A graphic concept of barbed-wire, chain-linked fencing at the U.S. southern border with a sign reading, “Stop Illegal Immigration.” (Photo: AdobeStock/Thea Photography)
Roughly 6 in 10 voters view border security as “vital” to national security and rate the importance of it on par with North Korea, a new poll finds.
The Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds 59% say border security is a “vital national security interest for the United States,” while just 33% disagree.
Another 8% were unsure.
That includes 62% of men and 57% of women voters. It also includes a majority in every age group; 59% among voters ages 18-39, 60% among 40-64, and 57% among those 65 years and older.
By race, 61% of whites and 54% of black voters view border security as being a vital national security interest, as do 55% of all other voters. Eighty-four percent (84%) of Republicans, 61% of unaffiliated voters and 31% of Democrats, agree.
By comparison, a survey conducted by Rasmussen last month also found 59% of voters think North Korea is a vital national security interest.
Interestingly, Republicans (64%) were slightly more likely than Democrats (57%) and unaffiliated voters (55%) to hold that view of the leftwing dictatorial regime.
Voters also want to secure the border before and view it as “more important” than dealing with “undocumented workers” already residing in the U.S. illegally. When asked, 53% said gaining control of the border is more important, while 40% chose the latter.
Another 7% were unsure.
Sixty percent (60%) of men and 47% of women think border security is more important, while 34% and 46%, respectively, say dealing with those residing in the U.S. illegally is more important.
Majorities of Republicans (81%) and unaffiliated voters (51%) agree, as do 31% of Democrats. Sixty-two percent (62%) of Democrats prioritize dealing with those residing in the U.S. illegally over securing the border.
The national telephone and online survey of 1,000 likely voters in the U.S. was conducted February 7 and 10, 2019 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.
Worker Compensation Rose to Second Highest Level in 45-Year Survey History
A team of millennial business owners collaborating on an online project using a touchpad tablet in a modern office space. (Photo: AdobeStock/AYAimages)
The NFIB Small Business Optimism Index returned to pre-2016 election levels amid a political climate fostering uncertainty. Worth noting, small businesses still report sales are solid, and that they are continuing to hire and increase compensation.
“Business operations are still very strong, but small business owners’ expectations about the future are shaky,” said NFIB President and CEO Juanita D. Duggan. “One thing small businesses make clear to us is their dislike for uncertainty, and while they are continuing to create jobs and increase compensation at a frenetic pace, the political climate is affecting how they view the future.”
Now, at 101.2, the lowest level since President Trump was elected in November 2016, the NFIB Small Business Optimism Index remains well above the historical average of 98. But, like many of the aforementioned gauges, is clearly declining as a result of a political climate of sabotage.
Source: National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB)
The reading indicates uncertainty among small business owners due to the 35-day government shutdown and financial market instability. The NFIB Uncertainty Index rose 7 points to 86, the fifth highest reading in the survey’s 45-year history.
“Although January’s index showed some positive developments among current business conditions, the return to divided government in Washington created an inability to agree on basic policy measures,” said NFIB Chief Economist Bill Dunkelberg. “This produced the longest partial government shutdown in history, elevating the level of uncertainty, which is damaging to economic activity.”
Small businesses added a net 0.33 workers on a per firm basis, the highest reading since July 2018. Fifteen percent (15%) are increasing employment an average of 3.1 workers per, and 60% reported capital outlays.
That’s just 1 point below December.
At a net 36% of all firms, higher worker compensation rose to the second highest level in the survey’s history. As People’s Pundit Daily previously reported, wages rose by greater than 3% in Q4 2018 for the first time since Q3 2008, and have risen 3.2% in 2018.
The U.S. economy last month created 304,000 jobs, twice the number as forecasts suggested for the second consecutive month.
In the NFIB Small Business Optimism Index, owners continued to hire at record levels, as 56% of owners reported hiring or trying to hire. However, the skills gap continues to be the main issue with job creation.
Source: National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB)
Eighty-eight percent (88%) of those owners reported few or no qualified applicants to fill open positions.
Twenty-three percent (23%) of small business owners said the availability of qualified labor is their top business problem juxtaposed to 15% who cited taxes (up 2 points), 12% citing the regulatory environment, and 2% cited financing (down 1 point).
The money pledged thru Patreon.com will go toward show costs such as advertising, server time, and broadcasting equipment. If we can get enough listeners, we will expand the show to two hours and hire additional staff.
All bumper music and sound clips are not owned by the show, are commentary, and of educational purposes, or de minimus effect, and not for monetary gain.
No copyright is claimed in any use of such materials and to the extent that material may appear to be infringed, I assert that such alleged infringement is permissible under fair use principles in U.S. copyright laws. If you believe material has been used in an unauthorized manner, please contact the poster.
Kidnapping, human and sex trafficking concept of a female hostage and a man holding knife in an abandoned house. (Photo: AdobeStock)
Two Colombian nationals were sentenced on Monday for their roles in a human smuggling scheme that resulted in the rape of one and murder of two Cuban nationals.
Carlos Emilio Ibarguen Palacios, 27, was sentenced to 45 years, and Jhoan Stiven Carreazo Asprilla, 23, to 50 years, after being extradited to the U.S. in 2017 and 2018 respectively, to face the charges.
The two men pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to encourage and induce aliens to come to the U.S. resulting in death, in addition to three counts of encouraging and inducing aliens to come to the U.S. resulting in death and placing in jeopardy the lives of any person.
“The heinous acts committed by the defendants in this case provide a stark reminder that alien smuggling is inherently dangerous—and can be deadly,” said Assistant Attorney General Benczkowski. “But for the desperate escape of one of the victims, the defendants’ acts would have remained hidden with the bodies they left behind.”
U.S. District Judge Jose E. Martinez of the Southern District of Florida sentenced Ibarguen Palacios and Carreazo Asprilla to 540 months and 600 months in prison, respectively. Judge Martinez also ordered them to serve three years of supervised release following their prison sentence.
Federal court documents, which include agreed-upon factual proffers, reveal Ibarguen Palacios, Carreazo Asprilla, and their co-defendants, had been smuggling illegal aliens since 2014 across Colombia toward the Panamanian border.
In 2016, three Cuban nationals bound for Miami paid the defendants to smuggle them from Colombia to Panama.
On September 7, 2016, the three victims – two men and a woman – were delivered by co-defendant Fredis Valencia Palacios to a boat captained by Ibarguen Palacios, who was eventually joined by Carreazo Asprilla.
En route, Carreazo Asprilla pulled a gun on the three victims while Ibarguen Palacios — armed with a knife — bound the wrists of the two male passengers and threw them overboard.
They were anchored with a rope to the inside of the boat.
The surviving male victim said he could only listen as Ibarguen Palacios and Carreazo Asprilla sexually assaulted the female victim before cutting her throat. He also witnessed the two defendants cut the other male victim’s throat, resulting in his death.
While his fellow travelers were being murdered, the survivor managed to free himself. He escaped by swimming away, while Ibarguen Palacios and Carreazo Asprilla left him for dead.
“The defendants’ carried out a fatal human smuggling trip for which two victims paid the ultimate price,” said U.S. Attorney Fajardo Orshan. “But for the strength of the surviving victim, the defendants’ brutality would have been washed away at sea.”
The following day, the survivor was found by a local fisherman and subsequently rescued by the Colombian Navy. They directed the Colombian authorities to the location where the murders took place, and the Colombian authorities were able to retrieve the bodies.
“These two individuals were involved in one of the most cold and callous cases investigated by HSI Miami,” said Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) Special Agent in Charge Anthony Salisbury. “Although the sentences will not return the victims to their loved ones, it does bring justice for their friends and family.”
Their throats and bellies had been cut open and they were tied up together and submerged in the water. Shortly thereafter, Ibarguen Palacios and Carreazo Asprilla were located and arrested.
“The significant federal prison sentences imposed against the smugglers cannot bring back life but we hope can serve to thwart the dangerous business of alien smuggling,” U.S. Attorney Orshan concluded.
U.S. District Judge Martinez sentenced Valencia Palacios to 15 years in prison on December 4, 2018, for his assistance.
The heinous crimes committed by the defendants are far more common than the frequency of media reports indicate, and typically far more organized.
Last month, People’s Pundit Daily reported five members of a notorious Mexican sex trafficking organization were sentenced to prison terms ranging from 15 to 25 years.
For over a decade, the Rendon-Reyes Trafficking Organization, based in Tenancingo, Tlaxcala, Mexico, has used the insecurity and openness at the U.S. southern border to smuggle young women and girls to the U.S. from Mexico and Central America.
Female victims, some as young as 14 years old, were often lured into fraudulent romantic relationships by male members falsely promising them love and marriage. In other cases, some victims were forcibly abducted and, on one such occasion, the victim’s child was also taken.
Victims were forced to perform as many as 45 sex acts a night without compensation. Members of the Organization took all of the criminal proceeds, and funneled that money back to Mexico.
White House American Flag Concept. (Photo: AdobeStock)
The largely-leftist moderators at the 2016 Republican presidential debates posed pointed questions, to say the least. That was to be expected given their network employers.
Megyn Kelly commenced the decorum with her question to then-candidate Donald Trump, “You’ve called women fat pigs, dogs, slobs, disgusting animals.”
Others moderators followed up with such gems as, “Will you accept the election results?” Ironically, that scenario was only ever considered to apply to President Trump, never to Hillary Clinton, who in turn was never asked.
Trump was the only one to raise his hand when asked, “Raise your hand if you will not pledge to endorse the eventual nominee,” which undoubtedly helped him secure the nomination, as the public was tired of equivocating, lying politicians running for, to and fro a broken Washington, D.C.
They saw a man who would say what he meant no matter how “unpopular” it may be with the media and political class.
Though the numbers of declared candidates as of this writing has hit 14, it is without a doubt that the public will not see the same tenor of questions hurled at Democrats in 2020. That this is manifestly unfair is of course obvious, but a fact of modern American political life.
The various Democratic candidates will get softball questions and will be free to run through their various talking points that differentiate them from their rivals, while attacking President Trump.
However, if by chance a conservative, a rare beast known as an honest journalist with ethics, or even one who wants to make a name for themself ends up on a moderator panel, I have listed a few possible questions below. They are based on actual policies or are significant matters of public concern, which deserve to be aired.
A Minnesota Democratic Congresswoman has declared that the entire Department of Homeland Security (DHS) be completely defunded. As DHS encompasses ICE, Customs and Border Patrol (CBP), TSA, Secret Service, FEMA, USCIS, the Coast Guard, and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) do you agree with this plan or with any part of it? If so, why?”
A Virginia Democratic Party lawmaker introduced a full-term abortion bill, which was supported by Democratic Governor Ralph Northam. Do you support full-term abortion?
Virginia Governor Ralph Northam stated there were circumstances that a child could be born alive, then be allowed to die. Do you support this proposal?
There are now majority Muslim communities in some states. Do you support the concept of Sharia Law being introduced to some degree and/or Muslim communities “self-policing” in respect of aspects of Sharia, particularly as it relates to women in public?
Some cultures have a history of female genital mutilation. In the interest of diversity, would you support the continuation of this practice? If not, would you approve of legislation being introduced to ban it? If not, why not?
Should all historical references to The Confederacy — including historical markers, statues, the public display of flags and clothing and re-enactment celebrations — be banned in public places?
Do you support the “Green New Deal,” proposed by Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? Would you support the banning of airplanes, cars, cows, fossil fuels and nuclear energy? Would you support retro-fitting every building in America, guaranteeing every person a job, a house, free education and economic security for those unwilling to work?
Several Democrats have called for abolishing the Electoral College. Do you support that and its effect on the smaller states, whose viable participation in the electoral process is currently guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution?
The proposed “National Popular Vote Interstate Compact,” which has the support of a large number of Democratic voting states, would see the winner of the presidential popular vote receive a state’s vote even if that state voted for the winner’s opponent. Thus, if a Republican won the nationwide popular vote, then all of California’s 55 Electoral College votes would go the Republican. Do you support that proposal?
Do you support the proposal that the descendants of former slaves be given compensation for their ancestor’s bondage, otherwise referred to as reparations?
Now, it is highly unlikely that any of these valid and pertinent questions will ever see the light of day. Given nearly of the likely moderators share a political ideology with the Democratic Party, it is arguably more likely the candidates will be given softball questions in advance.
But I put them out there as a public service, and in the faint hope that one might have conscience enough to dare to ask even one.
The money pledged thru Patreon.com will go toward show costs such as advertising, server time, and broadcasting equipment. If we can get enough listeners, we will expand the show to two hours and hire additional staff.
All bumper music and sound clips are not owned by the show, are commentary, and of educational purposes, or de minimus effect, and not for monetary gain.
No copyright is claimed in any use of such materials and to the extent that material may appear to be infringed, I assert that such alleged infringement is permissible under fair use principles in U.S. copyright laws. If you believe material has been used in an unauthorized manner, please contact the poster.
Brad Parscale: “Elizabeth Warren Has Already Been Exposed As a Fraud”
President Donald Trump jokes with the crowd President Donald Trump touts record low unemployment for minorities during a rally in Tampa, Florida on Tuesday, July 31, 2018. (Photo: Laura Baris/People’s Pundit Daily)
The Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee (RNC) responded to Senator Elizabeth Warren officially kicking off her bid for the White House, calling her “a fraud” pushing “socialist policies.”
“Elizabeth Warren has already been exposed as a fraud by the Native Americans she impersonated and disrespected to advance her professional career, and the people of Massachusetts she deceived to get elected,” Brad Parscale, President Donald Trump’s campaign manager wrote in an email to People’s Pundit Daily (PPD) about the announcement.
Senator Warren, D-Mass., on Saturday tried to get out from under a cloud of controversy, attacking the president in front of a cheering crowd in Lawrence, Massachusetts.
“The man in the White House is not the cause of what is broken,” she said. “He is just the latest symptom.”
She told the story of the 1912 Bread and Roses Strike, a landmark victory for American workers. But it is her own history, which she tried to retell, that is the subject of controversy.
The repeated false claims of Native American heritage have plagued Senator Warren since first surfacing during her run for the U.S. Senate against Republican incumbent Scott Brown in 2012.
Prior to making the announcement, she attempted to lessen the political baggage by taking a DNA test, and with the help of The Boston Globe, spinning the results into something they were not.
While it was intended to serve as proof she is in fact of Native American heritage, it proved a disastrous decision. The initial math published by The Boston Globe, was incorrect.
The paper corrected their claim that Senator Warren might be 1/512 Native American. At best, the results indicated just 1/1,024th Native American heritage. Even if the results were accurate, it would mean Senator Warren could have as little as .09%.
According to a study conducted by 23andMe.com, it’s less than the average Native ancestry for both European-Americans (0.18%) and African-Americans (0.8%).
“We’ve always known that Elizabeth Warren’s socialist policies were far outside the mainstream,” RNC Spokesman Michael Ahrens said. “But Warren’s disastrous handling of her false minority claims and her refusal to apologize until now has everyone, including her own supporters, cringing at her campaign.”
Senator Warren, who has never sponsored a bill that has become law, also repeatedly claimed to never have used false heritage to advance her professional career. However, The Washington Post last week released her application to the Texas State Bar, which clearly shows she indeed listed her heritage as Native American.
Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., application to the Texas State Bar. (Source: The Washington Post)
In response, Senator Warren held a press availability on Wednesday and apologized for “not being more sensitive” to tribal citizenship, not for falsely claiming Native American heritage.
President Trump has mocked the unsupported claim, nicknaming her “Pocahontas” and criticizing her far-left policies on the campaign trail. When asked by reporters about the president’s line of attack, she again said the claims had been “fully documented.”
In her announcement on Saturday, the darling of the left also offered a full-throated endorsement of the New Green Deal, which calls for a car-less, airplane-less, cow-less future in which people who don’t want to work will be paid not to work.
While Democrats on Capitol Hill know the plan introduced by Rep. Alexandria Ocassio-Cortez, D-N.Y., is not a serious proposal, Senator Warren was just the latest 2020 hopeful to announce their support for it.
Prior to the Green New Deal, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez proposed raising the top marginal tax rate to 70-percent. Again, the plan received a warm welcome from top 2020 Democratic contenders.
“The American people will reject her dishonest campaign and socialist ideas like the Green New Deal, that will raise taxes, kill jobs and crush America’s middle-class,” Mr. Parscale added. “Only under President Trump’s leadership will America continue to grow safer, secure and more prosperous.”
Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin Jr., left, and Senator Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass, right, gives her “Americans Will Die” speech about repealing ObamaCare on the floor of the U.S. Senate. (Photo: Cherokee Nation/PPD)
Senator Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., officially kicked off her bid for the White House on Saturday, though under a cloud of controversy.
“The man in the White House is not the cause of what is broken,” she said. “He is just the latest symptom.”
“That’s why I’m here today to declare that I am a candidate for President of the United States,” she said to a cheering crowd in Lawrence, Massachusetts. “The truth is, I’ve been in this fight for a long time.”
Senator Warren told the story of the 1912 Bread and Roses Strike, a landmark victory for American workers. But it is her history, which she tried to retell, that is the subject of controversy.
“That’s how the daughter of a janitor managed to become a public school teacher, a law professor and a United States Senator,” she said.
The repeated false claims of Native American heritage have plagued Senator Warren since first surfacing during her 2012 run for the U.S. Senate. The darling of the left has also repeatedly claimed it is “fully documented” that there is no evidence she used a false background to advance her professional career.
The announces comes only months after her disastrous decision to release a DNA test purportedly serving as proof she is in fact of Native American heritage.
The reference to it being “fully documented” is a citation of reports from the Boston Globe, which has come under fire from other news outlets for helping to cover for and perpetuate the false claim.
As the People’s Pundit Daily (PPD) previously reported, the initial math published by The Boston Globe, was incorrect. The paper corrected their claim that Senator Warren might be 1/512 Native American, which she still questionably used as proof for her claim.
At best, the results indicated just 1/1,024th Native American heritage. Even if the results are accurate, it would mean Senator Warren could have as little as .09%.
According to a study conducted by 23andMe.com, it would make her less than the average Native ancestry for European-Americans (0.18%) and African-Americans (0.8%).
But that’s not even likely to be an accurate account, given her results were not compared with an industry-accepted population sample.
The Cherokee Nation issued a scathing statement not only in response to the results, but what they see as a political ploy in the form of repeated false claims to their heritage.
“A DNA test is useless to determine tribal citizenship,” Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin Jr. said. “Current DNA tests do not even distinguish whether a person’s ancestors were indigenous to North or South America.”
When faced with the backlash, she again repeated she had never used the claim for professional gain.
Then, The Washington Post released her application to the Texas State Bar, which clearly shows she indeed listed her heritage as Native American.
Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., application to the Texas State Bar. (Source: The Washington Post)
In response, Senator Warren held a press conference on Wednesday and apologized for “not being more sensitive” to tribal citizenship, not falsely claiming Native American heritage.
President Donald J. Trump has mocked the unsupported claim to Native American heritage, calling her “Pocahontas” while criticizing her far-left policies on the campaign trail.
When asked by reporters about the president’s line of attack, she again repeated the claims had been “fully documented.”
President: “North Korea Will Become a Different Kind of Rocket – An Economic One!”
President Donald Trump, left, greets Tony Kim, Kim Hak Song, seen in the shadow, and Kim Dong Chul, three Americans detained in North Korea. North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, center right, shakes hands with South Korean President Moon Jae-in, right, on April 27, 2018. (Photos: AP/Reuters)
President Donald J. Trump announced the second nuclear summit with North Korean Chairman Kim Jong Un will take place in Hanoi, Vietnam, from February 27 to 28.
“My representatives have just left North Korea after a very productive meeting and an agreed upon time and date for the second Summit with Kim Jong Un,” President Trump wrote on Twitter. “It will take place in Hanoi, Vietnam, on February 27 & 28. I look forward to seeing Chairman Kim & advancing the cause of peace!”
My representatives have just left North Korea after a very productive meeting and an agreed upon time and date for the second Summit with Kim Jong Un. It will take place in Hanoi, Vietnam, on February 27 & 28. I look forward to seeing Chairman Kim & advancing the cause of peace!
In June 2018, President Trump and Chairman Kim signed a document on pledging Pyongyang would work toward “complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.”
Chairman Kim said the world would see a “major change” in his regime, which agreed to destroy a “major” missile testing site.
In return, the U.S. gave Pyongyang security guarantees. President Trump pledged to ensure Chairman Kim’s personal and regime security, hold off on additional sanctions and joint military exercises with South Korea.
“North Korea, under the leadership of Kim Jong Un, will become a great Economic Powerhouse,” President Trump also tweeted. “He may surprise some but he won’t surprise me, because I have gotten to know him & fully understand how capable he is.”
“North Korea will become a different kind of Rocket – an Economic one!”
North Korea, under the leadership of Kim Jong Un, will become a great Economic Powerhouse. He may surprise some but he won’t surprise me, because I have gotten to know him & fully understand how capable he is. North Korea will become a different kind of Rocket – an Economic one!
The historic summit was the first-ever between the U.S. and North Korea after more than six decades of hostility. Previously, the Trump Administration successfully pushed a U.N. Security Council resolution that imposed the most severe sanctions ever on the regime.
In October 2018, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo indicated the details of the second summit were “pretty close” to getting hammered out.
On October 7, Secretary Pompeo and Special Representative Stephen E. Biegun met with Chairman Kim and Kim Yo-jong, First Vice Director of the Korean Workers’ Party Central Committee.
In a column for The New York Times, Farhad Manjoo actually suggests that billionaires should be taxed out of existence. Literally, not just figuratively.
…if we aimed, through public and social policy, simply to discourage people from attaining and possessing more than a billion in lucre, just about everyone would be better off. …Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are floating new taxes aimed at the superrich, including special rates for billionaires. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who also favors higher taxes on the wealthy, has been making a moral case against the existence of billionaires. …the question is getting so much attention because the answer is obvious: Nope. Billionaires should not exist… Abolishing billionaires might not sound like a practical idea, but if you think about it as a long-term goal in light of today’s deepest economic ills, it feels anything but radical. …Billionaire abolishment could take many forms. It could mean preventing people from keeping more than a billion in booty, but more likely it would mean higher marginal taxes on income, wealth and estates for billionaires and people on the way to becoming billionaires. …But abolishment does not involve only economic policy. It might also take the form of social and political opprobrium. …Why should anyone have a billion dollars, why should anyone be proud to brandish their billions, when there is so much suffering in the world? …When American capitalism sends us its billionaires, it’s not sending its best. It’s sending us people who have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with them. They’re bringing inequality. They’re bringing injustice.
Wow, I’m not even sure how to respond to this demonization of success. Should I focus on the vicious populism? The economic ignorance?
Maybe I should joke about how Mr. Manjoo wants to turn David Azerrad’s satire into reality?
Fortunately, I don’t have to come up with a response. I can simply rely on Allister Heath of the U.K.-based Daily Telegraph.
He explains, in his latest column, that these crazy ideas are a real threat.
Hard-Left ideas are uber-trendy: they are making a catastrophic comeback in the world’s most powerful universities, capturing many young minds, and are now being proposed by a new generation of supposedly modern politicians around the world. …pro-capitalist arguments…are met with derision by this new generation of intellectuals. Higher taxes bad for the economy? Hilarious! Nationalisation doesn’t work? Laughable! Venezuela? Nothing to do with actual socialism, all America’s fault. It’s a dialogue of the deaf… The old Left used to argue (falsely) that entrepreneurs, investors and executives aren’t really put off by high tax, which means that rates can be jacked up safely, raising lots to “redistribute”, without discouraging work and investment. The new Left has turned the argument on its head. It now admits the “rich” would work less if they were highly taxed – but claim this would be a good thing, as it would make society less unequal… As Harvard’s Greg Mankiw puts it, the Left now believes that “we can no longer afford the rich”.
If such policies were ever enacted, the results would be catastrophic.
The impact would be Venezuelan-style: it would lead to a collapse in GDP… Only the richest are being targeted at first: but everybody will suffer when the economy tanks, and such taxes are always eventually extended to the prosperous middle classes. …We could thus be on the cusp of a new socialist era, where even zero GDP growth will be seen as a good year. …we are on the brink of a new war on wealth.
Here’s what worries me.
Allister’s warning about terrible economic consequences is accurate, but I’m not sure that matters.
When I talk to hard-core leftists, I usually make the following three points.
A war on capital is a war on productivity (every economic theory agrees there is no added output without saving and investment).
A war on productivity is a war on workers (every economic theory agrees that there is a link between wages and how much workers produce).
In the past, leftists would disagree. Maybe they would claim government could make investments. Or perhaps they would assert that government could somehow compel employers to pay higher wages.
But it’s now quite common for my leftist friends to simply assert that lower living standards are an acceptable result. For all intents and purposes, hurting the rich is more important than helping the poor.
You may think I’m joking, or that only a small handful of crazies actually want this outcome.
But the establishment left also advocates for lower living standards. The International Monetary Fund has financed and publicized research that explicitly embraces the twisted notion that it would be ideal to reduce everyone’s living standards so long as rich people suffered the bigger declines.
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.
