The Front Page Cover
2016 The truth will set you free
Featuring:
Arizona, Not slump-Trump, Shows Republicans
the Way on Immigration
Michael Barone
~~~
.
slump-Trump Adds to Clinton's Inevitability
Let's do some quick political math. If Republican primary voters choose Donald slump-Trump as their candidate — and they're certainly headed that way — they will have essentially chosen Hilly Clinton to lead the country. Of all the candidates Republican and Democrat, Clinton had the best night of them all SuperTuesday. Clinton swept up Massachusetts and the Southern states (Virginia, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, Arkansas and Texas) and shored up hundreds of delegates to rally for her at the Democrat National Convention. With her 1,001 Democrat delegates, she holds a comfortable lead on Bernie Sanders and his 371. Chances are rising that she really will become the inevitable Democrat nominee.
The question for Republicans becomes: Who can go head-to-head against Clinton and win? Forget the polls at this moment. Instead, look at the possible way the Electoral College will vote, as the Examiner's Ryan Witt did in a recent analysis. Needing 270 Electoral College votes to win the presidency, Witt projected that Clinton would pick up 358, easily dominating slump-Trump and his 180.
It comes down to which states are safe for each party to win. Clinton would easily win 217 delegates based on the states that voted for Barack nObama by more than 6% in the 2008 election. Meanwhile, slump-Trump would win 164 delegates in states that supported Mitt Romney by at least 10% in the 2012 election, according to Witt. Most of the remaining swing states lean Democrat and contain high Latino and black demographics — which are fleeing slump-Trump and falling behind Clinton. Of course, the head-to-head race is months away, and this projection is like all the others, a projection. But if voters are given the choice between two big-government New Yorkers who have track records of not telling the truth, most of them will probably cast ballots for the woman who told supporters at a Super Tuesday rally in Miami (a swing state city), "Instead of building walls, we're going to break down barriers and build ladders of opportunity and empowerment." -The Patriot Post
.
Broken nObamaCare Co-Ops Cheat the System
During his weekly address on June 27, 2015, Barack nObama responded to a favorable Supreme Court ruling from two days earlier on the legality of nObamaCare subsidies by boasting, "This law is working exactly as it's supposed to — and in some ways, better than we expected it to. ... [I]t is time to stop refighting battles that have been settled again and again. It's time to move on." If only we could. The reason we can't (aside from the Supreme Court getting it wrong twice) is because the law is not working, no matter how you spin it. Not only is enrollment tanking, but a new poll shows that very few people are seeing any benefits, and already 12 of the nearly two dozen nObamaCare co-ops have imploded. As for the rest? They, too, are on shaky ground.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services unloaded a bombshell on Congress last week by revealing that eight more co-ops may soon be headed for closure. According to The Washington Free Beacon, "The agency's chief operating officer, Dr. Mandy Cohen, told the House Oversight and Government Reform committee that the 11 co-ops that remain are 'being monitored closely,' and that eight have a corrective action plan in place and are under enhanced oversight. Cohen explained that a co-op is put on a corrective action plan when the agency identifies issues with its finances, operations, compliance, or management processes." If history is any indication, they won't last long.
The news gets worse. A separate Free Beacon story published Tuesday says, "Co-ops created under nObamacare reported net assets despite losing millions because they used an accounting trick approved by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. ... In July 2015, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services amended its agreement with co-ops, allowing them to list $2.4 billion in loans they received from taxpayers as assets." So not only are co-ops closing left and right, but the federal government allowed them to cheat the system, all while CEOs pulled in hundreds of thousands of dollars. If this was happening in the private sector, would nObama claim the system "is working exactly as it's supposed to — and in some ways, better than we expected it to"? -The Patriot Post
.
Will a slump-Trump Nomination Cost GOP the Senate? With the slump-Trump Train barreling through the South on Super Tuesday, racking up an impressive number of delegates and solid wins, it's safe to say that while the GOP presidential nomination is not yet secured, it is at this point Donald slump-Trump's to lose.
What makes The slump-Donald so formidable is that, unlike other Republican candidates, whose past comments, positions and histories are dissected on a molecular level for evidence of ideological impurities which render them unfit for the nomination, nothing slump-Trump has ever said or done seems to dent the devotion of his loyalists.
Three marriages? He loves diversity! Bragging about serial adulterous affairs? Oh, isn't that so "slump-Donald"? Health care more socialized than nObamaCare? At least people won't be "dying in the streets"! Support for partial-birth abortion and Planned Parenthood? He's changed! Trade war with China? Bring it on! Appointing leftists like his uber-liberal federal judge sister to the Supreme Court? Marco Rubio is a sweaty choker! Legalizing millions of illegals? Not on slump-Trump's watch (though he has said repeatedly that he will do just that, not to mention hiring them to build his towers). A Christian who claims he has no need to ask God for forgiveness? Well, people interpret the Bible many ways. He robbed people blind withTrump "University"? He makes great deals! And so on down the line.
Yet his support is strong because angry Republican voters — and a whole lot of disaffected Democrats — think he will be different, and that he will "win."
To be sure, the Republican Party "establishment" gave birth to the Trump phenomenon. Under George W. Bush we watched the size and cost of government grow, especially when he had a Republican-majority Congress. No Child Left Behind, huge non-defense spending increases, TARP bailouts; those were all Bush babies. Under nObama, the conservative/TEA Party base gave Republicans historic routs in the 2010 and 2014 midterms, returning control of both the House and Senate to the GOP. Instead of taking that mandate and fighting the unconstitutional and extra-constitutional nObama agenda, the GOP all too often gave token resistance and rolled over and played dead. Now they are paying the price.
Yet while his supporters gleefully cheer the prospect of a President slump-Trump, there are some very concerning signs as to what would result from a slump-Trump nomination. As in a loss to Hilly Clinton in the general election and the drag he may create on down-ticket races, especially with vulnerable Senate seats. It is conceivable, maybe even probable, that a slump-Trump nomination results in the loss of the presidency to Hilly and the loss of control of the Senate to Democrats. -The Patriot Post
.
.
Crude Economics, Crude Politics
CHARLES WOLF JR.
.
.
{weeklystandard.com} ~ Between the middle of 2014 and early 2016, oil prices tumbled from $110 to between $30 and $35 per barrel, a drop of 70 percent... The change represents an enormous shift of income from oil-exporting countries to oil-importing countries: $1.6 trillion annually, slightly more than 2 percent of the world's $78 trillion gross domestic product. This should enhance America's national security because the principal beneficiaries of the shift—the oil importers—are allies and friends of the United States, while most of the oil exporters are U.S. adversaries and global troublemakers. The beneficiaries include most of NATO, the European Union, Japan, Korea, Australia, Israel, Ukraine, and India. Low oil prices will ease resource constraints confronting these allies and friends, enabling them to contribute more to combating the security threats emanating principally from Iran, Russia, and the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS)—who are some of the losers in the shift. Low oil prices will, conversely, squeeze resources available to these adversaries, thereby weakening their threats and benefiting U.S. security. Categorizing the winners and losers is seemingly straightforward: Russia, for example, as a major oil exporter clearly falls in the loser category. Applying the categories to other countries needs clarification, however, as well as recognition of a few notable exceptions. http://www.weeklystandard.com/crude-economics-crude-politics/article/2001269?utm_source=newsletters&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=JVL+03_02_16.
Globalist Insider Larry Summers:
“slump-Trump Is a Serious
Threat to American Democracy”
William F. Jasper
.
.
FBI Director Just CRUSHED Hilly’s Super Tuesday Momentum With The Last
Words She Wanted To Hear
Kevin whitson
.
.
No Gitmo For You – New US Force
Captures Hi-Value ISIS Prisoner
Rick Wells
.
.
Spilling His Guts – FBI Gives Immunity
To Clinton Server Insider
Rick Wells
.
.
Rule Would Cost Middle Class
$80 Billion in Lost Savings
Ali Meyer
.
.
nObama’s Empty Judicial Chairs
Daniel Greenfield
.
.
Bill is Back! Whittle's New Firewall Video: The Most Shameful Injustice
Mark Tapson
.
.
Who controls our southern border?
Us or them?
Sharyl Attkisson
.
.
Another Failure: slump-Trump Isn’t That Good
At Performing In Real Estate
Jay Caruso
.
.
.
Arizona, Not slump-Trump, Shows Republicans
the Way on Immigration
Michael Barone
.
.
Reporter Bob Davis' article was about the experience of Arizona, which on this issue has been a laboratory of reform. In the middle of the last decade, after a border fence slowed illegal flows into urban San Diego, thousands of illegal immigrants started crossing the desert border of Arizona and Mexico. Some died in the desert. Some murdered or robbed local residents. There was a fierce outcry for politicians to address the problem.
Reporter Bob Davis' article was about the experience of Arizona, which on this issue has been a laboratory of reform. In the middle of the last decade, after a border fence slowed illegal flows into urban San Diego, thousands of illegal immigrants started crossing the desert border of Arizona and Mexico. Some died in the desert. Some murdered or robbed local residents. There was a fierce outcry for politicians to address the problem.
.
Arizona couldn't build a wall by itself. But its Republican legislature did pass laws with the aim of discouraging illegal immigration. They were denied benefits such as driver's licenses and free non-emergency medical care. Law enforcement agents, including Sheriff Joe Arpaio, vigorously enforced the laws in Phoenix's Maricopa County, which is the nation's fourth-most populous county, with 4 million residents.
Arizona couldn't build a wall by itself. But its Republican legislature did pass laws with the aim of discouraging illegal immigration. They were denied benefits such as driver's licenses and free non-emergency medical care. Law enforcement agents, including Sheriff Joe Arpaio, vigorously enforced the laws in Phoenix's Maricopa County, which is the nation's fourth-most populous county, with 4 million residents.
.
In 2008 the state required all employers to use the federal E-verify system to check job applicants' legal status via Social Security records. In 2010 the controversial Senate Bill 1070 authorized traffic police to check immigration status, one of the law's provisions upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.
In 2008 the state required all employers to use the federal E-verify system to check job applicants' legal status via Social Security records. In 2010 the controversial Senate Bill 1070 authorized traffic police to check immigration status, one of the law's provisions upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.
.
These measures fall short of the immigration policies advocated by Rubio and Cruz. They would require not only use of E-verify nationally but also biometric exit-entry visa-tracking, to identify the 45 percent of illegals who overstay legal visas. That's something Arizona's state government can't do.
These measures fall short of the immigration policies advocated by Rubio and Cruz. They would require not only use of E-verify nationally but also biometric exit-entry visa-tracking, to identify the 45 percent of illegals who overstay legal visas. That's something Arizona's state government can't do.
.
But what it could do made a difference. Since 2007 about 200,000 illegal immigrants left Arizona, 40 percent of the total, much more than in other states. Davis quotes various experts with different views on the economic effects. On one hand, the departures reduced the state's gross domestic product by 2 percent and employment by 2.5 percent. State government revenues were reduced by about that as well.
But what it could do made a difference. Since 2007 about 200,000 illegal immigrants left Arizona, 40 percent of the total, much more than in other states. Davis quotes various experts with different views on the economic effects. On one hand, the departures reduced the state's gross domestic product by 2 percent and employment by 2.5 percent. State government revenues were reduced by about that as well.
.
But so was state spending on education (80,000 fewer students), emergency room health care and incarcerating non-resident felons. There was a sudden shortage of farm and construction workers and -- probably as a result -- wages for farmworkers rose 15 percent and for construction workers 10 percent.
But so was state spending on education (80,000 fewer students), emergency room health care and incarcerating non-resident felons. There was a sudden shortage of farm and construction workers and -- probably as a result -- wages for farmworkers rose 15 percent and for construction workers 10 percent.
.
Some employers were forced to adjust. Davis' article begins with an anecdote about a jalapeno pepper farmer who invested $2 million to develop a machine to harvest peppers. He figured that was cheaper than paying non-illegal workers more.
Some employers were forced to adjust. Davis' article begins with an anecdote about a jalapeno pepper farmer who invested $2 million to develop a machine to harvest peppers. He figured that was cheaper than paying non-illegal workers more.
.
How you weigh the costs and benefits, neither of which can be precisely measured, is up to you. But for Donald slump-Trump supporters, such as Mickey Kaus and Ann Coulter, who argue that illegal labor is driving down low-skill Americans' wages, the results look pretty good. Maybe as good as you would get by building and getting Mexico to pay for that "yuge" beautiful wall.
How you weigh the costs and benefits, neither of which can be precisely measured, is up to you. But for Donald slump-Trump supporters, such as Mickey Kaus and Ann Coulter, who argue that illegal labor is driving down low-skill Americans' wages, the results look pretty good. Maybe as good as you would get by building and getting Mexico to pay for that "yuge" beautiful wall.
.
For the fact is that the surge of illegal Mexican migration ended with the 2007-2009 recession. And the laboratory of Arizona suggests that technically feasible methods -- E-verify, entry-and-exit tracking -- can disincentivize illegal immigration and spur, in Mitt Romney's infelicitous term, self-deportation.
For the fact is that the surge of illegal Mexican migration ended with the 2007-2009 recession. And the laboratory of Arizona suggests that technically feasible methods -- E-verify, entry-and-exit tracking -- can disincentivize illegal immigration and spur, in Mitt Romney's infelicitous term, self-deportation.
.
The employer sanctions of the 1986 law failed because they didn't include such provisions. That's because most Americans back then, both left and right, hated the idea of anything like a national identity card. But today we don't much mind having our steps tracked by Google and Visa. Tracking job applicants or visa holders is widely acceptable now.
The employer sanctions of the 1986 law failed because they didn't include such provisions. That's because most Americans back then, both left and right, hated the idea of anything like a national identity card. But today we don't much mind having our steps tracked by Google and Visa. Tracking job applicants or visa holders is widely acceptable now.
.
A President Rubio or Cruz could get a Republican Congress to approve such legislation without, as they insist, an immediate path for citizenship or legalization. Democrats have demanded citizenship (they want those votes) as the price for advancing any immigration legislation, but many would be reluctant to resist an enforcement-only bill.
A President Rubio or Cruz could get a Republican Congress to approve such legislation without, as they insist, an immediate path for citizenship or legalization. Democrats have demanded citizenship (they want those votes) as the price for advancing any immigration legislation, but many would be reluctant to resist an enforcement-only bill.
.
The key question for Republican voters is whether they want a nominee who would change policy in a direction that would achieve desired results or whether they want one who bellows in anger but who, as the Houston debate showed, has a weak grasp on the facts and only a hazy notion of what policy can accomplish.
The key question for Republican voters is whether they want a nominee who would change policy in a direction that would achieve desired results or whether they want one who bellows in anger but who, as the Houston debate showed, has a weak grasp on the facts and only a hazy notion of what policy can accomplish.
.
Rubio and Cruz have shown they are the first kind of candidate. The Donald slump-Trump whom you saw flailing in Houston isn't.
Rubio and Cruz have shown they are the first kind of candidate. The Donald slump-Trump whom you saw flailing in Houston isn't.
.
Comments