Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
follow
1,000 Followers
follow
0 Followers
follow
People's Pundit Locals Community
Tuesday, March 4, 2025
SECTIONS
logo
mobile-logo
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 828)
Economy

The number of Americans filing new claims for unemployment benefits rose last week, indicating the labor market is reflecting slowing economic growth. Weekly jobless claims for state unemployment benefits increased 1,000 to a seasonally adjusted 291,000 for the week ended March 14, the Labor Department said on Thursday.

Economists polled by Reuters had forecast claims rising to 292,000 last week.

Meanwhile, claims for the prior week were revised to show 1,000 more applications received than previously reported, and a Labor Department analyst said there was nothing unusual in the state-level data.

The four-week moving average of claims, which is considered considered a better measure of labor market trends as it irons out week-to-week volatility, rose 2,250 to 304,750 last week. A 4-week average above 300,000 — particularly considering the small pool of eligible Americans left in the labor market — is concerning to those eyeing the quality of jobs created monthly and long-term unemployment.

The claims data covered the period during which the government surveyed employers for the March nonfarm payrolls report. The four-week moving average of claims rose 21,750 between the February and March survey periods.

The Federal Reserve on Wednesday announced it was dropping the reference to being “patient” from its so-called forward guidance, and continued with an upbeat outlook on the labor market.

Thursday’s claims report showed the number of people still receiving benefits after an initial week of aid fell 11,000 to 2.42 million in the week ended March 7.

The number of Americans filing new claims

Economy

bank stress test results

In a statement, the Federal Open Markets Committee said the inclusion of “patient” was no longer warranted.

Despite downgrading its economic forecast, low inflation and a stronger U.S. dollar, the Federal Reserve indicated Wednesday that it will raise interest rates in a meeting later this year.

In its policy statement, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) said “that an increase in the target range for the federal funds rate remains unlikely at the April FOMC meeting,” removing the statement they would remain “patient in beginning to normalize the stance of monetary policy.”

Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen has said the committee’s inclusion of “patient” indicates that the committee would hold off raising rates for at least two meetings, thus the updated language suggests the FOMC could start raising rates as soon as its policy meeting in mid June.

“This change in the forward guidance does not indicate that the Committee has decided on the timing of the initial increase in the target range,” the FOMC statement said, adding that “The Committee anticipates that it will be appropriate to raise the target range for the federal funds rate when it has seen further improvement in the labor market and is reasonably confident that inflation will move back to its 2 percent objective over the medium term.”

Committee members also signaled that once the Federal Reserve raised rates from the historic near-zero target, it would set a more gradual pace for subsequent increases. The so-called “dot plot” showed a slower rate of increases than it did following the FOMC’s December meeting.

However, the Fed said that U.S. “economic growth has moderated somewhat,” though they still expects the economy will expand at a 2.3 percent to 2.7 percent pace in 2015, down from previous estimates of 2.6 percent and 3 percent.

The committee also projected low levels of inflation to continue, forecasting a price-growth range of 0.6% to 0.8% this year.  Its December forecast called for inflation to reach up to 1.9% in 2015.  The FOMC said slowing inflation — projected at a range from .6 to .8 percent — was largely reflected by “declines in energy prices,” which it described as “transitory.”

The central bank also projected the unemployment rate to fall to as low as 5 percent this year, down from 5.2 percent. But they made no mention of the increasing weekly jobless claims, the abysmal employment-to-population ratio or weak labor force participation, both of which contribute to the falling unemployment number.

The FOMC policy action was unanimous among voting members.

Despite downgrading its economic forecast, low inflation

Opinion

Hillary-Clinton-Watermark-Silicon-AP

Hillary Rodham Clinton jokes during her keynote address at the Watermark Silicon Valley Conference for Women in Santa Clara, Calif., on Feb. 24, 2015.

What if Hillary Clinton’s emails were hacked by foreign agents when she was the secretary of state? What if persons claiming to have done so are boasting about their alleged feats on Internet websites and in chat rooms traditionally associated with illegal or undercover activities? What if this is the sore underbelly of an arrogant and lawless secretary of state who used her power to exempt herself from laws that govern executive branch employees and didn’t care about national security?

What if the law required Clinton to swear under oath on her first day as secretary of state that she would comply with all laws governing the use of federal records? What if the principal governing law — the Federal Records Act of 1950 — makes it clear that when you work for the feds all the records you receive and generate belong to the government and you cannot lawfully conceal them from the government?

What if she refused to sign such a promise because she knew she’d be violating that law?

What if the State Department has an inspector general whose job it is to assure the public and the attorney general that the secretary of state is complying with federal law? What if agents of the inspector general signed documents swearing that Clinton told them she agreed to abide by the law, and so they permitted her to have access to federal records? What if they did this because Clinton refused to sign an oath herself since she had no intention of complying with it, and because she ordered them to sign in her place?

What if the law required Clinton to swear an oath at the time she left office that she had no federal records in her possession or control? What if she signed that oath knowing that nearly all of her records were in her possession and not the government’s? What if she refused to sign that oath because she knew she possessed federal records contrary to law? What if she blamed her failure to sign that oath on her own inspector general? What if the law requires the inspector general to report her refusal to sign this oath to the attorney general? What if that report was made and the attorney general looked the other way?

What if the president has known since 2009 that Clinton has concealed government records from the government? What if his assertion that “Hillary has given her emails back” to the State Department is a trick based on the slippery use of words? What if the emails of the secretary of state do not and never did belong to her, but rather to the federal government? What if her diversion of government records away from the government and onto her husband’s computer server is a criminal act? What if Clinton is a lawyer who knows the law and knows when she is breaking it?

What if the whole premise of the law governing the records of federal employees is that the government owns and possesses all emails and documents used by the employee, and if the employee, upon leaving the government, wants any of her records, she must ask for them, and the government then reviews her records and decides which are personal?

What if Clinton turned that law on its head by keeping all of the government’s records and having her own representatives review them? What if after that review she decided which records to return to the government and which ones to DESTROY? What if this amounted to the destruction of government property? What if we are not talking about destroying meaningless scraps of paper, but rather 33,000 emails over the course of four years in office?

What if Clinton seriously exposed classified secrets that could affect national security by discussing them on an email system owned by her husband and not secured by a mature Internet service provider or by the government? What if she did this because she didn’t want anyone in the government or the public to see her records? What if the real reason for her theft of records was not personal convenience, as she has claimed, but fear of exposure of her true thoughts and unguarded behavior? What if she feared she could not publicly account for her concealed behavior, and so she kept it from the government?

What if when she claimed her husband’s email server had never been hacked she didn’t know what she was talking about? What if victims can’t always tell when they’ve been hacked? What if the persons with whom she has been emailing have been hacked? What if one of her former aides — with the lurid nickname of the “prince of darkness” (real name: Sid Blumenthal) — was hacked? What if among the hacked emails of the Prince of Darkness were some to and from Clinton strategizing about the way to portray her role at the time of the assassination in Benghazi of the American ambassador to Libya?

What if all this lawlessness and secrecy was orchestrated by Clinton herself — a person devoid of a moral compass and disdainful of compliance with law and a habitual stranger to the truth? What if she is presently the leading candidate for the Democratic nomination for president? What if the Democrats don’t care?

What if Hillary Clinton's emails were hacked

Policy

riksdagshuset-stockholm-sweden

Riksdagshuset in Stockholm, Sweden. Stockholm is the capital and largest city in Scandinavia.

Sweden is an odd country, at least from the perspective of public policy. On the positive side, it has private Social Security accounts. It has an admirable school choice system. And it was a good role model of spending restraint back in the 1990s.

But on the negative side, Sweden has one of the world’s biggest welfare states. Even after the spending restraint of the 1990s, the public sector consumes about 50 percent of economic output. And that necessitates a punitive tax code.

Source: Dan Mitchell

Source: Dan Mitchell

There’s also a truly perverse fixation on equality. And you won’t be surprised to learn that the government-run healthcare system produces some unpleasant outcomes.

Today, let’s build on our understanding of Sweden by looking at how the country’s welfare state interacts with the immigration system.

Writing for CapX, Nima Sanandaji discusses these issues in his adopted country of Sweden.

Sweden has had an unusually open policy towards refugee and family immigrants. The Swedish Migration Agency estimates that around 105,000 individuals will apply for asylum only this year, corresponding to over one percent of Sweden’s entire population.

This openness is admirable, but is it successful? Are immigrants assimilating and contributing to Sweden’s economy?

Unfortunately, the answer in many cases is no.

…the open attitude towards granting immigrants asylum is not matched by good opportunities on the labor market. An in-depth study by the daily paper Dagens Nyheter shows that many migrants struggle to find decent work even ten years after entering the country. …The median income for the refugees in the group was found to be as low as £880 a month. The family immigrants of refugees earned even less. Ten years after arriving in the country, their median income was merely £360 a month. These very low figures suggest that a large segment of the group is still relying on welfare payments. Dagens Nyheter can show that at least four out of ten refugees ten years after arrival are supported by welfare. The paper acknowledges that this is likely an underestimation.

So what’s the problem? Why are immigrants failing to prosper?

Nima suggests that government policies are the problem, creating perverse incentives for long-term dependency.

To be more specific, the country’s extravagant welfare state acts as flypaper, preventing people from climbing in the ladder of opportunity.

The combination of generous benefits, high taxes and rigid labour regulations reduce the incentives and possibilities to find work. Entrapment in welfare dependency is therefore extensive, in particular amongst immigrants. Studies have previously shown that even highly educated groups of foreign descent struggle to become self-dependent in countries such as Norway and Sweden. …The high-spending model is simply not fit to cope with the challenges of integration.

The part about “highly educated groups” is particularly important since it shows that the welfare trap doesn’t just affect low-skilled immigrants (particularly when high tax rates make productive activity relatively unattractive).

So what’s the moral of the story? Well, the one obvious lesson is that a welfare state is harmful to human progress. It hurts taxpayers, of course, but it also has a harmful impact on recipients.

And when the recipients are immigrants, redistribution is especially perverse since it makes it far less likely that newcomers will be net contributors to a nation.

And that then causes native populations to be less sympathetic to immigration, which in unfortunate since new blood – in the absence of bad government policy – can help boost national prosperity.

Though let’s at least give Sweden credit. I’m not aware that its welfare programs are subsidizing terrorism, which can’t be said for the United Kingdom, Australia,France, or the United States.

P.S. Here’s my favorite factoid about Sweden.

Let’s build on our understanding of Sweden

Opinion

rhode-island-state-representative-Aaron-Regunberg

Rhode Island state representative Aaron Regunberg.

Whenever young journalists ask how to write stories that can change lives, I suggest they start asking about tipping policies whenever they see a tip jar or valet, or visit a restaurant.

No matter what city in the U.S. they call home, it’s only a matter of time before such questions unearth a story of injustice that will outrage the public and likely change the daily lives of fellow humans who make their living waiting on the rest of us.

For more than 10 years, I’ve been writing about tipping practices that punish employees who, by law, already make an abysmal hourly wage.

Some employers and supervisors seem never to run out of ways to cheat hardworking men — and mostly women — who spend entire workdays on their feet trying to please strangers.

Bosses, for example, may skim or keep the entire contents of tip jars, which I first discovered in 2004. They also may deduct a credit-card service charge from tips not left in cash. Sometimes, they violate federal labor law and force servers to pay unpaid checks left by scurrying customers.

As I’ve learned in my years of reporting, there are essentially two ways to change these dishonorable practices. One way is to call them out, one reported incident at a time, thus alerting a public willing to wield the force of their wallets. The other way, which is far more effective, is to pass laws to protect the rights of these hourly wage earners whose desire to stay employed and support their families renders them defenseless.

In Rhode Island, state representative Aaron Regunberg is trying to legislate what some restaurant owners will do only when it is demanded of them. His bill, co-sponsored in the state senate by Gayle Goldin, would elevate the daily lives of those who work in the food service industry by raising the minimum wage and eliminating tip theft.

His bill would incrementally raise tipped workers’ wages until, by 2020, they would be comparable to the state’s regular minimum wage. Imagine that. Still not a living wage, perhaps, but at least they would no longer be forced to depend on tips to make even the minimum.

The bill would also end the employer practice of deducting credit-card service fees from tips. It would restrict the use of pooled tips. And it would require that employees receive the total amount of the tips and those deceptively tagged “service charges,” which customers too often mistakenly assume to mean “tips.”

Regunberg is a former community organizer who is young enough and engaged enough to still name many of the people he is trying to help.

“I’ve heard about these restaurant practices from constituents, but also from friends who work in the service industry,” he said in a phone interview. “The restaurant industry is well-organized and opposed to this, but what I’m hoping to do, through hearings, is voices of actual workers so their stories will be heard and shared.”

A coalition of groups in Rhode Island has coalesced in support of the bill. Among them: organized labor, the NAACP Providence Branch, Planned Parenthood, Fuerza Laboral, Farm Fresh Rhode Island and the Bell Street Chapel. The unifying theme is apparent. All of these groups, and others who have signed on, champion people who are often invisible, even when standing right in front of us.

Some restaurant owners have criticized Regunberg’s bill as overreaching. “They say, ‘There are a few bad apples, but most of us aren’t like this.’ But if you aren’t really doing this, what is the problem with tightening the law for those who are?”

That’s the kind of talk that gets you into trouble with the people who need the talkin’ to.

Excellent.

Regunberg illustrates why we need our young leaders for these troubled times. He imagines a better world for those who aren’t as fortunate as he, and arms himself with facts and figures to dislodge the stodgy from their affection for the status quo.

“What we’re trying to do with this bill is the epitome of economic development, because we’re putting our money into the economy,” he said. “People who work at restaurants might actually be able to take their own families out to dinner.”

Until that happens, in Rhode Island and wherever you may live, I offer these reminders.

Whenever possible, please tip in cash.

If you must leave your tip on a credit card, please ask if the server, coat-check worker or valet keeps the full amount.

Every time you see a tip jar, please ask who keeps them.

And please, dear readers, whenever you find out management has the wrong answer, drop me a line at [email protected].

Change is incremental, but with you at the helm, it’s also unstoppable.

Connie Schultz is a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist and an essayist for Parade magazine. She is the author of two books, including “…and His Lovely Wife,” which chronicled the successful race of her husband, Sherrod Brown, for the U.S. Senate.

[caption id="attachment_23684" align="aligncenter" width="630"] Rhode Island state

Editorials, US

media coverage of Israeli elections

March 17, 2015: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu greets supporters at the Likud party’s election headquarters In Tel Aviv, while media coverage of the Israeli elections misrepresented reality. (AP Photo/Oded Balilty)

The American mainstream media coverage of the Israeli elections Tuesday consisted of one main theme: Netanyahu is the reason Palestine cannot coexist with Israel. Israel’s longest-serving premier, Benjamin Netanyahu, led his Likud Party in a stunning and overwhelming comeback victory, which according to mediates, apparently means the end to the possibility of peace in the Middle East.

Let’s take a look at some of the “reporting” from the Associated Press, NBC News and CBS News, then scrutinize their assumptions.

AP

“Netanyahu’s return to power for a fourth term likely spells trouble for Mideast peace efforts and could further escalate tensions with the United States,” the Associated Press reported.

“The Palestinians, fed up after years of deadlock with Netanyahu,” the AP asserted as a result of Netanyahu’s win, “are now likely to press ahead with their attempts to bring war crimes charges against Israel in the International Criminal Court.”

“Now, more than ever, the international community must act,” Saeb Erekat, a Palestinian official told the AP.

NBC News

NBC Nightly News interim anchor Lester Holt, who took over for the disgraced Brian Williams, opened the show’s first tease by declaring that the “dramatic finish to a fight for power” has ended with “the last-minute threat that could destroy any chance of a peace plan.”

Andrea Mitchell reporting from Likud headquarters in Tel Aviv, declared that the election “has left years of American peace efforts in the Middle East teetering on the brink” after Netanyahu “shut the door on a two-state peace solution, rejecting an idea of a Palestinian state, long a key pillar of American diplomacy in the region.”

“This has profound implications that could mean the end of peace with the Palestinians, the end of peace with President Obama,” Mitchell said, adding it will “change the course of history in the Middle East for years to come.”

CBS News

CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley tossed to CBS “correspondent” Barry Petersen, who made sure to point to the narrative that Netanyahu is a “racist” for opposing a two-state solution and commenting Arabs were voting in droves, portraying Netanyahu as against peace.

“Peace will be hard,” Petersen said. “Netanyahu is opposed to a Palestinian state. His chief opponent Herzog says he would support it, and all the other parties have their own differing views. I have to say, Scott, not a lot of optimism on this front.”

Reaction

First, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas threatened to sever security cooperation with Israel long before Netanyahu vowed there would be no two-state solution if he was reelected. Abbas even went so far as to suggest a Netanyahu win would act as a trigger, publicly stating that a decision won’t be made until after the election.

Second, security cooperation between Israel and Egypt is at an all-time high. As long as President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi remains the head of the largest Arab nation, anything less than a Netanyahu-led government will present the potential of reversing at least some of those gains. A Herzog-led government would have caved to the Obama administration on Iran, which would have undoubtedly strain relations between Israel and Cairo, as well as Saudi Arabia and Jordan, all of whom do not want Iran to become a nuclear power.

Ironically, for all of the talk of peaceful negotiations and diplomacy, in reality it is the “bad deal” that threatens inevitable war. If Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan believe the deal will still allow Iran to secretly or openly develop a nuclear weapon, they will attack Iran.

As far as Petersen’s focus on racism, politicians in center-right, right-wing, center-left and centrist parties are all extremely concerned about what the Arab Joint List would do with the classified information opposition parties are privy to receive from Israeli Defense Force officials at briefings. That’s just the truth. That sentiment is not isolated to those who agree with Netanyahu.

Finally, unless we missed something over the last 70 years, a two-state peace solution has proven elusive if not impossible, in large part because Palestinians don’t accept a two-state solution. Only left-wing apologists do. In fact, Palestinians support and accept the political wing of the radical Islamic terror group Hamas as their elected representatives, and it was Abbas who formed a government coalition in parliament with them.

Considering the Hamas-dominated coalition calls for the destruction of the Israeli state, it is intellectually disingenuous to focus on the governing coalition Bibi Netanyahu will cobble together.

Apparently, the two-state solution, which was once incredibly popular among the Israeli electorate, in reality seems impossible to many of them now, too. So, for now, they voted for a government and a leader that will focus on their survival, and there is nothing the left-wing media can do about it.

The American mainstream media coverage of the

Politics

celebrity-apprentice-trump

The Celebrity Apprentice – Season 14 – Eric Trump, Donald Trump and Ivanka Trump. (Photo: Douglas Gorenstein/NBC)

Donald Trump will announce Thursday that he will form a presidential exploratory committee to gauge running for the 2016 Republican nomination, PPD confirmed. Trump has decided not to renew his arrangement with NBC for the television reality series “The Celebrity Apprentice,” Corey Lewandowski, a senior aide told the New Hampshire Union Leader.

Producer Mark Burnett had telephoned Trump to ask that he take on another season, but Trump declined.

“Nobody in the history of television has turned down a renewal. But Mr. Trump can do that,” Lewandowski, who began in February as his senior political adviser, told the Union Leader.

His announcement on Thursday in New Hampshire is expected to underscore his vision, professional effectiveness and success, leadership and reputation as a problem solver, and to denounce politicians who are “all talk and no action,” according to the Union Leader.

A Trump presidential campaign would focus on both domestic and national security priorities, ranging from job creation to the revival of American manufacturing, as well as giving local control over education back to communities. Trump will also focus on securing the border, renewing infrastructure, strengthening the military, and standing up to China on the world stage.

Trump, 68, believes he is best positioned to “make America truly great again,” according to the Union Leader, and also in the best financial position to take on Republican establishment candidates like former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.

The Bush family donor network is unrivaled by other potential hopefuls now that 2012 nominee Mitt Romney decided against a third run, but Trump believes “the last thing this country needs is another Bush,” as he put it last month.

As PPD previously reported during CPAC 2015, Trump has flirted with running for president before, though an aide told the Union Leader that this time he is more resolute. In fact, perhaps in an effort to reenforce his seriousness about a White House bid, Trump retweeted the story to his nearly 3,000,000 followers on Twitter.

READ ALSO — Donald Trump: ‘I Am Not Doing This For Fun,’ We Can’t Fix U.S. ‘Unless We Put Right Person’ In WH

In addition to Lewandowski, a New Hampshire resident and former director of voter registration at Americans for Prosperity, Trump has hired staff to operate in key Republican primary states like Iowa and South Carolina. He also has political advisers based in New York.

While in New Hampshire on Thursday, Trump will meet with veterans and members of the business community. He is set to talk to the media before an early evening gathering at the home of Republican state Rep. Steve Stepanek.

Trump is also scheduled to address the New Hampshire Republican Party’s “First in the Nation” leadership summit on April 17-18 in Nashua, the Union Leader reported.

Donald Trump will announce Thursday that he

Elections

netanyahu-herzog

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, left, and Zionist Union party leader Isaac Herzog, right. (Photo: REUTERS)

With 99 percent of precincts reporting before dawn on Wednesday, it was clear Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pulled off an impressive comeback. His Likud has emerged as the undisputed victor in the Israeli elections Tuesday.

According to the official tally, Likud will win 30 seats while Isaac Herzog’s Zionist Union will come in second with 24 seats. A triumphant Netanyahu declared victory even before speaking to jubilant supporters at Likud headquarters in Tel Aviv, which drew mocking headlines and analysis from what has officially exposed itself as an international media hostile to Israelis who don’t agree with them.

But Bibi knew anything short of a Zionist Union blowout would mean another term as premier for the nation’s longest-serving prime minister. In our pre-election analysis, we tried to explain to Netanyahu haters in the media and their consumers that even if the final media polls were accurate, Bibi would be back as premier. The reasons are pretty straightforward.

First, and fundamentally most important, Israelis are conservative and the electorate has been moving steadily toward the right over the past 15 years. Despite the Arab-Israeli voting blocs increasing their overall share of the electorate and millions of pro-Palestine dollars pouring in worldwide to shift Israeli public opinion, the citizenry doesn’t have the luxury of perceiving the real threat posed from Israel’s neighbors as some left-wing university debate.

As a result, Netanyahu’s path to a coalition was always easier than Herzog’s path in large part because other, smaller parties in the Knesset are natural Likud allies. They have worked to form a nationalist government with Netanyahu before, and they will do it again. This time, Netanyahu’s detractors can kiss the idea of the unity government goodbye, as Likud has more seats now than they did the last time around.

The prime minister said last night that he had already spoken with the heads of parties that he plans to invite into his coalition, including Bayit Yehudi chief Naftali Bennett (8 mandates), Kulanu’s Moshe Kahlon (10 mandates), Yisrael Beytenu head Avigdor Liberman (6 mandates), Shas leader Aryeh Deri (7 mandates), and Yaakov Litzman and Moshe Gafni who represent United Torah Judaism (6 mandates).

That’s 67 mandates, well above the majority needed to form a government Netanyahu can effectively govern without over-compromising on Likud principles and promises.

The remaining parties are Joint Arab List (14); Yesh Atid (11), and Meretz (4).

But let’s for a moment pretend the exit polls were correct. The best Herzog could have done was to take the over-estimated 27 won by the Zionist Union, somehow convince former Likud-turned–Kulanu-head Moshe Kalon to back him with his 10, and the even less plausible option to take Shas’s 7 and the 6 from United Torah Judaism. Of course, the far left-wing Meretz party would’ve been a certain 5.

That’s still only 55 mandates. In reality, Meretz only appears on track to have 4, Zionist Union is shy at least three, and Moshe Kalon will be finance minister in Netanyahu’s new government.

Thus, the leftist voices in the media began to pressure Israeli President Ruevin Rivlin, himself a member of Likud, to “do the right thing” and push Netanyahu to accept a unity government that rotates the premiership with Herzog. The most condescending example came from Gil Hoffman in the Jerusalem Post, which demonstrated utter contempt for the Israeli electorate.

“With all due respect to the millions of people who gave up time on their vacation day to cast ballots, it was clear from the start that the election would be decided by one man: President Reuven Rivlin,” wrote Hoffman shortly after the first exit polls from the Israeli elections were published. “When the polling stations closed at 10 p.m. Tuesday, so did the irrelevant part of the election when the people had their say. Now the important part of the election begins.”

He went on to surmise — from exit polls, not actual precinct voting results — that “a unity government is the most likely coalition.”

“President Rivlin, the choice is yours,” he concluded. “This election will be decided by one vote.”

While Rivlin said that he prefers a unity government, it was quite unclear whether he would push very hard for it even if the results were not so strongly in favor of Likud.

Aides to Rivlin Tuesday told PPD he would not “force” a unity government on Netanyahu, but rather would “encourage” both men to form one. Now that we have the actual voting results, the unity government outcome is a fantasy.

So, now, all that remains for the leftist media to do is trash Israeli voters and the man they chose to lead them, again.

“Netanyahu’s return to power for a fourth term likely spells trouble for Mideast peace efforts and could further escalate tensions with the United States,” the Associated Press reported.

NBC Nightly News interim anchor Lester Holt, who took over for the disgraced Brian Williams, opened the show’s first tease by declaring that the “dramatic finish to a fight for power” has ended with “the last-minute threat that could destroy any chance of a peace plan.”

Andrea Mitchell reporting from Likud headquarters in Tel Aviv, declared that the election “has left years of American peace efforts in the Middle East teetering on the brink” after Netanyahu “shut the door on a two-state peace solution, rejecting an idea of a Palestinian state, long a key pillar of American diplomacy in the region.”

Unless we missed something over the last 70 years, a two-state peace solution has proven impossible, in large part because Palestinians don’t accept a two-state solution. Only left-wing apologists do.

Apparently, the two-state solution, which was once incredibly popular among the Israeli electorate, in reality seems impossible to them now, too. So, for now, they voted for a government and a leader that will focus on their survival, and there is nothing the left-wing media can do about it.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu led Likud to

Opinion

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel. (Photo: AP)

Rahm Emanuel, current mayor of my old hometown, Chicago, is not a gentle soul. But he’s smarter than his big-spending predecessor, Richard M. Daley, and the union pawn, Jesus “Chuy” Garcia, who becomes the new mayor if he beats Emanuel in a run-off election April 7.

Emanuel was the tough Obama chief of staff who reportedly stabbed a table with a steak knife as he listed political enemies.

He relishes conflict and famously said that in politics, “You never let a serious crisis go to waste.” That comment scared libertarians and conservatives, who know that government usually uses crises as excuses to increase its power.

But here’s the surprise: Emanuel has been in crisis mode for four years now, and sometimes he made the right decisions as a result.

“Crisis” is not just political rhetoric. Mayor Daley and his predecessors pandered to a shallow public and gullible media by spending, borrowing and refinancing. Borrowing helped Daley stay in office for 12 years, but cities can’t keep borrowing the way Chicago has.

Moody’s downgraded Chicago’s credit rating almost to junk-bond level last year because the city promised to pay billions of dollars in pensions to city workers but doesn’t have the money.
Chicago is the next Detroit.

Emanuel tried to do some sensible things. He privatized some jobs, giving private contractors a chance to prove that they do city work better than city workers do it. He closed 50 of the city’s worst schools. But he made little progress in addressing the immense pension liability.

Maybe it would have been politically impossible. The pensions are owed mostly to union teachers, cops and firemen, and none will give an inch. Teachers union protests roused the public against Emanuel’s school closings.

“That school was the center of our neighborhood!” goes the refrain from the anti-Emanuel voters. “It provided good jobs.”

That’s probably why Emanuel was forced into a run-off election.

But bad schools should close. And some union schools were really bad.

Emanuel’s opponent in the run-off, Garcia, vocally supports the unions and joins them in opposing both pension reform and competition from charter schools at all costs.

Garcia also wants a “moratorium on charter schools.” But charters are a rare bright spot in the failing city.

I suppose union manipulators like Garcia worry that if more parents see how much better schools get without unions in charge, they might get other dangerous ideas. They might demand flexibility and market-based solutions in other areas.

One of my favorite things about Chicago is the so-called “Chicago school” of economics — free market advocates such as the late Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman.

Friedman said, “a major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it … gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.”

Chicago’s corrupt political culture has little interest in letting ordinary people experience real freedom.

Have you heard of “pay to play”? It’s when politicians award contracts to businesses that pay bribes. Bribery is illegal, but clever political manipulators reframe it in ways their lawyers can call legal. It happens everywhere, but Chicago has been famous for it. Emanuel continued the tradition — one of the things he hasn’t gotten right.

Somehow, investment firms that give money to Emanuel’s campaign win fees to manage the city’s money. Somehow, lawyers who give the right politicians money get lucrative contracts from the city. What a coincidence!

It’s as if Chicago voters face a painful choice: waste or corruption. Day by day, the political class milks taxpayers dry.

Once Chicago goes bankrupt, though, a judge will presumably force the city to stop throwing money to cronies, whether unions or businessmen. Pensions will have to be trimmed so that they are sustainable.

Then the rest of America will learn from Chicago’s and Detroit’s failures. Maybe.

I’m doubtful, though, because so far, the political class didn’t learn much from Detroit, Stockton, Greece, Cuba, Venezuela or the Soviet Union.

Maybe these are people who will never learn.

John Stossel is host of “Stossel” on Fox News and author of “No They Can’t! Why Government Fails, but Individuals Succeed.”John Stossel is host of “Stossel” on Fox News and author of “No They Can’t! Why Government Fails, but Individuals Succeed.”

Rahm Emanuel, current mayor of my old

World

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu gestures to supporters at party headquarters in Tel Aviv

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses jubilant supporters during his victory speech at Likud headquarters. (photo credit:REUTERS)

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told jubilant Likud supporters in his victory speech early Wednesday that he would form “a strong, stable government” that would better balance “security and socioeconomic challenges.”

Netanyahu told a roaring crowd at Likud headquarters in Tel Aviv that “against all odds, we have scored a major victory for the Likud.”

“We have scored a major victory for the nationalist camp headed by Likud,” Netanyahu said. “I’m proud of the Israeli people because at the moment of truth they knew to differentiate between challenge and nonsense and they took up the challenge.”

Netanyahu vowed that his new government will work to improve on “the most important things for all of us, which genuine security and socioeconomic welfare.”

After the prime minister raised eyebrows in the latter stages of the campaign by warning of a high voter turnout among Israel’s Arabs, Netanyahu seemed to be extending an olive branch to Israel’s minorities during his speech.

“These are important things for every family, citizen, soldier, and all of Israel’s Jewish and non-Jewish citizens,” Netanyahu said. “You are all important, and you are all important to me.”

The prime minister also clearly wanted to send a message to Israelis that he has heard their concerns on economic matters, which is a departure from his typical focus on regional threats and the state of Israel’s security.

“Now we must form a strong, stable government that will know how to uphold security and socioeconomic well-being,” Netanyahu said. “We are faced with major challenges on the security and socioeconomic front. We promised to take care of cost of living and rise of housing costs, and we will do it.”

As previously reported, the nation’s longest-serving prime minister has already begun the political legwork of cobbling together a coalition, a task that was all but certain ahead of the election no matter the party with the most mandates.

“I spoke to all of the nationalist party leaders, and I called on them to join me in forming a government without delay, because reality doesn’t take a timeout,” he added. “Citizens expect us to form a responsible leadership that will work for it, and that’s what we will do.”

Meanwhile, the Zionist Union rejected the idea that the results of the exit polls show that Netanyahu will form the next coalition. Nevertheless, as the supporters of Likud headquarters shouted “Hail Bibi” triumphantly, supporters at the Zionist Union headquarters were packing it in for the night.

“The Likud continues to err. The right-wing bloc has gotten smaller,” said a Zionist statement. “Everything is open until the final results are in and we will know which parties passed the electoral threshold and what kind of government we can form. All of the spin and the commentary is too early. We have formed a negotiating team with the goal of putting together a coalition led by Herzog.”

Regardless of the actual election being a landslide, both Netanyahu and Herzog would have attempted to convince Israeli President Reuvin Rivlin, himself a Likud party member, they can bring together a strong coalition without a unity government. Rivlin has already signaled that he prefers a unity government to Netanyahu’s way, which would alone be a nationalist coalition. But it was always unclear whether he would push too hard for it if the results were even stronger-than-expected for Likud.

Aides to Rivlin said he won’t “force” a unity government on Netanyahu, but rather will “encourage” both men to form one. With the actual voting results, the unity government option has a slim chance.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told jubilant

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

Subscribe