Posts tagged ‘economy’
URL of the original posting site: http://comicallyincorrect.com/2017/03/17/who-dealt-it/#EttDgcsdsz7Pawqj.99
Obama’s anemic economic plan of the pass eight yeas in already looking pathetic compared to Trump aggressive approach to the economy and jobs.
Authored By: Logan Albright | February 11, 2017
Speaking on Fox News Sunday in 2015, Trump said, “I may cut the Department of Education,” and in his book “Crippled America,” released the same year, he wrote “A lot of people believe the Department of Education should just be eliminated. Get rid of it. If we don’t eliminate it completely, we certainly need to cut its power and reach. Education has to be run locally.” So there is opportunity if only Republicans in Congress are brave enough to seize it.
To help push them in the right direction, here are five reasons why the Department of Education should be eliminated.
1. It’s unconstitutional
The word “education” never occurs in the U.S. Constitution. Already, this should mean that the federal government has no business interfering with education policy, since the Constitution is a list of enumerated powers. In other words, the Constitution is a comprehensive list of things the federal government is allowed to do, and anything not included is de facto forbidden.
To make this doubly clear, the 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights is explicit: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” There you have it. The power to set education policy is reserved to the states or the people. The federal government is not authorized to meddle.
2. It’s expensive
The Department of Education comprises more than 80 subagencies, employs more than 4,000 people, and has an annual budget of nearly $70 billion. When you include other federal spending like Head Start and the School Lunch Program, that number swells to more than $100 billion.
With a national debt rapidly hurtling toward $20 trillion, this may be a drop in the bucket, but as a wise man once said, a few billion here and there eventually adds up to real money. It’s insane to think we couldn’t find better, more productive uses for $100 billion a year. Just off the top of my head, how about giving it back to the taxpayers?
Of course, maybe the federal government could justify this expense if it produced positive results.
The Department of Education has been around since 1979, and in that time, with the huge amounts of money that have poured into it, a reasonable person would expect to see massive improvements in educational performance.
In fact, we’ve seen no such thing. The more money we spend, the less students benefit. The department itself recently admitted that education spending isn’t producing any measurable results — a finding, which conforms with previous analyses of programs like Head Start and the department in general.
It may seem like an obvious question, but why are we continuing a program which has proven, time and time again, not to work?
4. It hinders school choice and student freedom
Perhaps the most infamous of Department of Education initiatives was Common Core, foisted upon the states through a complex system of incentives and penalties with the goal of imposing standardization of testing and, to a certain extent, curricula across the whole country.
These wildly unpopular standards have been the source of outrage and confusion among parents and students alike, who found the math problems impossible, the history textbooks revisionist, and the constant testing oppressive.
But Common Core is far from the only soul-crushing program leveled at local schools from on high. The Department of Education also brought us the spectacular failures of No Child Left Behind, Race to the Top, Head Start, and most recently the Every Student Succeeds Act. All of these share the goal of making schools everywhere the same, in spite of the fact that different states, different cities, and different children have diverse education requirements that cannot be met by a single top-down structure. It may come as a surprise to education bureaucrats, but many parents are not comfortable with their children being ‘tracked’ by the federal government.
Like every other market, the market for education thrives only when innovation, competition, and experimentation are allowed to flourish. The Department of Education has devoted itself to stamping out all of that.
5. It’s really, really creepy
Like so many other pseudoscientific pursuits, the Department of Education has been moving increasingly toward data collection and analysis in what it claims is an effort to improve student performance. Barack Obama’s Education secretary, Arne Duncan, made the following statement about his ambitions:
It may come as a surprise to education bureaucrats, but many parents are not comfortable with their children being “tracked” by the federal government. In many cases, parents have no idea what type of data is being collected on their children, and it is not easy to find out even if you are aware of the practice and want to know.
Nor are we just talking about test scores. A surprisingly candid 2013 report from the Department of Education provides a wish list of data collection, including the desire to monitor students’ facial expressions and eye movements during class, and then using the data to diagnosis learning disabilities or other problems.
In fact, schools may already be doing this; they are notoriously tight-lipped about data collection. The idea that a computer algorithm might diagnose one’s child with mental illness because he made the wrong expression in class is chilling, and we can be sure that it’s only the beginning of where the department would like to go in the future.
Bearing all these points in mind, it’s baffling that the government continues to fund and defend the Department of Education, which, by its own admission, has not improved student outcomes yet interferes with the freedoms of America’s children on a daily basis. The time is now. Abolish the Department of Education once and for all.
Logan Albright is a researcher for Conservative Review and Director of Research for Free the People. You can follow him on Twitter @loganalbright73.
United States Department of Education
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For the earlier incarnation with the same name, established in 1867, see Office of Education.
The United States Department of Education (ED or DoED), also referred to as the ED for (the) Education Department, is a Cabinet-level department of the United States government. Recreated by the Department of Education Organization Act (Public Law 96-88) and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter on October 17, 1979, it began operating on May 4, 1980.
The Department of Education Organization Act divided the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare into the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services. The Department of Education is administered by the United States Secretary of Education. It has approximately 4,400 employees and an annual budget of $68 billion (2016).
Authored by Jerry Broussard
The Constitution of the United States of America does not give the President the responsibilities of creating jobs. I am uncertain of this origin, but it created the mammoth government we have today. The pressure on each President’s Administration caused them to created Federal jobs, which means Federal agencies, which means the functions that belong to the States, was taken over by a Federal bureaucracy. Thank you President Jimmy Carter and the Socialist Left.
The original design of the Founders was as follows;
By taking education into Federal control, the monies set aside for education exploded into the billions of dollars to pay for all the jobs created by a bloated bureaucracy just so President Carter the Socialist Left could claim they created jobs. All the increase in taxes went to pay for the bureaucracy, NOT FOR THE CHILDREN.
Then the Socialist Left cried that they needed more monies for education, but whatever they took from tax payers went into the bureaucracy, NOT THE SCHOOLROOM. The Dems love to talk as if they are the ones who care most about children and their education, yet very little of the billions they collect ever get to teachers income, and the needs of the teachers to do their jobs. Now we have teachers spending their own monies to buy supplies for their classroom, as the Federal bureaucracy, State Department of Education bureaucracy and the Local School District bureaucracy line their pockets with the monies needed for the children.
Enter the Union. The Teachers Union is one of the most powerful union in the nation. They get to choice what your child gets taught, even if it’s mostly propaganda. History is rewritten to push their Liberal-Socialist agenda. They also hold our children hostage whenever they want more taxpayer money. Again, very little of those increases ever get to the classroom.
By eliminating the Federal Department of Education bureaucracy, as well as the States Department of Education bureaucracy, all those monies would now go to the Districts bureaucracy, ending up with the monies needed by the teachers to do their jobs (and perhaps get those much needed raises.)
This brings us to School Voucher Programs. When there is competition, there is always better services. Despite the lies the Teachers Union puts out about Voucher Programs, they work. When School Districts start losing funding to better school systems, they will be forced to get as good as the private schools, or face extinction. Children win.
If you listen to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, you would believe that the American economy is rosy and well. The figures released by the White House also paint a rosy picture of the American economy.
For one thing, one of the key signs of a good economy is a GDP of at least 3.0%, yet Obama is the only White House occupant of recent times that has failed to reach a GDP of 3.0% or higher. He’s had nearly eight years to accomplish this and never has. If you listen to Hillary, she wants to continue many of Obama’s economic policies plus she just made it known that she’ll raise over $1 trillion in taxes by raising the estate tax on the wealthy to 65%.
This estate tax increase may sound great to most Americans but stop and think who owns most of the businesses that employs millions of Americans. It’s the wealthy and their families. Yet, if a wealthy business owner dies and his family is forced to pay 65% of the estate to the federal government in estate taxes, where do you think most of the money will come from? In the majority of cases, it will come from selling off large portions of their businesses or closing the doors and putting millions of Americans out of work. Once that starts to happen, another major recession or even a depression could sweep across America which will also affect most of the rest of the world.
Back to today’s not so rosy economic outlook, several recent reports are indicating that many Americans are struggling to pay their mortgages and turning to alternate solutions.
“The number of New Yorkers applying for emergency grants to stay in their homes is skyrocketing — as the number of people staying in homeless shelters reached an all-time high last weekend, records show.”
“There were 82,306 applications for one-time emergency grants to prevent evictions in fiscal 2016, up 26 percent from 65,138 requests the previous year, according to the Mayor’s Management Report.”
At the same time, the number of people staying in New York homeless shelters have reached an all-time high.
The economic trend is also forcing many Americans to move from their homes to their vehicles. An increasing number of them are living in their cars, trucks, vans, buses and RVs. Some are living in campgrounds and using whatever public facility they have access to for showering, etc.
Circa.com recently reported on the growing number of Americans who have opted or been forced to live in their vehicles because of today’s economy. One man was Stephen Hutchins, a recent graduate from the USC. He is living in his van which cost him $120 at auction. He pays $60 a month for insurance and $60 a month for a storage unit. In comparison, the average rent for a 1-bedroom studio apartment in Los Angeles run around $2,300 a month. By moving into his van, Hutchins says he has cut his cost of living by $800 a month.
Zander Kingsley of Santa Monica, is the owner and founder of Kowasa Clothing Company. He is currently living in an old school bus that he is fixing.
In the Los Angeles general area, at least 4,600 cars, vans, buses, trucks or RVs were used as homes while at the same time there was a 3.1% vacancy rate in the same area. It seems that this is a growing trend throughout the nation as more and more people are being forced into difficult financial decisions.
Obama still has a few more months to further destroy America’s economy. If he doesn’t succeed, a Hillary Clinton presidency definitely will. More Americans will be living in their vehicles or in homeless shelters. The middle class will continue to shrink until there are only two economic classes, the lower class or poverty level and the few ultra-wealthy. Then America will be a true socialist state with the government owning or controlling many of the businesses that the families of wealthy business owners are forced to sell in order to pay Hillary’s exorbitant estate taxes.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Dave Jolly
R.L. David Jolly holds a B.S. in Wildlife Biology and an M.S. in Biology – Population Genetics. He has worked in a number of fields, giving him a broad perspective on life, business, economics and politics. He is a very conservative Christian, husband, father and grandfather who cares deeply for his Savior, family and the future of our troubled nation.
BY: June 14, 2016
URL of the original posting site: http://freebeacon.com/issues/eight-state-economies-shrank-4th-quarter/
Eight states had negative GDP growth in the fourth quarter of 2015, and Alaska had negative growth for two consecutive quarters putting it in a recession, according to data released Tuesday by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Real gross domestic product is the bureau’s most comprehensive measure of U.S. economic activity and is an inflation-adjusted measure of each state’s prices for the goods and services produced for all industries within that state.
There were only three states—including Alaska, North Dakota, and West Virginia—that had negative GDP growth in the third quarter of 2015, which includes data from July, August, and September. By the fourth quarter of 2015, which includes data from October, November and December, that number grew to eight states: Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Montana, and Wyoming.
Four of these states, Alaska, Wyoming, Oklahoma, and New Mexico, had significant declines in their mining sector, which includes oil and gas production. The other four, Kansas, Iowa, Montana, and Nebraska, had significant declines in agricultural output.
“It looks like some of the negative Q4 growth can be explained by the relatively volatile energy and farm sectors,” explained Mark Perry, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. “The low prices for oil and natural gas last year could have impacted both energy production (which has been declining for oil) and the market price of the energy production as it is calculated for state GDP.”
“The farming sector is very cyclical and has been declining in states like Iowa,” he added. “In fact, farm income nationally is expected to fall. The USDA released a new forecast this week predicting that U.S. farm income will fall to about $55 billion this year, which would be the lowest level since 2002.”
More than half of states in the United States saw their GDP growth decline from the third quarter of 2015 to the fourth quarter.
The states that saw the largest declines from the previous quarter were Oklahoma, Wyoming, New Mexico, and Montana.
“Today’s weak GDP numbers out of the states are yet another sign of a persistently sluggish economy that is leaving many Americans behind,” said Alfredo Ortiz, president and CEO of the Job Creators Network.
Posted by Aleister Wednesday, April 20, 2016
Bob & Ron’s Fish Fry is closing as predicted months ago.
Mental Recession reports:
Beloved Upstate Restaurant Closes, Cites Minimum Wage Hike As Major Reason
An Albany area fish fry restaurant is closing its doors after nearly 70 years in business, and the owner is pointing to New York’s $15 minimum wage as a major reason for his establishment’s downfall.
Bob and Ron’s Fish Fry, described by New York Upstate as an “Albany institution” featuring “the best fish fry in the Capital Region,” announced they’d be closing their doors in less than two weeks.
The owners took to social media over the weekend to make the announcement.
A message on Facebook reads:
“It is with great sadness that we regret to inform you that Bob and Ron’s Fish Fry will be closing its Latham location effective 4/30/2016. We thank all of you for your patronage and will miss you all.”
Responding to fan’s of the beloved restaurant, the owners posted their reason for having to shut down Bob and Ron’s.
“To be honest there is no way we could pay the high minimum wage that is coming,” they wrote.
Owner Dan Zonca was featured in a TWC News report when Governor Cuomo first unveiled his plans to enact a $15 minimum wage throughout the state, a plan that recently came to fruition.
Zonca warned that the unilateral minimum wage hike would put him out of business.
“There’s absolutely no way I could take a 52 percent jump in my payroll,” Zonca said, accounting for the basic benefits he provides his employees.
He added, “Cuomo and (Vice-President) Biden are out of their minds!”
CBS News in Albany did a report back in August of last year when the fight over the minimum wage began and profiled Bob & Ron’s. They predicted this would happen: (IF video does not play go to https://youtu.be/blCxJPBq3PU)
Minimum wage activists celebrate their victories as more states adopt the higher wage but they’re rarely around to help pick up the pieces when a small business owner loses his or her livelihood. Your heart also breaks for the people who lose jobs and the community which loses a favorite business.
Hat tip to Rusty Weiss: