Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
Thursday, February 27, 2025
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 724)

Hillary-Clinton-Bernie-Sanders

Vermont socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders, left, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, right. (Photo: AP)

I repeatedly try to convince people that the welfare state is bad for both taxpayers and poor people. Sometimes I’ll add some more detailed economic analysis and explain that redistribution programs undermine growth by reducing labor supply (with ObamaCare being the latest example).

And I’ve even explained that the welfare state has a negative impact on savings and wealth accumulation (these dramatic charts show Social Security debt in America compared to ever-growing nest eggs in Australia’s private pension system). But if new research from the European Central Bank (ECB) is any indication, I should be giving more emphasis to this final point.

Culling from the abstract, here’s the key finding from the working paper by Pirmin Fessler and Martin Schürz.

…multilevel cross-country regressions show that the degree of welfare state spending across countries is negatively correlated with household net wealth. These findings suggest that social services provided by the state are substitutes for private wealth accumulation and partly explain observed differences in levels of household net wealth across European countries.

Here are details from the study.

We regress net wealth on income…and add welfare state country level variables. …The main result of these hierarchical linear models is that pension and social security expenditure measured as shares of GDP show significant and negative correlation with household net wealth levels. …We regard this as evidence that welfare state expenditures indeed act as substitutes for private wealth accumulation and explain partly observed differences in household net wealth among euro area countries. A larger and more active welfare state leads to less need for private households to accumulate private wealth.

Here’s a pair of graphs from the study, showing the negative relationship between government-provided pensions and private wealth.

Now here’s the part that should make honest leftists more open to entitlement reform.

The data show that the welfare state increases inequality!

The effect of a 1 percentage point increase in state pension expenditure as a share of GDP on net wealth is a decrease about 20% less wealth for households around the 10th net wealth percentile. The size of the negative impact is smaller for wealthier households, but remains at above 10% of net wealth. Social security expenditure shows a similar but somewhat weaker effect, ranging at around 10% at the 10th net wealth percentile and coming close to zero for the wealthiest. …we see a decrease in net wealth of 47% for the low wealth household, of 16% for the middle wealth household, and 8% for the high wealth household. These numbers are roughly in line with our results… Additional welfare state spending is negatively associated with all wealth levels but decreasing in size relative to wealth across the full net wealth distribution. …this mechanism would lead to increased observed inequality of private net wealth given an increase of welfare state activity.

Those are some damning results.

And the numbers might be even worse in the United States since many minorities already are screwed by Social Security because they have shorter lifespans.

P.S. Since we’re on the topic of inequality, regular readers know that I think the issue as a complete red herring. Simply stated, the goal should be faster growth and it doesn’t matter if some people get richer faster than others get richer (assuming, of course, that the rich are earning their money and not getting subsidies, bailouts, and other forms of unearned wealth).

That being said, if somebody had asked me whether there had been a significant increase in inequality over the past couple of decades, I would have guessed – based on all the feverish rhetoric from our statist friends – that the answer is yes. So I was very surprised to see this chart from Mark Perry at the American Enterprise Institute.

share of total income earned by the top 5% and top 20% of US households 1993-2014

Source: AEI

In other words, the politicians who are talking about a supposed crisis of growing inequality are spouting nonsense. And I’m ashamed I didn’t know their rhetoric is a bunch of you-know-what. That being said, if their concern about inequality is legitimate and not just for purposes of demagoguery, I expect them to read the ECB working paper discussed above and add their voice in support of a smaller welfare state and in favor of Social Security reform.

P.P.S. If the New York Times can support private retirement savings (albeit by accident), then other leftists should be able to do the same thing.

[mybooktable book=”global-tax-revolution-the-rise-of-tax-competition-and-the-battle-to-defend-it” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]

Data from the European Central Bank (ECB)

Pope-Francis-UN

Pope Francis speaks with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon at UN headquarters in New York on September 25, 2015 (AFP Photo/Darren Ornitz)

Read the full transcript text of Pope Francis’ address to the United Nations General Assembly in New York on Sept. 25, 2015. Read it here:

Mr President,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

Thank you for your kind words.

Once again, following a tradition by which I feel honored, the Secretary General of the United Nations has invited the Pope to address this distinguished assembly of nations. In my own name, and that of the entire Catholic community, I wish to express to you, Mr Ban Ki-moon, my heartfelt gratitude. I greet the Heads of State and Heads of Government present, as well as the ambassadors, diplomats and political and technical officials accompanying them, the personnel of the United Nations engaged in this 70th Session of the General Assembly, the personnel of the various programs and agencies of the United Nations family, and all those who, in one way or another, take part in this meeting. Through you, I also greet the citizens of all the nations represented in this hall. I thank you, each and all, for your efforts in the service of mankind.

This is the fifth time that a Pope has visited the United Nations. I follow in the footsteps of my predecessors Paul VI, in1965, John Paul II, in 1979 and 1995, and my most recent predecessor, now Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, in 2008. All of them expressed their great esteem for the Organization, which they considered the appropriate juridical and political response to this present moment of history, marked by our technical ability to overcome distances and frontiers and, apparently, to overcome all natural limits to the exercise of power. An essential response, inasmuch as technological power, in the hands of nationalistic or falsely universalist ideologies, is capable of perpetrating tremendous atrocities. I can only reiterate the appreciation expressed by my predecessors, in reaffirming the importance which the Catholic Church attaches to this Institution and the hope which she places in its activities.

The United Nations is presently celebrating its seventieth anniversary. The history of this organized community of states is one of important common achievements over a period of unusually fast-paced changes. Without claiming to be exhaustive, we can mention the codification and development of international law, the establishment of international norms regarding human rights, advances in humanitarian law, the resolution of numerous conflicts, operations of peace-keeping and reconciliation, and any number of other accomplishments in every area of international activity and endeavour. All these achievements are lights which help to dispel the darkness of the disorder caused by unrestrained ambitions and collective forms of selfishness. Certainly, many grave problems remain to be resolved, yet it is clear that, without all those interventions on the international level, mankind would not have been able to survive the unchecked use of its own possibilities. Every one of these political, juridical and technical advances is a path towards attaining the ideal of human fraternity and a means for its greater For this reason I pay homage to all those men and women whose loyalty and self-sacrifice have benefitted humanity as a whole in these past seventy years. In particular, I would recall today those who gave their lives for peace and reconciliation among peoples, from Dag Hammarskjöld to the many United Nations officials at every level who have been killed in the course of humanitarian missions, and missions of peace and reconciliation.

Beyond these achievements, the experience of the past seventy years has made it clear that reform nd adaptation to the times is always necessary in the pursuit of the ultimate goal of granting all countries, without exception, a share in, and a genuine and equitable influence on, decision-making processes. The need for greater equity is especially true in the case of those bodies with effective executive capability, such as the Security Council, the Financial Agencies and the groups or mechanisms specifically created to deal with economic crises. This will help limit every kind of abuse or usury, especially where developing countries are concerned. The International Financial Agencies are should care for the sustainable development of countries and should ensure that they are not subjected to oppressive lending systems which, far from promoting progress, subject people to mechanisms which generate greater poverty, exclusion and dependence.

The work of the United Nations, according to the principles set forth in the Preamble and the first Articles of its founding Charter, can be seen as the development and promotion of the rule of law, based on the realization that justice is an essential condition for achieving the ideal of universal fraternity. In this context, it is helpful to recall that the limitation of power is an idea implicit in the concept of law itself. To give to each his own, to cite the classic definition of justice, means that no human individual or group can consider itself absolute, permitted to bypass the dignity and the rights of other individuals or their social groupings. The effective distribution of power (political, economic, defense-related, technological, etc.) among a plurality of subjects, and the creation of a juridical system for regulating claims and interests, are one concrete way of limiting power. Yet today’s world presents us with many false rights and – at the same time – broad sectors which are vulnerable, victims of power badly exercised: for example, the natural environment and the vast ranks of the excluded. These sectors are closely interconnected and made increasingly fragile by dominant political and economic relationships.

That is why their rights must be forcefully affirmed, by working to protect the environment and by putting an end to exclusion.

First, it must be stated that a true “right of the environment” does exist, for two reasons. First, because we human beings are part of the environment. We live in communion with it, since the environment itself entails ethical limits which human activity must acknowledge and respect. Man, for all his remarkable gifts, which “are signs of a uniqueness which transcends the spheres of physics and biology” (Laudato Si’, 81), is at the same time a part of these spheres. He possesses a body shaped by physical, chemical and biological elements, and can only survive and develop if the ecological environment is favourable. Any harm done to the environment, therefore, is harm done to humanity.

Second, because every creature, particularly a living creature, has an intrinsic value, in its existence, its life, its beauty and its interdependence with other creatures. We Christians, together with the other monotheistic religions, believe that the universe is the fruit of a loving decision by the Creator, who permits man respectfully to use creation for the good of his fellow men and for the glory of the Creator; he is not authorized to abuse it, much less to destroy it. In all religions, the environment is a fundamental The misuse and destruction of the environment are also accompanied by a relentless process of exclusion. In effect, a selfish and boundless thirst for power and material prosperity leads both to the misuse of available natural resources and to the exclusion of the weak and disadvantaged, either because they are differently abled (handicapped), or because they lack adequate information and technical expertise, or are incapable of decisive political action. Economic and social exclusion is a complete denial of human fraternity and a grave offense against human rights and the environment. The poorest are those who suffer most from such offenses, for three serious reasons: they are cast off by society, forced to live off what is discarded and suffer unjustly from the abuse of the environment. They are part of today’s widespread and quietly growing “culture of waste”.

The dramatic reality this whole situation of exclusion and inequality, with its evident effects, has led me, in union with the entire Christian people and many others, to take stock of my grave responsibility in this regard and to speak out, together with all those who are seeking urgently-needed and effective solutions. The adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development at the World Summit, which opens today, is an important sign of hope. I am similarly confident that the Paris Conference on Climatic Change will secure fundamental and effective agreements.

Solemn commitments, however, are not enough, even though they are a necessary step toward solutions. The classic definition of justice which I mentioned earlier contains as one of its essential elements a constant and perpetual will: Iustitia est constans et perpetua voluntas ius sum cuique tribuendi. Our world demands of all government leaders a will which is effective, practical and constant, concrete steps and immediate measures for preserving and improving the natural environment and thus putting an end as quickly as possible to the phenomenon of social and economic exclusion, with its baneful consequences: human trafficking, the marketing of human organs and tissues, the sexual exploitation of boys and girls, slave labour, including prostitution, the drug and weapons trade, terrorism and international organized crime. Such is the magnitude of these situations and their toll in innocent lives, that we must avoid every temptation to fall into a declarationist nominalism which would assuage our consciences. We need to ensure that our institutions are truly effective in the struggle against all these The number and complexity of the problems require that we possess technical instruments of verification. But this involves two risks. We can rest content with the bureaucratic exercise of drawing up long lists of good proposals – goals, objectives and statistical indicators – or we can think that a single theoretical and aprioristic solution will provide an answer to all the challenges. It must never be forgotten that political and economic activity is only effective when it is understood as a prudential activity, guided by a perennial concept of justice and constantly conscious of the fact that, above and beyond our plans and programmes, we are dealing with real men and women who live, struggle and suffer, and are often forced to live in great poverty, deprived of all rights.

To enable these real men and women to escape from extreme poverty, we must allow them to be dignified agents of their own destiny. Integral human development and the full exercise of human dignity cannot be imposed. They must be built up and allowed to unfold for each individual, for every family, in communion with others, and in a right relationship with all those areas in which human social life develops – friends, communities, towns and cities, schools, businesses and unions, provinces, nations, etc.

This presupposes and requires the right to education – also for girls (excluded in certain places) – which is ensured first and foremost by respecting and reinforcing the primary right of the family to educate its children, as well as the right of churches and social groups to support and assist families in the education of their children. Education conceived in this way is the basis for the implementation of the 2030 Agenda and for reclaiming the environment.

At the same time, government leaders must do everything possible to ensure that all can have the minimum spiritual and material means needed to live in dignity and to create and support a family, which is the primary cell of any social development. In practical terms, this absolute minimum has three names: lodging, labour, and land; and one spiritual name: spiritual freedom, which includes religious freedom, the right to education and other civil rights.

For all this, the simplest and best measure and indicator of the implementation of the new Agenda for development will be effective, practical and immediate access, on the part of all, to essential material and spiritual goods: housing, dignified and properly remunerated employment, adequate food and drinking water; religious freedom and, more generally, spiritual freedom and education. These pillars of integral human development have a common foundation, which is the right to life and, more generally, what we could call the right to existence of human nature itself.

The ecological crisis, and the large-scale destruction of biodiversity, can threaten the very existence of the human species. The baneful consequences of an irresponsible mismanagement of the global economy, guided only by ambition for wealth and power, must serve as a summons to a forthright reflection on man: “man is not only a freedom which he creates for himself. Man does not create himself.

He is spirit and will, but also nature” (BENEDICT XVI, Address to the Bundestag, 22 September 2011, cited in Laudato Si’, 6). Creation is compromised “where we ourselves have the final word… The misuse of creation begins when we no longer recognize any instance above ourselves, when we see nothing else but ourselves” (ID. Address to the Clergy of the Diocese of Bolzano-Bressanone, 6 August 2008, cited ibid.). Consequently, the defence of the environment and the fight against exclusion demand that we recognize a moral law written into human nature itself, one which includes the natural difference between man and woman (cf. Laudato Si’, 155), and absolute respect for life in all its stages and dimensions (cf.

Without the recognition of certain incontestable natural ethical limits and without the immediate implementation of those pillars of integral human development, the ideal of “saving succeeding generations from the scourge of war” (Charter of the United Nations, Preamble), and “promoting social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom” (ibid.), risks becoming an unattainable illusion, or, even worse, idle chatter which serves as a cover for all kinds of abuse and corruption, or for carrying out an ideological colonization by the imposition of anomalous models and lifestyles which are alien to people’s identity and, in the end, irresponsible.

War is the negation of all rights and a dramatic assault on the environment. If we want true integral human development for all, we must work tirelessly to avoid war between nations and between To this end, there is a need to ensure the uncontested rule of law and tireless recourse to negotiation, mediation and arbitration, as proposed by the Charter of the United Nations, which constitutes truly a fundamental juridical norm. The experience of these seventy years since the founding of the United Nations in general, and in particular the experience of these first fifteen years of the third millennium, reveal both the effectiveness of the full application of international norms and the ineffectiveness of their lack of enforcement. When the Charter of the United Nations is respected and applied with transparency and sincerity, and without ulterior motives, as an obligatory reference point of justice and not as a means of masking spurious intentions, peaceful results will be obtained. When, on the other hand, the norm is considered simply as an instrument to be used whenever it proves favourable, and to be avoided when it is not, a true Pandora’s box is opened, releasing uncontrollable forces which gravely harm defenseless populations, the cultural milieu and even the biological environment.

The Preamble and the first Article of the Charter of the United Nations set forth the foundations of the international juridical framework: peace, the pacific solution of disputes and the development of friendly relations between the nations. Strongly opposed to such statements, and in practice denying them, is the constant tendency to the proliferation of arms, especially weapons of mass distraction, such as nuclear weapons. An ethics and a law based on the threat of mutual destruction – and possibly the destruction of all mankind – are self-contradictory and an affront to the entire framework of the United Nations, which would end up as “nations united by fear and distrust”. There is urgent need to work for a world free of nuclear weapons, in full application of the non-proliferation Treaty, in letter and spirit, with the goal of a complete prohibition of these weapons.

The recent agreement reached on the nuclear question in a sensitive region of Asia and the Middle East is proof of the potential of political good will and of law, exercised with sincerity, patience and constancy. I express my hope that this agreement will be lasting and efficacious, and bring forth the desired fruits with the cooperation of all the parties involved.

In this sense, hard evidence is not lacking of the negative effects of military and political interventions which are not coordinated between members of the international community. For this reason, while regretting to have to do so, I must renew my repeated appeals regarding to the painful situation of the entire Middle East, North Africa and other African countries, where Christians, together with other cultural or ethnic groups, and even members of the majority religion who have no desire to be caught up in hatred and folly, have been forced to witness the destruction of their places of worship, their cultural and religious heritage, their houses and property, and have faced the alternative either of fleeing or of paying for their adhesion to good and to peace by their own lives, or by enslavement.

These realities should serve as a grave summons to an examination of conscience on the part of those charged with the conduct of international affairs. Not only in cases of religious or cultural persecution, but in every situation of conflict, as in Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, Libya, South Sudan and the Great Lakes region, real human beings take precedence over partisan interests, however legitimate the latter may be. In wars and conflicts there are individual persons, our brothers and sisters, men and women, young and old, boys and girls who weep, suffer and die. Human beings who are easily discarded when our only response is to draw up lists of problems, strategies and disagreements.

As I wrote in my letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations on 9 August 2014, “the most basic understanding of human dignity compels the international community, particularly through the norms and mechanisms of international law, to do all that it can to stop and to prevent further systematic violence against ethnic and religious minorities” and to protect innocent peoples.

Along the same lines I would mention another kind of conflict which is not always so open, yet is silently killing millions of people. Another kind of war experienced by many of our societies as a result of the narcotics trade. A war which is taken for granted and poorly fought. Drug trafficking is by its very nature accompanied by trafficking in persons, money laundering, the arms trade, child exploitation and other forms of corruption. A corruption which has penetrated to different levels of social, political, military, artistic and religious life, and, in many cases, has given rise to a parallel structure which threatens the credibility of our institutions.

I began this speech recalling the visits of my predecessors. I would hope that my words will be taken above all as a continuation of the final words of the address of Pope Paul VI; although spoken almost exactly fifty years ago, they remain ever timely. “The hour has come when a pause, a moment of recollection, reflection, even of prayer, is absolutely needed so that we may think back over our common origin, our history, our common destiny. The appeal to the moral conscience of man has never been as necessary as it is today… For the danger comes neither from progress nor from science; if these are used well, they can help to solve a great number of the serious problems besetting mankind (Address to the United Nations Organization, 4 October 1965). Among other things, human genius, well applied, will surely help to meet the grave challenges of ecological deterioration and of exclusion. As Paul VI said: “The real danger comes from man, who has at his disposal ever more powerful instruments that are as well fitted to bring about ruin as they are to achieve lofty conquests” (ibid.).

The common home of all men and women must continue to rise on the foundations of a right understanding of universal fraternity and respect for the sacredness of every human life, of every man and every woman, the poor, the elderly, children, the infirm, the unborn, the unemployed, the abandoned, those considered disposable because they are only considered as part of a statistic. This common home of all men and women must also be built on the understanding of a certain sacredness of created nature.

Such understanding and respect call for a higher degree of wisdom, one which accepts transcendence, rejects the creation of an all-powerful élite, and recognizes that the full meaning of individual and collective life is found in selfless service to others and in the sage and respectful use of creation for the common good. To repeat the words of Paul VI, “the edifice of modern civilization has to be built on spiritual principles, for they are the only ones capable not only of supporting it, but of shedding light on it” (ibid.).

El Gaucho Martín Fierro, a classic of literature in my native land, says: “Brothers should stand by each other, because this is the first law; keep a true bond between you always, at every time – because if you fight among yourselves, you’ll be devoured by those outside”.

The contemporary world, so apparently connected, is experiencing a growing and steady social fragmentation, which places at risk “the foundations of social life” and consequently leads to “battles over conflicting interests” (Laudato Si’, 229).

The present time invites us to give priority to actions which generate new processes in society, so as to bear fruit in significant and positive historical events (cf. Evangelii Gaudium, 223). We cannot permit ourselves to postpone “certain agendas” for the future. The future demands of us critical and global decisions in the face of world-wide conflicts which increase the number of the excluded and those The praiseworthy international juridical framework of the United Nations Organization and of all its activities, like any other human endeavour, can be improved, yet it remains necessary; at the same time it can be the pledge of a secure and happy future for future generations. And so it will, if the representatives of the States can set aside partisan and ideological interests, and sincerely strive to serve the common good. I pray to Almighty God that this will be the case, and I assure you of my support and my prayers, and the support and prayers of all the faithful of the Catholic Church, that this Institution, all its member States, and each of its officials, will always render an effective service to mankind, a service respectful of diversity and capable of bringing out, for sake of the common good, the best in each people and in every individual.

Upon all of you, and the peoples you represent, I invoke the blessing of the Most High, and all peace and prosperity. Thank you.

Read the full transcript text of Pope

Healthcare Sector Was Already Suffering from Too Much Government, Money and Intervention

obamacare-obama-lie

President Obama depicted in front of an American flag in reference to his signature healthcare law, ObamaCare.

Like many Americans, I’m suffering from ObamaCare fatigue. Before the law was implemented, I repeatedly explained that more spending and more intervention  in the healthcare sector would worsen a system that already was suffering from too much government. And since the law went into effect, I’ve pointed out –over and over again – the predictably negative effects of giving the government even more control.

So I’m tempted to wash my hands of the issue. But that would be wrong, particularly since advocates of statism disingenuously might claim that silence somehow means acceptance or approval.

Moreover, we need to continuously remind ourselves that big government doesn’t work just in case there’s a chance to enact good reforms after Obama leaves office. With that in mind, let’s look at recent developments that underscore the case against government-run healthcare. How about the fact that ObamaCare is extremely vulnerable to fraud?

…the GAO report showed that federal auditors 11 out of 12 times were able to gain subsidized coverage with fictitious applications, three of the successful applications never provided citizenship or immigration documentation. The investigators in each case were able to obtain $2,500 or around $30,000 annually in advance premium tax credits.

And what about the fact that the Obamacare co-ops have been a big flop?

Nonprofit co-ops, the health care law’s public-spirited alternative to mega-insurers, are awash in red ink and many have fallen short of sign-up goals, a government audit has found. Under President Barack Obama’s overhaul, taxpayers provided $2.4 billion in loans to get the co-ops going, but only one out of 23 — the one in Maine — made money last year, said the report out Thursday. Another one…was shut down by regulators over financial concerns. The audit by the Health and Human Services inspector general’s office also found that 13 of the 23 lagged far behind their 2014 enrollment projections.

Or what about the fact that deductibles have increased under ObamaCare?

A survey released earlier this week by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that..deductibles have risen almost three times as fast since 2010 for employer-sponsored plans.

And should we care that ObamaCare has meant rising health care costs?

…the actuaries estimated that health spending that year jumped by 5.5 percent, a bigger rise than the country had experienced in five years. …The actuaries cited three main reasons they think health spending is set to tick up. One is the aging of the population… Another is the improving economy… But the third, and a big one, was Obamacare’s coverage expansion.

All of the aforementioned things are contrary to what ObamaCare supporters promised. Though since I focus on policy rather than politics, I’ll take this opportunity to point out that higher deductibles in some ways are a good thing. Which is why I’ve defended ObamaCare’s Cadillac tax.

But now let’s look at two additional ObamaCare developments. And both represent very bad news.

First, new scholarly research shows that ObamaCare will be bad news for all income levels, and even will be of questionable value to those getting big subsidies (h/t: Marginal Revolution).

…the average financial burden will increase for all income levels once insured. Subsidy-eligible persons with incomes below 250 percent of the poverty threshold likely experience welfare improvements that offset the higher financial burden, depending on assumptions about risk aversion and the value of additional consumption of medical care. However, even under the most optimistic assumptions, close to half of the formerly uninsured (especially those with higher incomes) experience both higher financial burden and lower estimated welfare.

In other words, people generally were making sensible choices when they had some degree of freedom. But now that they’re being coerced into ObamaCare,many of them are worse off. Even in many cases if they’re the ones getting subsidized!

Second, we now know that President Obama’s promise to lower health insurance premiums by $2,500 was laughably misleading. But it’s not simply that the President exaggerated. As Investor’s Business Daily explains, the numbers actually have gone in the other direction.

Since 2008, average family premiums have climbed a total of $4,865. The White House cheered the news, saying it was a sign of continued slow growth in premium costs. …Slightly less higher premiums aren’t what President Obama promised Americans when he ran for office touting his medical overhaul. He specifically said his plan would cut premiums. “We will start,” Obama said back in 2008, “by reducing premiums by as much as $2,500 per family.”

And keep in mind that Obama’s claim of big savings was not a one-time, off-the-cuff comment. As you can see in this video, it was a pervasive part of his campaign for further government control of the health care system.

[brid video=”16243″ player=”1929″ title=”Obama Promises to Lower Health Insurance Premiums by $2500 Per Year”]

But the real story isn’t prevarication by a politician. That comes with the territory. The real issue is that our healthcare system is more screwed up because government now is playing a bigger role. And keep in mind that fixing the problem means a lot more than simply repealing Obamacare. We also need to deal with spending programs such as Medicare and Medicaid and address tax preferences and regulations that encourage over-insurance.

After all, never forget that our real healthcare crisis is a giant government-caused third-party payer problem.

ObamaCare is and always will be a

[brid video=”16239″ player=”1929″ title=”Rare Video of Suicide Bomber Crying in Moments Leading Up to Attack”]

A video posted to Islamic forums appears to show a young suicide bomber crying in the moments before he carried out a vehicle-based attack in Syria. The suicide bomber was identified by several British media outlets as Jafar al-Tayyar of Uzbekistan.

The young Uzbek national is first seen in the video being hugged for either comfort or encouragement–or, both–by his fellow-Islamic jihadist before he gets into the armored vehicle. However, it wasn’t fear or guilt that caused his despair in the final moments of his life.

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty translated the video. It reveals that one of the Uzbek-speaking Islamists warned the condemned man that the “shaytan,” or devil, was trying to frighten him. But, again, he wasn’t afraid to die.

“Jafar, my brother, don’t be afraid. When you are scared, remember Allah,” the fellow militant said.

Jafar said he was not afraid of the devil or death.

“I’m just scared I won’t succeed.”

A video posted to Islamic forums appears

Supermoon Lunar Eclipse Won’t Return Until 2033, So Watch NASA’s Live Feed If Necessary

supermoon-valletta-reuters

File photo – The rising full moon is seen from Valletta Sept. 9, 2014. (REUTERS/Darrin Zammit Lupi)

For the first time in over 30 years, NASA says a supermoon lunar eclipse combo will be visible to stargazers Sunday in North and South America, Europe, Africa, and parts of West Asia and the eastern Pacific. There have only been five supermoon eclipses since 1900 (in 1910, 1928, 1946, 1964 and 1982). The next supermoon eclipse will occur in 2033.

“Throughout human history, lunar eclipses have been viewed with awe and sometimes fear,” NASA said in a statement. “Today, we know that a total lunar eclipse happens when the full moon passes through the darkest part of Earth’s shadow, the umbra.”

On the night of Sept. 27, 2015, a supermoon lunar ecllipse will be viewable and last 1 hour and 11 minutes in the night sky for those living in North and South America, while those living in Europe and Africa can view it in the early morning hours of Sept. 28. Weather permitting, the supermoon will be visible after nightfall, and the supermoon lunar eclipse combo will begin at 8:11 p.m. ET. The total eclipse starts at 10:11 p.m. ET, peaking at 10:47 p.m. ET.

Facts From NASA

The moon does not make its own light; it reflects light it receives from the sun. During a lunar eclipse, the moon appears less and less bright as sunlight is blocked by the Earth’s shadow. As totality approaches, sunlight reaches the moon indirectly and is refracted around the “edges” of Earth, through Earth’s atmosphere. Because of this, almost all colors except red are “filtered” out, and the eclipsed moon appears reddish or dark brown. This filtering is caused by particulates in our atmosphere; when there have been a lot of fires and/or volcanic eruptions, lunar eclipses will appear darker and redder. This eerie — but harmless — effect has earned the phenomenon the nickname “blood moon.”

Watch NASA’s live stream from 8:00 p.m. until at least 11:30 p.m. EDT broadcast from Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., with a live feed from the Griffith Observatory, Los Angeles, Calif. Mitzi Adams, a NASA solar physicist at Marshall will discuss the eclipse and answer questions from Twitter. To ask a question, use #askNASA.

WATCH — NASA Explains First Supermoon Lunar Eclipse in 30 Years (Video)

The live feed from NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center will offer views of the eclipse from not only the Griffith Observatory, but the Adler Planetarium in Chicago, Fernbank Observatory in Atlanta and other locations across the United States. The live feed is an alternative for those experiencing less-than-optimal weather or light-polluted night skies.

NASA says a supermoon lunar eclipse combo

Supermoon Lunar Eclipse Won’t Return Until 2033

[brid video=”16227″ player=”1929″ title=”NASA Explains Supermoon Lunar Eclipse”]

On the night of Sept. 27, 2015, a supermoon lunar ecllipse will be viewable in the night sky for those living in North and South America for the first time in more than 30 years. Those living in Europe and Africa can view it in the early morning hours of Sept. 28.

READ ALSO — Watch First Supermoon Lunar Eclipse Combo in Over 30 Years: Here’s What It’s All About

In a video, NASA explains a supermoon

consumer sentiment men shopping

Shoppers at Third Street Promenade outdoor shopping mall on August 17, 2012 in Santa Monica, California. (Photo: Reuters)

A gauge of consumer sentiment from the University of Michigan rose to 87.2 in September from a preliminary reading of 85.7, though remained at its lowest level since September 2014.

“The decline in optimism continued to narrow in late September as consumers increasingly concluded that the stock market declines had more to do with international conditions than the domestic economy,” Surveys of Consumers chief economist, Richard Curtin said. “While the September Sentiment Index was at the lowest level in eleven months, it was still higher than in any prior month since May 2007.”

Economists polled by the Wall Street Journal anticipated consumer sentiment would clock in at a slightly smaller increase to 86.7. Curtin added:

To be sure, a raft of recent events have been viewed as negative economic indicators by consumers, including falling commodity prices, weakened Chinese and other economies as well as continued stresses on European countries. Although most believe the domestic economy is still largely insulated, they have lowered the pace of job and wage growth that they now anticipate. The true significance of these findings is not the diminished economic prospects, but that consumers now believe that global economic trends can directly influence their own job and wage prospects as well as indirectly via financial markets. While now small, the influence of the global economy is certain to rise in the future and prompt widespread adjustments by consumers and policy makers.

Final Results for September 2015

Sep Aug Sep M-M Y-Y
2015 2015 2014 Change Change
Index of Consumer Sentiment 87.2 91.9 84.6 -5.1% +3.1%
Current Economic Conditions 101.2 105.1 98.9 -3.7% +2.3%
Index of Consumer Expectations 78.2 83.4 75.4 -6.2% +3.7%
Next data release: October 16, 2015 for Preliminary October data at 10am ET

A gauge of consumer sentiment from the

Image: U.S. House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) speaks at a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington

U.S. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, speaks at a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington on March 19, 2015. (Photo: Yuri Gripas/Reuters)

BREAKING NEWS: PPD has confirmed that House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, will resign his gavel at the end of October, citing “irreparable damage” that could be done to the lower chamber in the event of an intra-party fight. The move that comes just one day after Pope Francis addressed a joint session of Congress.

“Speaker Boehner believes that the first job of any Speaker is to protect this institution and, as we saw yesterday with the Holy Father, it is the one thing that unites and inspires us all,” the aide said. “… The Speaker believes putting members through prolonged leadership turmoil would do irreparable damage to the institution.”

Speaker Boehner, who became the 61st Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, not only plans to step down as speaker but also resign from Congress, altogether. He currently represents Ohio’s 8th congressional district and has since 1991, a district that includes several rural and suburban areas near Cincinnati and Dayton. On November 17, 2010, Boehner was unanimously chosen by the House Republicans as their nominee for Speaker. But it has been all down hill for the Ohioan since.

The decision comes as he faces an internal battle in the House GOP caucus over Planned Parenthood funding, which is just the latest in a string of disappointments that have outraged conservative members and Republican voters. During the fight over the $1.1 trillion cromnibus bill to fund the government and President Obama’s executive amnesty, which barely passed the House in Dec. 2014, Boehner worked with the White House to get around members of his own party.

The plan funded the government through September 2015, but Boehner and GOP leadership argued immigration services would’ve only been funded through late February. By that time, a new Republican Senate majority will have more leverage to wage a battle over the president’s widely denounced executive order on immigration. However, the strategy put conservatives in a position to decide whether to fund the Department of Homeland Security or shutdown the government, and they saw right through it.

“The first rule of hostage negotiations is that you never take a hostage the other side wants you to shoot,” said Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas.

In Jan. 2015, Gohmert announced he would challenge Boehner for the speakership, which grew into a serious movement that only fell 4 votes short. Eventually, the new 246-vote Republican House majority voted to reelect Rep. John Boehner as speaker to the 114th Congress, giving him a third term with the gavel even though it was far closer than most pols and pundits predicted.

However, this time around the resolve and public sentiment against Boehner was far more threatening to his post. According to the latest poll, which was conducted prior to the release of undercover videos exposing PPFA’s trafficking of aborted baby body parts, roughly two-thirds of Republican voters said they wanted him to resign.

“He is proud of what this majority has accomplished, and his Speakership,” the aide added. “But for the good of the Republican Conference and the institution, he will resign the Speakership and his seat in Congress, effective October 30.”

Boehner, who previously served as the House Minority Leader from 2007 until 2011 and House Majority Leader from 2006 until 2007, was visibly emotional during Pope Francis’ address to a joint session of Congress on Thursday (even more so than usual). He had been petitioning to get the Pope to speak to Congress since 1993, and though this decision had been in his mind for sometime, he wanted to leave on a high note.

Now, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., is believed to be next in line, though it has by no means been settled.

“It’s not clear who will replace Speaker Boehner,” said Senate Conservative Fund President Ken Cuccinelli in an email to PPD in response to the announcement.”But you can be sure that SCF will hold that person accountable too.”

McCarthy has ramped up his support for the conservative members of the chamber, including backing them in the fight against funding Planned Parenthood. The last time the House went to multiple ballots to choose a speaker was 1923.

PPD has confirmed that House Speaker John

Gross-Domestic-Product-GDP-Reuters

File photo: Shipping cranes and containers at a U.S. port representing exports and imports factored in overall gross domestic product, or GDP. (Photo: REUTERS)

The Commerce Department said on Friday that second-quarter growth as measured by gross domestic product (GDP) was revised up to a 3.9% annual pace. GDP was previously reported to have grown 3.7% in the April-June quarter.

Economists polled by Reuters had forecast second-quarter growth revisions to remain at its previous estimate. The change reflects a revised increase in consumer spending largely on healthcare, as the cost of premiums and other out-of-pocket expenses such as deductibles have risen in many states over 100%. Consumer spending, which accounts for more than two thirds of U.S. economic activity, was revised up to 3.6% from the initial 3.1% reported in August.

Revised spending on construction also helped to fuel the increase, with non-residential fixed investment growing by 4.1% in the second quarter. There was also a smaller accumulation of inventories than earlier reported, as inventories contributed just 0.02% to overall GDP growth rather than the 0.22% estimated last month.

The GDP report, which was released in the wake of a global stock market sell-off, is the first since the government “adjusted” their longstanding methodology. The change, which again came after first quarter contraction, marks the second time the government has changed the previously long-standing methodology. In July 2013, the U.S. government made a significant change in the gross investment number (I), which now includes research and development (R&D) spending, art, music, film royalties, books and theatre. In the entertainment industry, for instance, much of those numbers are expected projections, such as how much they believe a movie will make at the Box Office.

This change in the method to gauge GDP —or, rewriting the GDP number— was first implemented by the United States, and India was quick to express an interest. Yet, unlike the U.S., India has made a reasonable case for revising their long-plagued methodologies. In the U.S., changing the method to boost investment measures has no real benefit to the truth and no other purpose but to make “GDP growth happy,” as Bloomberg correctly critiqued. Let’s take a look at the government’s claims.

Despite the rosy economic picture the headline GDP paints, the Federal Reserve once again delayed their long-waited first interest rate hike since the Great Recession. While Fed Chair Janet Yellen said Thursday she and “most other” Fed policy makers “anticipate” raising interest rates at some point before the end of the year, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) backed itself out of its self-imposed deadline because they needed more evidence of “further improvement in the labor market” and they were not “reasonably confident” inflation will move back to their 2% annual target.

It is a basic law of economics that inflation and wages rise when conditions reflect a truly tightening labor market, but they aren’t. As PPD reported, the labor market is a part-time animal with an abysmal civilian labor force participation rate. Even though the U.S. economy has technically regained all of the 8.8 million jobs lost during the financial crisis, the quality of the jobs created are low-skill, low-wage opportunities. Growth in higher-paying jobs, including those created in the manufacturing and energy sectors, continue to show considerable weakness.

The Commerce Department reported on Thursday that new orders for long-lasting manufactured durable goods fell 2% in August. The report comes after two closely-watched surveys of regional manufacturing activity indicated contraction last month. The Philadelphia Federal Reserve’s regional Manufacturing Business Outlook Survey for the mid-Atlantic tanked to -6 in September from 8.3 the month prior. The Fed’s reading came in far below economists’ expectations for a drop to positive 6.

The Philadelphia Fed’s report marked the second major regional manufacturing survey released this week showing the sector contracting, as the Empire State Manufacturing Survey outWednesday showed regional manufacturing activity contracted for a second straight month in September, remaining well below zero at -14.7.

The Commerce Department said on Friday that

Pope-Francis-Obama-Andrews-Air-Base

Pope Francis, right, is greeted by President Barack Obama, left, at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland just outside of D.C. on Sept. 22, 2015. (Photo: AP)

Normally, the issue of the pope’s infallibility wouldn’t much concern me, but it does get my attention when opportunists attempt to leverage his heft to advance their political agenda.

As an evangelical Christian, I don’t subscribe to the view that the pope is infallible, but I respect Catholics who do and have no desire to offend them in the slightest. So let’s put aside the question of whether the pope is infallible and assume, for argument’s sake, that he is.

The next question is on what range of issues is he deemed infallible? Without researching the matter too deeply, I think we can safely assume that it is only on doctrinal matters. But where do we draw that line? The question is interesting because theology often overlaps with politics and because everything in our society seems to be about politics these days.

I became interested in this when I saw a reference to an opinion piece by Ramesh Ponnuru, a respected conservative Catholic whom I understood to be saying that a stronger argument could be made for the pope’s authority on the issue of abortion than on most economics issues — because the Roman Catholic Church has a much more specific official teaching on the former than it does on the latter. I made the mistake of tweeting about this — the mistake being that it’s too complex a subject to address in Twitter’s 140-character limit. I tweeted, “I’m not a Catholic, but I agree with those Catholics who’ve said (the pope’s) statements on abortion/life are in his domain but economics are not.” Ponnuru, in a later post, clarified that he acknowledges that a pope can weigh in on economic matters but said “that we should distinguish between the pope’s off-the-cuff remarks and the Church’s official teachings.”

Interesting exchanges followed because some assumed that, like many others, I am willing to use the pope’s influence when he says something that suits me (pro-life) but reject his opinion when it differs from mine (on global warming and socialism).

But as a non-Catholic, I’m really not interested in using his authority to bolster my positions; I just think the question of his range of authority is interesting to contemplate.

In response to my tweet, numerous liberals pointed out that Jesus repeatedly talked about the poor and so the pope definitely has credibility when talking about the poor and economic systems.

I conceded that Jesus was profoundly interested in the poor and charity, but I noted that capitalism is the best system to lift the poor out of poverty. Besides, I don’t believe that the Bible anywhere suggests that Christians can satisfy their duty to be charitable by advocating forced transfers of other people’s money. If anything, I think biblical principles encourage political and economic liberty.

But on further consideration, the issue really isn’t the pope’s infallibility or the scope of his infallibility, because infallible or not, the pope is the head of the Catholic Church and a global figure who carries serious weight on any matters he chooses to address. Realizing this, people all along the political spectrum were selectively citing the pope’s positions to justify their own when it helped them and ignoring them otherwise.

Unsurprisingly, the greatest offender was President Obama, who apparently sees Pope Francis’ perceived liberal views on certain issues and his timely visit to the United States as a perfect storm to reignite his singular mission to complete the fundamental transformation of the United States.

In his remarks at the arrival ceremony for the pope, Obama went into full preacher mode, from uncharacteristically beginning his speech with the Christian staple “what a beautiful day the Lord has made” to modulating his inflections to full televangelist mode to framing his entire political agenda in terms of spiritual imperatives. Obama’s gross opportunism was more transparent than anything this “most transparent” of presidents has done in office.

Obama didn’t skip a beat, praising the pope for calling on us “to put the ‘least of these’ at the center of our concerns” and for standing up for justice and inequality. Obama extolled the pope for supporting his new direction in Cuba and for reminding “us that we have a sacred obligation to protect our planet.”

People will, of course, argue that Obama was innocuously praising the pope for his leadership, but Obama is driven not by spiritual concerns but by political ones. He deliberately chose his words to establish solidarity with the pope on his — Obama’s — agenda. You’ll note that Obama omitted the subject of abortion. He did invoke America’s tradition of religious liberty, but he conspicuously ignored his own record in trampling on that liberty, including the conscience rights of Christian institutions.

That Obama used the pope as a political prop was further demonstrated by White House spokesman Josh Earnest’s comparison of Obama with the pope — in citing their mutual dedication “to helping the less fortunate,” their “commitment to social justice” and the common ground in their values.

It’s remarkable that even a narcissist of Obama’s caliber would allow — direct, probably — his spokesman to make the pope’s visit about him.

The American people are onto Obama’s mission to turn America away from its founding principles, so what a great opportunity to co-opt an outside voice to re-energize his quest. Obama is nothing if not relentless, and liberty lovers would do well to keep that at the forefront of their minds, lest they fall into complacency in the last year of his presidency, which could be the most damaging yet.

The Pope-exploiter in chief has used perceived

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial