Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Trump Administration’

Conservatism Works: Trump Economy Offers Most Jobs in History, Enough for Everyone


disclaimerReported By Benjamin Arie | May 9, 2018 at 2:22pm

When Donald Trump won the presidential election, the doomsayers came out in droves. “Experts” predicted the worst: A crashing economy. Skyrocketing unemployment. Years of joblessness. Instead, the exact opposite is now happening.

On Tuesday, an astonishing record was set that shows just how wrong those critics were: The U.S. now has the highest number of available jobs in recorded history. For the first time, the U.S. Department of Labor has announced that the number of job openings matches the number of unemployed people. This means that at least on paper, there is a job available for every single American worker — a situation that has never occurred since these statistics began being tracked.

“The Labor Department reported Tuesday there were 6.6 million job openings in March, a record high — and enough for the 6.6 million Americans who were actively looking for a job that month,” The Post continued.

Even more promising, the trend appears set to continue. As unemployment keeps on falling, there will likely be more jobs available than the number of workers looking for employment in just a few months’ time.

“The jobless rate for African Americans and Hispanic Americans is at an all-time low,” The Post explained. 

That also means more opportunities for everyone, even those who have had past difficulty finding work.

“Companies are revising their hiring practices to ensure that they do not rule out any potential good workers, especially those who might not have a college degree or people who have criminal histories and have served time in jail,” the newspaper reported.

Of course, just because the number of job openings now matches the number of job seekers doesn’t automatically mean that everyone will find the position they want. There will always be some mismatch between the types of job openings and the qualifications and desires of candidates.

“The people looking for work don’t always have the right skills or live in a place where there are a lot of opportunities to get hired,” summarized The Post.

There’s also the fact that some people choose to leave a job for personal reasons and do not immediately enter a new workplace. “In a nation as big as the United States, there will always be people who quit their jobs and take time to find new employment,” the newspaper said. “More than 3 million people voluntarily left their jobs in March, according to the Labor Department.”economy up under trump

The major takeaway is that critics dramatically underestimated the Trump economy, and the president’s conservative agenda appears to be working. This record-setting economic boom is happening even as Trump’s opponents do everything they can to undermine him.

If just a year and a half of conservatives cutting taxes and red-tape regulations can trigger these results, imagine for a moment what three more years — or a whole second term — could bring.

You can’t argue with results. The Trump presidency is working, and Americans of all colors and backgrounds are benefiting from it.

please likeand share and leave a comment

Trump Poised to Use Trick Reagan Loved to Gut Parts of Omnibus Bill


Reported By Ben Marquis | April 11, 2018 at 10:59am

URL of the original posting site: https://conservativetribune.com/trump-trick-gut-parts-omnibus-bill/

When Congress recently passed — without having read — a $1.3 trillion omnibus bill that was more than 2,200 pages, fiscal conservatives were outraged by the gluttonous and wasteful spending it contained. President Donald Trump, who reluctantly signed the bill despite an initial threat to veto, expressed a similar sentiment when he made clear he would never sign another bloated spending bill like that again. And now it looks like he may be taking steps to undo some of that terrible bill.

Perhaps feeling a bit of buyer’s remorse or simply heat from their base, Trump and congressional Republican leaders recently held talks to find a way to trim some of the fat from the omnibus bill, according to Politico. The most likely way to do that would be through a process known as rescission, and Trump’s White House is reportedly working closely with House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy to put a package together that could cut billions of dollars from the recently passed spending bill, if approved by a simple majority in Congress.

In analysis for The Washington Times, Trump campaign economic adviser Steven Moore and Trump transition tax policy adviser James Carter explained some of the history and process behind the rescission budgetary maneuver, a rarely-used anti-spending tool that last saw favor under President Ronald Reagan.

Up until former President Richard Nixon, presidents had the power to “impound” and refuse to spend federal funds for projects they viewed as wasteful or unnecessary, something Nixon reportedly did with roughly 20 percent of the funds appropriated by Congress each year of his presidency until 1974.

That is when Congress passed the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act, which blocked a president’s sole authority to impound funds and offered up the congressionally-approved rescission tool to stop funding for wasteful programs in its place. The process works by a president submitting a rescission proposal to the House of Representatives, which must then be approved by simple majorities in both chambers of Congress within 45 days. If the proposal is ignored or fails to achieve majorities, the spending remains unchanged.

Reagan proposed some 596 rescissions totaling $43 billion during his two terms, though Congress only approved 213 of those rescissions totaling only $16 billion in saved funds. Unfortunately, only about $6 billion in rescission proposals have been approved since Reagan left office, the last of which occurred in 1999.

It is worth noting that the Democrats’ chief obstructionist to Trump, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, can do little to stop a rescission proposal from receiving a vote as debate on such measures are limited to only 10 hours and can’t be filibustered. However, given the slim majority held by Republicans in the Senate and the tendency of the more moderate establishment members to break away from their party and join the opposition to Trump, nothing is guaranteed.

That said, while some Republicans may not want to risk the wrath of the liberal media by revisiting and cutting some of the bloated budget deal, such a vote would really make the handful of Democrats running for reelection in red states — who are trying to convince voters they’re actually fiscal conservatives — particularly nervous, as where they come down on the issue would certainly be a hot topic during the campaign season.

Hopefully, Trump and his team of budget and economic advisers, working in conjunction with Congressional Republicans, can find a way to make use of the rescission tool to get rid of at least some of the wasteful spending that was stuffed into the omnibus bill to garner bipartisan support. If so, and if it is to be a worthwhile effort, they will need to do more than merely tinker around the edges with modest proposals and actually put forward some significant cuts. It would then be interesting to see how various members of Congress either accede to the cuts or defend the wasteful projects they have agreed to appropriate taxpayer funds.

More Politically INCORRECT Cartoons for Thursday March 1, 2018


ICE Report Rips Apart Liberal Narrative about “Law-Abiding” Illegal Aliens


Authored By Ben Marquis | February 19, 2018 at 3:16pm

URL of the original posting Site: https://conservativetribune.com/ice-report-narrative-illegal-aliens/

President Donald Trump ran for office on a promise to crack down on illegal immigration, and repeatedly noted that he would focus on the arrest and removal from the country of “bad hombres” that had criminal convictions or pending charges.

Of course, liberals countered with the tired narrative that hardly any illegal immigrants are criminals, and that Trump would in essence be targeting “law-abiding” illegals — the narrative they lean on to support their sanctuary city policies that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration officials in turning over locally detained illegals for federal adjudication, processing and removal.

But according to The Daily Wire, a recent report released by Immigration and Customs Enforcement totally undercut that narrative as it made clear that an overwhelming percentage of illegal immigrants arrested by ICE in the 2017 fiscal year — roughly 90 percent — either had a criminal record or had criminal charges pending against them, with very few qualifying as “law-abiding” with no known convictions or pending charges.

That 18-page summary report detailed how ICE activity increased significantly following a Jan. 25, 2017, executive order from President Trump, and compared the resulting numbers of arrests with previous years.

Pew Research took a deep dive into the numbers of the report and found that of all those arrested by ICE in FY 2017;

  • Some 74 percent had past criminal convictions.

  • An additional 16 percent of those arrested faced pending criminal charges,

  • A mere 11 percent had no criminal record or pending charges to speak of.

Interestingly, the report showed that ICE arrests in 2017 were nearly half of the number of arrests made in FY 2009, former President Barack Obama’s first year in office, and that roughly 61 percent of those arrested in 2009 by Obama’s ICE were of the “non-criminal” variety. That’s exactly the opposite of what liberals would have you believe.

Of course, the total number of arrests dropped significantly over Obama’s tenure in office, with a decisive closing of that gap between criminal and non-criminal over the latter years, though the number of arrests picked up sharply following Trump’s inauguration into office — some 30 percent higher over the previous year.

Of those arrested in 2017 with past criminal convictions, the top criminal category was driving under the influence, followed closely by possession or distribution of “dangerous drugs.” Other traffic offenses, immigration law violations and assault rounded out the top five criminal categories.

Pew noted that there was a bit of regional variance in the numbers of criminal versus non-criminal ICE arrests. For example, some 88 percent of those arrested in the southern California area had a criminal record, while only about 60 percent of those arrested in New Jersey were known criminals.

The ICE report didn’t come right out and explicitly condemn sanctuary city policies, but it wasn’t difficult to catch the numerous allusions to such policies at several points throughout the report.

Most notably, a section of the report titled “At-Large Arrests” pointed out that in some jurisdictions, ICE was compelled to make at-large arrests within the community of illegal immigrants, which inevitably brings them into contact with non-criminal illegals.

Comparatively, when ICE is permitted to make arrests in a “custodial setting” such as a jail or prison, it is virtually guaranteed that the arrestee will either have a criminal record or pending criminal charges, and is far less likely to be a non-criminal swept up in the at-large arrests or sweeping raids.

Because of the lack of cooperation from sanctuary city jurisdictions, ICE had to make significantly more at-large arrests in the community than in prior years. The non-criminal illegals caught in those arrests have nobody to blame but themselves (for being here illegally in the first place) and the liberal politicians who refused to cooperate with federal officials for their detainment.

The ICE report noted that it would be far better for everyone involved — both law enforcement officials and non-criminal illegal immigrants — if such jurisdictions cooperated and handed over criminal illegals to ICE within a custodial setting, which would negate the need for at-large arrests and raids to track down known criminal illegals.

The liberal media would have us all believe that Trump and ICE are rounding up and deporting millions of “law-abiding,” non-criminal illegal immigrants, but the numbers released by ICE paint a far different picture, and reveal that Trump has thus far kept his word; that he is focused on rooting out and deporting criminals who shouldn’t be here.

Sarah Breaks Down After 9-Year-Old Girl’s Battle Is Brought to National Stage


Reported By V Saxena | January 25, 2018 at 7:56am

URL of the original posting site: https://conservativetribune.com/sarah-sanders-breaks-down/

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders grew visibly emotional this week as she shared the heart-wrenching tale of a 9-year-old girl from Texas, Sophia Marie Campa-Peters, who has requested that the Trump administration ask the world to pray for her.

“This Friday, Sophia will undergo brain surgery at Boston Children’s Hospital, and she has one request: She has asked the entire world come together and pray for her on the day of her surgery,” Sanders said during Tuesday’s White House briefing, according to a transcript from the White House.

“In her amazing, 9-year-old mind, that meant creating a goal of just reaching 10,000 people,” Sanders continued, her voice noticeably cracking with emotion. “We want to make sure she gets that and far exceeds it. So today, Sophia, I’m here to tell you that millions of people from every corner of the world will be praying for you on January 26th.”

Including President Donald Trump, who told Sanders to tell Campa-Peters “to keep fighting, to never give up, keep inspiring us all, and never, ever lose faith in God. With Him, all things are possible.”

We too want to join the White House’s call by requesting that all of you, our dear readers, pray for Campa-Peters as well. Though just to be clear, we already know in our hearts that she’ll be just fine, no matter what happens. How so? Because, despite suffering “from a rare disease that causes the blood vessels in her brain to narrow and close,” as noted Tuesday by Sanders, and despite “enduring four massive strokes” three years ago that “left her partially paralyzed,” Campa-Peters has never once balked in fear.

“When the doctors told her she would never walk again, she dismissed them,” Sanders said. “‘If you’re only going to talk about what I can’t do, then I don’t want to hear it,’ she said. ‘Just let me try.’ Not only did she try, she succeeded, leaving her doctors dumfounded. When they asked how she was doing these things, she had a simple answer: ‘Because I’m awesome,’ and she’d smile.”

Campa-Peters’ mother and father clearly didn’t raise a wimp, particularly of the spineless, liberal kind. Listen to Sanders’ emotional plea below:

Two years ago Campa-Peters suffered from another bout of minor strokes, yet she continued to remain strong nevertheless, prompting one of her neurosurgeons to say the following to her mother: “This little girl has God on her side.”

She does indeed have God on her side.

Combined, these experiences eventually inspired Campa-Peters’ mother to reach out to the Trump administration.

“In a world where things are so bad and ugly, when there is so much loss of faith, people needed to hear Sophia’s story so that they could hear a true testament to God’s grace and His glory revealed,” her mother wrote, according to Sanders.

So please, if you have some time to spare and you believe in the power of prayer, take a moment to pray for this young lady. Thank you.

CBS Attempted Hit Job Against Tax Bill, But All 3 Families Discovered Something


Reported By Cillian Zeal | December 26, 2017 at 10:20pm

URL of the original posting site: https://conservativetribune.com/cbs-hit-job-tax-bill/

Before the Republican tax bill was passed, the media narrative focused on how it would only benefit the wealthy. Once it was passed (after a bit of procedural drama for good measure), that narrative went into overdrive. No matter what statistics or examples the GOP may have pointed the media toward, that was the story, and they were sticking to it. However, as our second president pointed out, facts are stubborn things — even more stubborn than media outlets are.

CBS found out the timeless sagacity of Mr. Adams’ advice the hard way.

After the tax bill passed, the network decided to run a segment that looked at how three separate American families from three different parts of the country would fare under the Republicans’ new tax plan. The original idea, one would assume, was to highlight the inequality therein.

Instead of the hit job one assumes some were looking for, however, CBS found that all three families ended up saving money.

The first profile was of Marcie George, a single mother who rents a home in Cary, North Carolina.

“It didn’t seem as they were going along like it would really affect someone like me,” George said.

An administrative assistant, George makes under $40,000 a year. “Financially, I struggle,” George said. “I live paycheck to paycheck. I make things work, I readjust and rearrange, but we do get by.”

Remember that we were told incessantly by the left that Ms. George and her child were going to be the kind of people who would get the shaft under the GOP tax plan. So, how did things end up for her? Pretty well, we’d say: over $1,300 saved, in part thanks to the child tax credit doubling.

Amber and Jason Edwards, a couple from Providence, Rhode Island, are slightly higher up the tax bracket than Ms. George is. Homeowners who are married without children, the educators took in a combined $150,000. While the Edwardses would pay taxes on $12,000 more of their income, according to CBS’ accountant, they would end up saving money based on the lower tax numbers, saving the family $650. They would also switch to the standard deduction, meaning a simpler return.

“Honestly, I’m a little surprised,” Amber Edwards said, turning to her husband. “What you had said, initially, you thought we were going to have a higher tax bill.”

And he was wrong.

Meanwhile, Melissa and Layne Lev of Fresno, California have three children and own their home and a small business. They too thought their taxes were going to be higher, although Melissa had trouble explaining why she thought this was. They make roughly $300,000. Even though they’re from a high-tax state — one where most individuals likely think that they’re going to get hit hard by the reduced state tax deductions — they ended up saving money too.

They’ll be receiving $13,000 in tax cuts, thanks to receiving child tax credits and not paying the alternative minimum tax.

Can you imagine the tears in the CBS newsroom as the results poured in? It’s like a mini-election night all over again!

So, yes, as much as this is apparently just a tax cut for the rich, everyone — the Georges, the Edwardses and the Levs — will be seeing money back thanks to tax reform. And these are hardly modern-day Vanderbilts, either, meaning this is money that’s going to be going directly back into the economy.

Talk about a Christmas present for everybody. Unless you’re part of the Democrat caucus, of course.

H/T PJ Media

Abortion providers brace for new Trump funding fight


Reported

Abortion providers brace for new Trump funding fight | © Getty

The Trump administration has a new opportunity to target the funding of Planned Parenthood and other groups that provide abortions.

The Department of Health and Human Services Department (HHS) will soon set the terms for obtaining grants under Title X, a federally funded family planning program long reviled by conservatives. Officials within HHS who have been critical of Title X in the past now have the opportunity to reshape the program to fit the anti-abortion views of the administration.  

Teresa Manning, the deputy assistant secretary of the office of population affairs at HHS, which oversees Title X, is a prominent anti-abortion advocate and a former lobbyist for the National Right to Life Committee. That group led the charge for restrictions on the program under President Reagan.

“This is the administration’s first attempt to really kind of redefine what they want the family planning program to look like,” said Audrey Sandusky, communications director for the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA), which represents Title X grant recipients.  

“We anticipate some attempt to undercut the program,” she said.

Supporters of Title X worry the administration will freeze out clinics that also provide abortions, restrict the types of services performed at clinics, limit access to some types of birth control or reduce funding for the program.

Meanwhile, anti-abortion advocates are hoping the administration will resurrect Reagan-era regulations that banned Title X providers from offering abortion referrals and counseling and from encouraging, promoting or advocating abortion as a method of family planning. This would have to be done through the rulemaking process, which could take months.

“The best thing for health care and for women is that they receive [family planning services] in a setting that’s devoid of the possibility of Planned Parenthood pushing quote unquote options, when what they’re doing is referring them to the abortion facility,” said Steve Aden, chief legal officer and general counsel at Americans United for Life, an anti-abortion advocacy group in D.C. 

“It might be next door, it might be across town. But virtually all of these clinics have affiliated abortion providers and they refer over. The best atmosphere for women would be one free of that kind of pressure.”

The Trump administration’s intent will be clear when HHS issues a funding opportunity announcement for the Title X grants. The conditions are expected to differ from the ones that were set by the Obama administration, perhaps significantly.

The amount of money at stake is significant.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that Planned Parenthood and its affiliates receive about $60 million a year through the Title X program. In 2017, Congress appropriated $286 million total for the grants.

Kinsey Hasstedt, a senior policy manager at the Guttmacher Institute, which supports abortion rights, said it would be naive to think the Trump administration wouldn’t take the opportunity to “put a flag in the ground” on Title X.

“The administration has shown its cards to some degree in its opposition to abortion and providers who offer or are affiliated with abortion.” 

President Trump signed a bill earlier this year allowing states to defund Planned Parenthood for political reasons, reversing a last-minute rule signed by former President Obama. The Trump administration’s fiscal 2018 budget request also would have excluded Planned Parenthood affiliates from all forms of federal funding, but that provision has yet to pass Congress.

That leaves Title X as the most plausible route for the administration to crack down on abortion providers. While federal dollars, including Title X grants, can’t be used to pay for abortions, critics argue that the money is fungible and could still indirectly support the procedure if it goes to groups that perform abortions like Planned Parenthood.

That’s the argument for resurrecting Reagan-era restrictions requiring a physical and financial separation between Title X projects and abortion services, including separate waiting and examination rooms, separate staff and separate accounting records. 

“That’s been a really big concern I think in the pro-life community,” said Melanie Israel, a research association at the conservative Heritage Foundation. 

“Ultimately, money is fungible, and at the end of the day, those regulations were really important to make sure there was truly some separation there.” 

The Reagan-era regulations were upheld by the Supreme Court but were never fully implemented due to time-consuming legal challenges. Former President Clinton officially lifted the restrictions in one of his first executive orders. Restoring these regulations could take months, but Heritage and other groups that support them say it would make certain that absolutely no federal funds go toward abortion.

“We think the administration should be interested in ensuring that taxpayer dollars aren’t subsidizing abortion entities,” said David Christensen, vice president of government affairs at the Family Research Council.   

“Doing this would not prevent organizations like Planned Parenthood necessarily from getting Title X funds. It would mean though that the Title X family planning program would have to be physically and financially separate from an organization’s abortion activities.”

Guttmacher’s Kinsey said the possible changes to Title X would have a big impact on women, especially those living in underserved communities.  

“Any attempt to undermine this program or the providers or women’s access to affordable care would be a huge setback and would definitely impact these women in these communities and represents a really unacceptable disruption of the program.”

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: