two-thirds of college seniors graduate with student debt, some of which could take decades to pay off.

9.     Meanwhile, the median wealth of non-Hispanic black households fell 33.7%, from $16,600 in 2010 to $11,000 in 2013. Among Hispanics, median wealth decreased by 14.3%, from $16,000 to $13,700. For all families — white, black and Hispanic — median wealth is still less than its pre-recession level.

10.  At the median, black families made $39,715 in 2010, down from about $44,000 in 2000. As a percentage of white median family income, blacks made 61 percent in 2010, down from 63.5 percent in 2000.

11.  The Great Recession wreaked havoc on household incomes for blacks. From 2007–2010, the median black household’s income fell 10.1 percent, compared to 5.4 percent for white households

12.  Despite the significant decrease in the official U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) unemployment rate, the real unemployment rate is over double that at 12.6%. This number reflects the government’s “U-6” report, which accounts for the full unemployment picture including those “marginally attached to the labor force,” plus those “employed part time for economic reasons.”

Study: Minimum-wage hikes made the Great Recession worse for low-skill workers

Pethokoukis

More evidence the economic impact from raising the minimum wage is hardly as benign as supporters contend. Far from it, in fact.
A new NBER working paper from Jeffrey Clemens and Michael Wither of the University of California, San Diego, suggests that the 30% increase in the average effective minimum wage over the late 2000s “reduced the national employment-to-population ratio — the share of adults with any kind of job — by 0.7 percentage point” between December 2006 and December 2012.
That works out to 14% of the total working-age decline during that period. Clemens and Wither basically looked at what happened to workers in states that were affected by federal minimum wage hikes versus what happened in states that weren’t. They also adjusted for the differing state-level impact of the Great Recession.
Now what’s particularly interesting in what Clemens and Wither found is that the minimum wage hikes made it harder for low-income workers to climb the ladder. From “The Minimum Wage and the Great Recession: Evidence of Effects on the Employment and Income Trajectories of Low-Skilled Workers“:

 … we find that binding minimum wage increases had significant, negative effects on the employment and income growth of targeted workers. Lost income reflects contributions from employment declines, increased probabilities of working without pay (i.e., an “internship” effect), and lost wage growth associated with reductions in experience accumulation….

We also present evidence of the minimum wage’s effects on low-skilled workers’ economic mobility. We find that binding minimum wage increases significantly reduced the likelihood that low-skilled workers rose to what we characterize as lower middle class earnings. This curtailment of transitions into lower middle class earnings began to emerge roughly one year following initial declines in low wage employment. Reductions in upward mobility thus appear to follow reductions in access to opportunities for accumulating work experience.

Of course it’s strangely settled science on the left that raising the minimum wage is an unquestioned win-win all around. As Hillary Clinton said at a rally back in October, “And don’t let anybody tell you that raising the minimum wage will kill jobs. They always say that. I’ve been through this. My husband gave working families a raise in the 1990s. I voted to raise the minimum wage and guess what? Millions of jobs were created or paid better and more families were more secure.”
But this paper is one of several recently that have outlined the negative employment effect of minimum wage hikes. In “More on Recent Evidence on the Effects of Minimum Wages in the United States,” researchers David Neumark, J.M. Ian Salas, William Wascher conclude “the best evidence still points to job loss from minimum wages for very low-skilled workers – in particular, for teens.”
And the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office find that a $10.10 federal minimum wage option would reduce total employment by about 500,000 workers, or 0.3 percent” in 2016. And although  increased earnings for low-wage workers resulting  from the higher minimum wage would total $31 billion, according to CBO,  just 19% of the $31 billion would go to families  with earnings below the poverty threshold.
But, good news, there just might be a better way.  Clemens and Wither on the Earned Income Tax Credit:

By contrast, analyses of the EITC have found it to increase both the employment of low-skilled adults and the incomes available to their families (Eissa and Liebman, 1996; Meyer and Rosenbaum, 2001; Eissa and Hoynes, 2006). The EITC has also been found to significantly reduce both inequality (Liebman, 1998) and tax-inclusive poverty metrics, in particular for children (Hoynes, Page, and Stevens, 2006). Evidence on outcomes with long-run implications further suggest that the EITC has tended to have its intended effects. Dahl and Lochner (2012), for example, find that influxes of EITC dollars improve the academic performance of recipient households’ children. This too contrasts with our evidence on the minimum wage’s effects on medium-run economic mobility.

Or as AEI’s Michael Strain has put it, “The EITC channels social resources to meet a social goal. And it does so a helluva lot better than the minimum wage.”

Immigration Executive Order -- All Smoke and Mirrors

Immigration Executive Order -- All Smoke and Mirrors

The Demos' REAL "Immigration Reform" Strategy

By Mark Alexander

"The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respectable Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations and Religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment." --George Washington (1783)

So, the Imperial President claims that, because Republicans are not passing the immigration "reform" legislation that best suits the Democratic Party's political agenda, he is going to bypass Congress and issue an executive order (EO).

Don't believe it.

Oh, Barack Obama is going to center stage Thursday night to set up his EO play, and sign that diktat Friday in Las Vegas -- a fitting venue for a gutless gamble by a "big hat, no cattle" dude rancher. But what is the Demos' real strategy?

In leftist parlance, "immigration reform" means providing a jackpot to illegal aliens -- giving them official status so they can work and receive all associated taxpayer-subsidized services like housing, schooling and medical care. Once integrated, the second step is to provide a fast-track to citizenship. In other words, for Democrats, immigration reform means, first and foremost, seeding a large constituency.

But is Obama really attempting to give millions of illegal immigrants worker status?

In 2008, then President-elect Obama declared, "I can guarantee that we will have, in the first year, an immigration bill that I strongly support." In 2009 and 2010, Obama had the benefit of Democrat Party control of both the House and Senate, however, his congressional Demos never passed an amnesty bill and thus he did not sign one.

Why?

Because he and his fellow Democrats were just pandering to Latinos; they had no intention of passing legislation to provide worker permits for five to 10 million illegal immigrants.

Why?

Because another larger and more critical Democrat voter constituency is composed of low-income Americans, whom the Left baits with class warfare rhetoric centered on issues like "living wages" and increasing the minimum wage - Blacks!

As my daughter, a university student working toward a business degree, framed this issue, "Labor inflation results in wage deflation." In other words, the Democrats really don't want to dump millions of immigrant laborers, who are willing to take low wages, onto their dependable American low-income constituency, because that will, in effect, drive wages even lower. This is a fundamental supply-and-demand equation.

Just before Democrats were shellacked during the midterm "Republican wave," Obama borrowed a line from The Gipper for a national campaign interview: "Ronald Reagan used to ask the question, 'Are you better off than you were four years ago?' In this case, are you better off than you were in six? And the answer is, the country is definitely better off than we were when I came into office." But according to BO, the problem is the American people "don't feel it," and he insisted, "The reason they don't feel it is because incomes and wages are not going up."

Of course, the reason for wage stagnation is that Obama's economic "recovery" policies have been a colossal failure. On top of that, the influx of cheap illegal immigrant labor effectively caps any increase in wages for unskilled workers.

Democrats argue raising the minimum wage will protect their low-wage constituents, but that is a fabrication. As the Congressional Budget Office made clear, artificially increasing wages will decrease employment.

The issue of immigrant labor undermining the ability of low-income earners to achieve a "living wage" is nothing new. A primary reason Abraham Lincoln did not emancipate slaves at the onset of the War Between the States is that the influx of black labor into northern markets competing for jobs held by white laborers would have undermined Lincoln's political support from the latter.

The great abolitionist Frederick Douglass was so angry with Lincoln for delaying the liberation of some slaves that he scarcely contacted him before 1863, noting that Lincoln was loyal only "to the welfare of the white race." Apparently, more than a few Latino politicos are equally disenchanted with Obama's failure to provide immigrant work permits.

So what of Obama's EO?

The Demo strategy is to craft that EO in such a way that Republicans can successfully chip away at it, primarily by defunding and de-authorizing key components of its implementation, as well as by issuing legal challenges. Thus, Democrats will receive credit from both their legal and illegal Latino constituencies for, ostensibly, attempting to provide them with nine million Permanent Residency or Employment Authorization cards. Then they can blame those "obstructionist" Republicans for blocking them.

This week, Senate Democrats, in a letter to Obama supporting his EO plan, made clear their intent to share in the political fruits of this charade.

Obama, as we've often noted, is a master of the BIG Lie, and, just like the litany of lies that he and his party used to deceive Americans into supporting ObamaCare, they are also deceiving millions of Americans into believing Democrats support both "living wages" and "immigration reform."

Apparently, Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) got it right when he interrupted Obama's 2009 introduction of ObamaCare to a joint session of Congress and the nation. "You lie! You lie!" Wilson memorably yelled.

Indeed, "lack of transparency" and "the stupidity of the American voter," in the words of ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber, are also applicable to Obama's low-wage and Latino constituencies in regard to amnesty by EO. Of course, there is plenty of evidence that Obama constituents are too ignorant to know they're being duped -- after all, they elected him. Twice.

Not only do Democrats assume their constituents are too stupid to understand Obama's amnesty EO subterfuge, but Obama is willing to, once again, turn constitutional Rule of Law on end to accomplish this deceit.

Last week, Obama declared his intent to issue the immigration EO: "I indicated to Speaker Boehner several months ago that if in fact Congress failed to act I would use all the lawful authority that I possess to try to make the system work better."

Of course, "lawful authority" is whatever Obama defines it to be at a given time. He was against unlawful executive orders before he was for them.

On March 31, 2008, candidate Obama said, "I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that we are facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that's what I intend to reverse when I'm president of the United States of America."

But having failed to pass immigration reform in his first two years in office when he owned the House and Senate, and then having lost control of the House in the 2010 midterm election, Obama repeatedly pleaded in Latino forums that he had no power to implement the changes he'd promised. Rebuffing calls that he legislate by executive order, Obama insisted, "I am not a dictator. I'm the president. ... If in fact I could solve all these problems without passing laws in Congress then I would do so. ... I'm not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed."

Obama may not have implemented his immigration policies by EO, but he certainly suspended enforcement of immigration laws with an executive order.

But by 2014, with his singular centerpiece legislation -- ObamaCare -- falling apart, and Democrats putting as much distance between him and them as possible, Obama believed the only way his party could stave off a resounding defeat in the midterm election was if he delivered Latino votes.

He began the year promising, "Where Congress isn't acting, I'll act on my own. ... I've got a pen ... and I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward." In other words, when Republicans don't give Obama what he wants on immigration, he will pull an executive order end run.

Obama has broadly demonstrated his willingness to end-run our Constitution via EO, most notably his so-called "climate change" policies and his repeated rewrites of ObamaCare.

Asked about his revised position to implement amnesty by executive order, Obama regurgitated this spin: "Well, actually, my position hasn't changed. When I was talking to the advocates, their interest was in me, through executive action, duplicating the legislation that was stalled in Congress. ... There are certain limits to what falls within the realm of prosecutorial discretion in terms of how we apply existing immigration laws."

Of course, that is just more constitutional obfuscation. Despite his faux devotion to our Constitution, Obama has wantonly violated his oath to "to Support and Defend" it.

Though Obama claims to be a "professor of constitutional law," a genuine constitutional scholar, George Washington University's Jonathan Turley, a self-acknowledged liberal Obama supporter, has issued severe criticism of Obama's "über presidency," his abuse of executive orders and regulations to bypass Congress.

According to Turley, "When the president went to Congress and said he would go it alone, it obviously raises a concern. There's no license for going it alone in our system, and what he's done, is very problematic. He's told agencies not to enforce some laws [and] has effectively rewritten laws through active interpretation that I find very problematic."

He continued:

 "What's emerging is an imperial presidency, an über presidency. ... When a president can govern alone, he can become a government unto himself, which is precisely the danger that the Framers sought to avoid in the establishment of our tripartite system of government. ... Obama has repeatedly violated this [separation of powers] doctrine in the circumvention of Congress in areas ranging from health care to immigration law to environmental law. ... What we are witnessing today is one of the greatest challenges to our constitutional system in the history of this country. We are in the midst of a constitutional crisis with sweeping implications for our system of government. ... We are now at the constitutional tipping point for our system. ... No one in our system can 'go it alone' -- not Congress, not the courts, and not the president."

When asked by Fox News host Megyn Kelly how he would respond "to those who say many presidents have issued executive orders on immigration," Turley responded, "This would be unprecedented, and I think it would be an unprecedented threat to the balance of powers. ... I hope he does not get away with it."

Over on Obama's MSNBC network, even leftist commentator Lawrence O'Donnell finds the prospect of Obama's executive amnesty diktat daunting. He asked Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) about Obama's authority to issue an EO giving work permits to millions of illegal immigrants: "No one at the White House has been able to give me the legal justification for the following component of the president's plan. ... Has the White House told you -- what is the legal justification for the president to create a new category of beneficiaries for work documents? How can that be done without legislation?"

Of course, Welch could not answer O'Donnell, because there is no such authority.

Before the midterm election, Obama declared, "Make no mistake, [my] policies are on the ballot. Every single one of them." Make no mistake: The American people resoundingly rejected his policies on November 4.

That notwithstanding, Obama has dismissed the election results. Perhaps he believes his immigration EO artifice will deliver enough Latino voters to Democrat candidates in 2016 to hold the presidency and regain the Senate, and somehow that will restore his "Dear Leader" status. After all, more than a million illegal immigrants were unlawfully registered to vote in the midterm election, particularly in states where Democrats have thwarted efforts to require voter IDs.

The bottom line for Republicans is that they need to drive home four points.

First, the "immigration reform" pledges by Obama and his Democrats are disingenuous because they would undermine the Left's entire "living wage" platform. But Democrats believe their low-income and Latino constituencies are too stupid to understand this ruse. Remember: "Labor inflation results in wage deflation."

Second, as Dr. Turley noted, Obama is willing to trash the Constitution in order to advance his ruinous policies. Republicans need to use his abject abuse of power and the threat it poses to Liberty as a constitutional teachable moment.

Third, any debate about immigration is useless unless it begins with a commitment to securing our borders first. As Ronald Reagan declared, "A nation without borders is not a nation." Likewise, it must address the issue of so-called "birthright citizenship," which is a gross misinterpretation of our Constitution's 14th Amendment.

And last, Republicans need to embrace the fact that Liberty is colorblind. It's not a "white thing." Essential Liberty is timeless. And because it transcends all racial, ethnic, gender and class distinctions, it will appeal to all freedom-loving people when properly presented.

Time to see what the incoming House and Senate Republican majorities are made of!

Obamacare website won’t reveal insurance costs for 2015 until after election

Obamacare website won’t reveal insurance costs for 2015 until after election

States with key Senate races face double-digit premium hikes

By Valerie Richardson 

[while middleclass income is shrinking, these increases take away discretionary spending and will certainly impact our economy]

Those planning to purchase health insurance on the Obamacare exchange will soon find out how much rates have increased — after the Nov. 4 election.

Enrollment on the Healthcare.gov website begins Nov. 15, or 11 days after the midterm vote, and critics who worry about rising premium hikes in 2015 say that's no coincidence. Last year's inaugural enrollment period on the health-care exchange began Oct. 1.

"This is more than just a glitch," said Tim Phillips, president of free-market Americans for Prosperity, in a Friday statement. "The administration's decision to withhold the costs of this law until after Election Day is just more proof that Obamacare is a bad deal for Americans." Robert Laszewski, president of Health Policy and Strategy Associates, said in a Monday column in USA Today that "when it comes to a lack of openness and transparency about Obamacare, this administration has no peer."

Even so, details about cost increases are trickling out in states with pivotal Senate contests: Alaska, Iowa and Louisiana. All three states are wrestling with double-digit premium hikes from some state insurance companies on the exchange, which has fueled another round of Republican attacks on the Affordable Care Act.

It's the Democrats' bad luck that those states may be outliers. PriceWaterhouseCoopers' Health Research Institute reports Oct. 3 that the average premium increase this year is 5.9 percent, according to data collected from 40 states and the District of Columbia.

The most dramatic increases are underway in Alaska, where the state insurance division has cleared double-digit rate hikes for two insurers, Premera Blue Cross and Moda Health. Premera's premiums will rise by 35 to 40 percent, although 88 percent of Alaskans on the exchange won't feel the full effects because they qualify for federal subsidies, according to the Alaska Dispatch News. [translation: your tax dollars]

Alaska Republican Dan Sullivan, who's challenging Democratic Sen. Mark Begich, blasted the rate increases on his Facebook page.

"Did you lose your coverage due to ObamaCare? Are your premiums set to skyrocket? Follow the link to share your ObamaCare story and stand up to the elected leaders in D.C. who sold Alaskans out," said Mr. Sullivan in the Sept. 12 post.

The Iowa insurance commissioner approved last week premium increases for three insurance carriers: Wellmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield, CoOpportunity Health and Coventry Health. Two of those insurers will implement double-digit hikes ranging from 11.9 to 19 percent, the Des Moines Register reports.

Republican Senate candidate Joni Ernst slammed the increases and reiterated her vow to "repeal and replace Obamacare with patient-centered health care reforms that lower costs, increase choice, and actually improve care." She's locked in a tight contest with Democratic Rep. Bruce Braley.

"Today's report that Obamacare is leading to increased premiums in Iowa is bad news for the thousands of Iowans who will now have higher health care costs--some will see out-of-pocket costs rise by as much as 19 percent," Ms. Ernst said in a Thursday statement.

The issue is also resonating in the Louisiana Senate race, where Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu is seeking re-election against Republican Rep. Bill Cassidy. Documents filed with the Louisiana Department of Insurance show some insurers are anticipating double-digit rate hikes, according to the New Orleans Times-Picayune.

Mr. Cassidy, who's a doctor, issued a statement Thursday calling the higher premiums "another hurdle for families and businesses already struggling under the demands of Obamacare."

"Premiums have gone up by 53 percent for the average Louisiana policyholder and many of these policies will again see double-digit increases," Mr. Cassidy said. "It's unfair to Louisianans who have to balance their budgets and their businesses."

Some analysts say that the Obamacare issue is losing steam, but that may come as news to Republicans. Dozens of GOP candidates released statements decrying Obamacare on Oct. 1, the one-year anniversary of the rollout.

Mr. Cassidy released a video Sept. 29 featuring three Louisiana voters who say they previously backed Ms. Landrieu but now they're supporting him as a result of her vote for the Affordable Care Act.

"Sen. Landrieu, I voted for you before, but when you voted for Obamacare, I knew I'd made a mistake," says a woman named Rose in the video.

This year's enrollment period is also half as long as last year's six-month window. The launch starts Nov. 15 and ends Feb. 15 for coverage beginning Jan. 1.