Death to Nidal Hasan and the better food in schools movement?

On November 5, 2009, US Army Major Nidal Hasan, a Muslim and psychiatrist at the Soldier Readiness Processing Center at Fort Hood, Texas, opened fire on his fellow soldiers inside the center, screaming “Allahu Akbar,” and killing 13 soldiers and an unborn child in her mother’s womb, and wounding 30 others.

While the victims were military personnel trained in the use of weapons, they were unarmed, forbidden from carrying on base the weapons many would use when deployed. Fortunately, Sgt. Kimberley Munley, a civilian police officer, arrived and wounded the jihadist doctor, interrupting his murderous rampage, but he shot Sgt. Munley three times, and just as the terrorist was about to finish her off, another civilian officer, Sgt. Mark Todd, shot him, and ended the killing spree.

This murderous attack left 13 dead, eight widows, one widower, 12 minor children without a father, 18 parents who lost children, 30 soldiers and one civilian police officer wounded.

There’s little positive from that event, other than that Nidal Hasan is now paralyzed from the waist down, and will likely never walk again.

Despite concerns about Hasan’s radical Islamist leanings, revealed when he was an intern at Walter Reed Medical Center, later as a physician in a PowerPoint presentation to other Army doctors, and Islamic abbreviations and phrases on his business card, the Army did not see fit to remove him from duty, or give him the punishment he so rightly deserved. In fact, an email from an Army investigator reveals the ugly politically correct nature of military service today: "Had we launched an investigation of Hasan we'd have been crucified."

Inexplicably, the charges the Department of Defense filed against Maj. Hasan ignored his Islam-based terrorist attack, but was instead labeled “workplace violence,” as if he had merely started a fight with a co-worker or thrown a chair at his boss. Such a designation deprives those soldiers killed and injured in this terrorist attack the benefits they are entitled to and would receive had accurate charges been filed.

During his opening statement at trial, in which he was convicted on all charges, Maj. Hasan apologized, not to the victims and their families, the nation or the Army, but to his fellow jihadists for not destroying more innocent life, and admitted shooting the 13 soldiers, and said he wanted the death penalty. Last week the jury sentenced him to death.

As one who believes in the death penalty for certain vicious crimes when guilt is not in question, in this case I hope that the death penalty for Nidal Hasan, a painless lethal injection, is set aside, as it has been for those in the military since 1961.

He deserves to live out his miserable life in abject misery, not in the glory of Islamic jihadist martyrdom for which he so badly hungers. Too bad that murderers, rapists, and others among the worst scum of humanity are treated so well when they are condemned to an American prison for their vicious crimes.

* * * * *

America’s First Ladies have always been advocates for important issues in our country. Rosalyn Carter championed mental health, Nancy Reagan fought against drug abuse, Barbara Bush worked to increase literacy, Hillary Clinton pushed for health reform, Laura Bush advocated for improvements in education, and Michelle Obama has worked to have a positive effect on childhood obesity.

Given the overweight nature of the US population generally, and that of the younger generation specifically, who can logically argue that a better menu in the nation’s public schools is a bad thing?

However, this particular effort has been met with resistance, and even outright rebellion, with school kids refusing to eat the better food being served in cafeterias, and school systems losing money on the deal as a result, and bailing out of the program.

One example of the growing national rebellion against the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, which set new nutrition standards for school cafeterias and changed the way children are qualified for school meal programs, occurred recently at a contentious meeting of the Harlan County, Kentucky school board.

Board members were treated to a raft of complaints about school meals, which were called crappy and served in portions that critics say are too small. Someone said the meals tasted like “vomit,” and one parent said, “kids can’t learn when they’re hungry.”

Parents criticized the brown wheat bread, the skim or one-percent-fat milk, and the nonfat chocolate- and strawberry-flavored milk.

Where this effort has gone wrong is that it attempts to mandate through law the way kids eat, and even though the standards set by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act are nutritionally superior to previous standards, school kids liked the old food and they don’t like the new food, and therefore don’t eat it.

In it’s own way this is a citizen rebellion against an over-reaching state: the people are against the government trying to tell them how to eat, among other things.

Our government has no business doing this. Perhaps this mild revolution will get the point across. But probably not.

Read More

Obama criticizes Republican "phony scandals," "short-term thinking"

When questions arise about why four American foreign service personnel died at the hands of Libyan terrorists, or why a Border Patrol agent was murdered by Mexican drug cartel thugs possessing US-provided guns, or why the Internal Revenue Service improperly delayed action on some religious and conservative applicants for non-profit status, or any of the numerous other irregularities under this administration, Democrats and the agenda-driven media say, "That's old news. Move on," as if relevance depends upon the calendar, not the substance of the events.

And that is a pretty convenient modus operandi: They avoid coming clean with the American people on legitimate questions of competence for months on end, virtually never hold guilty parties accountable, and then complain that those asking the questions are living in the past and the answers they seek no longer matter. And they do so knowing that millions of people won't care.

All the while President Barack Obama blames every problem in the country on someone or something else, and calls the government's disgraceful handling of the aforementioned boondoggles a bunch of "phony scandals" manufactured by Republicans. It's a great game of Beat the Clock.

But honest Americans realize that their government failed miserably to do its job as dictated by the US Constitution and want to know who screwed up and what penalty they will pay for their gross incompetence and/or illegal behavior. So far, only lip service has been paid to accountability, and some of the most likely culprits have escaped reaping their just reward, while others have been promoted to higher positions.

Several months after Mr. Obama took office the Department of Justice's (DOJ) gun running operation known as Fast and Furious began. Intended to track gun sales to Mexican drug cartels, it backfired and Border Patrol agent Brian Terry was murdered in 2010 by people possessing two of those guns provided by the DOJ. The Obama administration's response was something like: "Ooops! Gawrsh, we didn't expect any o' them guns to be used against us. Sorry 'bout that. Nothing to see here; keep moving."

On September 11, 2012, after multiple requests to beef up security at the American diplomatic sites in Libya had been denied or ignored, terrorists attacked the facilities in Benghazi, resulting in the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens, foreign service officer Sean Smith, and former Navy Seals Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.

Politics demanded that 2 months before a presidential election no screw-ups be under investigation or terrorist activity be fresh in voters' memories, since President Obama had declared the War on Terror over, so the administration concocted a lame excuse that a video that hardly anyone in the entire world had seen, let alone in Libya, caused a spontaneous demonstration at the US consulate. That idiotic story was repeated for weeks by administration spokespersons, including President Obama himself.

Barack Obama, the “news” media, and millions of liberals showed little interest in the inconveniently-timed deaths of these brave Americans.

Unanswered questions persist, but instead of keeping these important events in front of the American people, the media most recently have focused on the shooting of a black high school student by a "white Hispanic" in Florida and the birth of a future monarch in Great Britain. Perhaps if the five murdered government employees looked like Trayvon, Mr. Obama and the media would give a hoot.

Not everyone is as cavalier about these tragic government failures as the administration, Congressional Democrats and the agenda-driven media. A group called Special Operations Veterans, the mission of which is to uncover the truths about the Benghazi terror attack, took its demands to Capitol Hill last week in the form of a 60-foot-long petition, which was unfurled near the steps of the Capitol. It demanded that the government “End the cover-up” of the attack. The petition was signed by more than 1,000 people and called for a special congressional committee to investigate the incident.

Each of us either believes that the deaths of the five government workers are important, or we don't. Apparently, most people don't, or are too-easily satisfied with the partial information provided that doesn’t explain what went wrong.

The Internal Revenue Service targeted scores of conservative religious and political organizations seeking non-profit status with improper questions, and denied action on their applications for up to two years, then tried to blame it on a couple of rogue agents in Cincinnati, Oh. It turns out there were 12 different IRS offices involved. Now the administration tells us that the targeting was actually non-partisan. That's a low threshold; even one liberal organization makes that technically true. But the reality is that 292 were conservative; 6 were liberal.

Each of us either believes that our government must operate honorably and follow the rules set forth for it in the US Constitution, or we don't. There is a shockingly large faction of Americans that apparently don't, because they are not demanding answers to these questions, or that people responsible for these events be disciplined, or that such dishonorable and un-American activities be stopped and government restored to functioning constitutionally.

Which side are you on: Honorable government or the status quo?

Read More

Obama goes where no president has gone before

Obama goes where no president has gone before

Depravity will be the signature achievement of the Obama Administration, once its history is finally written. Obama’s clarion call to teenagers that fornication is acceptable, even if children are under 15 years of age, should have been a wake-up call to every parent in America. Worse, he gave these children a way out if a pregnancy occurs, over-the-counter birth control. When the latter means fails, no problem, abortion on demand will be available on request. Parental consent, not any more, Obama’s programs allow the government to intercede in many cases.  Obama’s devilish work does not stop with childhood fornication, his push to have the gay agenda fully accepted by society continues unabated. From the military and marriage to school curriculums and now the Boy Scouts homosexuality is being forced on a population that would rather see this disgusting behavior back in the closet. Military has seen an exponential jump in the number cases of sexual harassment in the last few years, after Obama gave his blessing to an openly gay armed forces. He forgot to ask the soldiers how they feel about sleeping, bathing and living in close quarters with openly gay individuals. Obama’s intent to enable the “gay establishment” to make homosexual marriage as acceptable as the traditional version displays his profound level of deviance from the normal course of human thinking. School systems are slowly implementing curriculums that explore the gay lifestyle, backed by funds from Uncle Obama. This filth is not limited to the upper grades, impressionable minds in lower schools are being introduced to the “new norm” as well. With a complaisant Department of Justice at his backside Obama and the gay gang’s next stop was the Boy Scouts of America. Much consideration went into the Scouts recent decision to allow openly gay children into their ranks, most of it from fear of lawsuits. Yet, the gay crowd is not fully happy with this decision. They aspire to have gay Scout leaders leading these packs of children. Time will soon come when the Boy Scouts of America disbands, because the majority of normal parents do not want their children exposed to such trash. Obama’s attack on the fundamentals of religion and traditional society comes on the heels of a push to move atheism into the forefront of religious thought. In this case, Obama’s moves imbue our culture with a sense of worthlessness. His policies and programs turn the population away from the elements it needs most, a belief in a higher power and the organizational structure implemented by that power. Moral decay and social stagnation were two reasons why Rome fell, America appears to be heading in the same direction. Obama’s deviances need to be checked or America will become Sodom and Gomorrah on steroids. Mark Davis MD, platomd@gmail.com, www.healthnetsreviewservices.com, President of Healthnets Review Services, Author of Demons of Democracy and the forthcoming book, Obamacare: Dead on Arrival, A Precription for Disaster. Manager of the group on LinkedIn, Government in Transition (join, comment and debate).

Read More

The IRS scandal hearing would be hilarious if it wasn't so serious

The House Committee on Oversight and Reform hearings on Internal Revenue Service malfeasance has produced scenes worthy of a Mel Brooks film, or maybe "Hogan's Heroes" (“I know nussing!”) As of Friday morning, the following had transpired.

Lois Lerner appeared before the committee last Wednesday. She is the IRS director of exempt organizations, which is the office that deliberately targeted organizations with "Tea Party," "Patriot" and other identifiers in their names indicating they were conservative organizations. These organizations not only had their applications for 501(c) tax-exempt status delayed for up to three years, but in many cases were asked for information that is clearly outside the legitimate areas of interest of the IRS, and which crossed the line into unconstitutionality and perhaps illegality.

Ms. Lerner told the Committee in an opening statement that Committee members have already accused her of providing false information to Congress. However, she said, “I have not done anything wrong. I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations. And I have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee.”

Having thus stated the case for her innocence, she then invoked Fifth Amendment protections against incriminating herself, and refused to answer any questions.

Translation: "I did nothing wrong, but I won't answer any questions that might show that I did something wrong."

Committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) asked her to reconsider, and when she refused he then dismissed her and her attorney from the hearing room. However, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) objected, pointing out that since Ms. Lerner actually testified by making an opening statement, she should have to stay and answer the lawmakers' questions.

"You don't get to tell your side of the story and then not be subjected to cross-examination," Rep. Gowdy said. "That's not the way it works. She waived her right to Fifth Amendment privilege by issuing an opening statement. She ought to stand here and answer our questions," he said.

Ms. Lerner was ultimately dismissed, but with the caveat that she may be recalled. Better late than never, on Thursday she was suspended from her job. With pay.

This is not the first time the long-time federal employee has been suspected of questionable behavior. When she headed the Enforcement Office at the Federal Election Commission (FEC) from 1986 until 2001, there appeared to be politically motivated harassment of conservative groups not unlike what the IRS  did. In the late 1990s, the FEC launched an investigation of the Christian Coalition that ultimately cost the organization hundreds of thousands of dollars and countless hours of lost work.

However, in addition to failing to prove that the Coalition did anything wrong is the question of whether the FEC even had authority to assert the charges it leveled against the Coalition, which was absolved of any wrongdoing in 1999. Following this suspicious investigation Ms. Lerner was promoted to acting General Counsel at the FEC in 2001.

Next to testify was Douglas Shulman, who was appointed by George W. Bush and headed the IRS during the first Obama term. In 2012 he testified before the Committee, saying, "As you know, we pride ourselves in being a non-political, non-partisan organization." He continued, "There is absolutely no political targeting." We now know that was clearly untrue.

In last week's appearance Mr. Shulman denied that he had discussed targeting conservative groups with anyone at the White House in any of the more than 100 times he visited the White House complex between 2010 and 2011.  “It would not have been appropriate to have a conversation with anyone at the White House about the subject of discriminating against conservative groups,” he said.

When asked if he could recall the nature of any of those visits, Mr. Shulman responded, "The Easter Egg Roll with my kids." Seriously.

In response to questioning from Rep. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Mr. Shulman replied: "I accept the fact that this happened on my watch and I am very sorry that this happened while I was at the IRS. I feel horrible about this for the agency, for the people there, for the great public servants. I am not sure what else I can say." He could have overtly taken responsibility for his agency's malfeasance while he headed it, and apologized to the victims, but he didn't.

Ms. Duckworth, a military veteran, said that she was "deeply disappointed" by his response, explaining that soldiers serving their country know "you can never delegate responsibility and that you are always responsible for the performance, the training, the actions of the men and women under you."

Former President Harry Truman had a sign on his desk that read: "The Buck Stops Here." This is a concept foreign to many in this administration. But it is the law of leadership, whether at the department level, or at the chief executive level: Whatever happens on your watch is your responsibility.

Maybe actually holding people accountable for their mismanagement through firings and prosecution will wake up sleeping bureaucrats like Ms. Lerner and Mr. Shulman, and restore the idea of "service" to public service.

Read More

Obama: unfit for duty

Obama: unfit for duty

 

Obama’s Presidency is disintegrating under the weight of numerous scandals that are now plaguing his Administration. As the ringleader of a fanatical group of people, who concocted a sophisticated cover up for the Benghazi massacre, Obama and his minions are now under assault by a Congress that is finally doing its job. New lies and deceitful statements emanate daily from a White House that has no conscience concerning the actions that took place in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. Obama placed the safety of Muslim extremists ahead of four Americans, who could have been saved had he acted appropriately at the time. Our best of the best were told to stand down as bullets and rockets inundated their poorly fortified compound, which became the tomb of the Ambassador and three others. A flood of misrepresentations followed claiming a video was the main reason for the assault, when the World knew otherwise. Recent Congressional hearings have added substance to most of our suspicions that Obama’s position on Benghazi was a fabrication to prevent the truth from becoming known before the 2012 Presidential Election. Information Americans should have had within days of the carnage surfaced when several so-called whistleblowers came forward recently. On fear of reprisal, they provided testimony that was both shocking and tragic which directly contradicted the Administration’s account of the massacre. Inaction by the President on 9/11 and the subsequent cover up should be sufficient to draw an impeachment panel to investigate the potential to bring the President to trial before the Senate. Adding fuel to the proverbial fire, in the last several weeks numerous other scandals have surfaced with equal potential to bring charges against President Obama. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) officials targeted conservative groups, religious organizations and other right wing associations in an attempt to suppress their activities. Daily, more groups are coming forward with stories of intimidation from the IRS, which are reminiscent of activities instigated by the Nixon Administration. These activities come with one caveat, this time they are more widespread. The ultimate reason for hammering conservative groups was to assure an Obama win last year. In the event the latter two scandals were not sufficient, staff from the Department of Justice (DOJ) secretly obtained two months of phone records from various reporters and editors at the Associated Press. This is an unheard of intrusion into the privacy of the media, which will generate more Congressional hearings. Obama’s inability to manage day-to-day operations of the government has been apparent since he took office. Media, blinded by their left wing egos, gave the President a pass on each screw up, by him, that came to light. Worse, a population dependent on Obama for their weekly and month checks looked the other way as the nation sunk further into economic oblivion. How much more depravity and dishonesty will the sensible portion of the population absorb before they demand his removal? Rumblings of impeachment have been reported around the not so quiet halls of Congress. Since recall is not option in the law, then only impeachment can resolve the ultimate problem of removing a wayward President. From this perch I believe these scandals will be whitewashed. Let us hope the latter does not come to pass. Mark Davis MD, President of Healthnets Review Services, www.healthnetsreviewservices.com, platomd@gmail.com.  Author of the book Demons of Democracy and the forthcoming book, Obamacare: Dead on Arrival, A Prescription for Disaster. Manager of the group on LinkedIn, Government in Transition.

Read More

Unemployment, droning citizens, and sequester scare-mongering

February's unemployment rate fell from 7.9 percent to 7.7 percent, and the Labor Department’s survey of households found that 170,000 more people were working. But there's a downside: the survey also found that, despite the number of working-age civilians increasing by 165,000, the labor force actually shrank in size instead of growing, and 130,000 fewer people were working or looking for work in February.

The employment-to-population ratio (EPOP) was unchanged at 58.6 percent, exactly the same as the rate in February of 2012, and an anemic four-tenths percent above the low mark in the summer of 2011. This compares with an EPOP of 63.0 percent in 2007 before the crisis struck.

The Labor Force Participation Rate at 63.5 percent was well below the 66-to-67 percent rate that was normal over the last 20 years. The Bureau of Labor Statistics data show workers remain discouraged and many are unable to find full time employment, or have given up trying.

The U-6 number under the BLS’ “Alternative Measures of Labor Underutilization” includes persons who have given up looking for work, as well as the 7.7 percent who are unemployed. That number is 14.3 percent.

Compared with December 2007, when the recession officially began, there are 5.8 million fewer Americans working full time, and there are 2.8 million more working part time. Part-time workers, who usually work fewer than 35 hours a week, are still a minority of the work force, but their share is growing. When the recession began, 16.9 percent of those working usually worked part time. That share rose in 2008 and 2009 and has remained high since, and today stands at 19.2 percent.

This would not be so troubling if people were working fewer hours by choice. But that is not the case.

 * * * *

Isn't it interesting that the same administration that believes foreign terrorists should be brought into the U.S., given the same status in court as actual citizens, provided a defense attorney if they can't afford one, and put on trial as if they had merely shoplifted items at the local grocery store, would equivocate instead of forthrightly condemning the idea of potentially using a drone on U.S. soil to kill a U.S. citizen who was not posing an immediate threat, and do so with no more due process than that someone in the administration thought that person was a threat to the country.

Citizens are guaranteed protection from such third world practices by the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; non-citizen terrorists -- actual and suspected -- have no such guarantees, and deserve none. This small point apparently escapes the notice of the Obama administration.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) had the good sense to force this issue to the fore by filibustering the confirmation of John Brennan as CIA Director in order to get the administration to furnish more information about its intentions. Some Democrats joined Sen. Paul in holding the administration accountable to the Constitutional protections afforded U.S. citizens.

Ultimately, Mr. Brennan was confirmed, but he took the oath of office by swearing not on a Bible, as is customary, but on a version of the U.S. Constitution that did not include the Bill of Rights.

* * * *

Two of the most prominent aspects of the sequester are the scare-mongering and duplicity of the Obama administration.

First, an example of the false predictions of catastrophe: “Starting tomorrow everybody here, all the folks who are cleaning the floors at the Capitol. Now that Congress has left, somebody’s going to be vacuuming and cleaning those floors and throwing out the garbage. They’re going to have less pay. The janitors, the security guards, they just got a pay cut, and they’ve got to figure out how to manage that. That’s real," President Obama said at a news conference on March 1.

Didn't happen, and was never going to happen.

And now, the duplicity: The Washington Times reported that "Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service official Charles Brown said he asked if he could try to spread out the sequester cuts in his region to minimize the impact, and he said he was told not to do anything that would lessen the dire impacts Congress had been warned of."

Mr. Brown was told in an email: "We have gone on record with a notification to Congress and whoever else that 'APHIS would eliminate assistance to producers in 24 states in managing wildlife damage to the aquaculture industry, unless they provide funding to cover the costs.' So it is our opinion that however you manage that reduction, you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be."

The Armageddon President Obama has forecast could easily be averted by a simple bill in Congress to allow the president to decide what spending to cut and what not to cut, or to allow managers to manage their own budgets. But if the APHIS directive described above reflects the president's attitude, Mr. Obama wants the maximum pain from his boondoggle, and also wants to stay as far away as possible from responsibility for the misery his idea produces.

Read More

Minimum wage hike: Another bad Obama idea

Another of President Barack Obama's bad ideas is to force employers to pay higher wages to the lowest skilled and/or least experienced workers on the premise that by raising the take-home pay of these people, the world will be better.

Unfortunately, lots of people agree with him, including some who are usually far more sensible. They think that raising the minimum wage would put more money into the economy, and that can't be a bad thing, can it? First of all, it doesn't put money into the economy; it merely moves it around unnaturally. And, as usual, there are other repercussions that haven't been considered.

Since the number of people that earn the minimum wage is relatively small, any direct help is minimal. In January the U.S. Labor Force was 155.6 million, with about 102 million working full-time. Only 1.5 million earn the minimum wage, about nine-tenths percent. It is most often a starting wage level for teenagers with few or no skills and/or experience. And while the president didn't mention this, just because someone starts at the minimum, that doesn't mean they earn at that level for long. Research shows that nearly two-thirds of those earners get a raise from one month to a year after they begin work.

U.S. Census data shows that only 15 percent of minimum wage earners are single parents, and all are eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit. The remaining 85 percent are teens living with their working parents or other working relatives, adults living alone, or married adults living with a working spouse. The average family wage of a minimum wage earner is more than $43,000 a year.

So, the problem the president believes he will solve by increasing the minimum wage is so small as to be no real problem at all, and there is evidence that far more harm than good will result.

Mr. Obama proposes to raise the rate from $7.25 to $9.00 an hour over two years. Something he never talks about – and may neither think about nor care about – is the question of where this money for higher wages will come from. Somehow, employers will have to find a way to pay every minimum wage worker 24 percent more over a two-year period, which works out to $3,600 in annual wage increases per worker over that time frame.

Will they reduce the number of minimum wage workers? The increase in pay for every four workers is nearly equal to the pay of one worker under the existing minimum wage. If you are a minimum wage earner, you might ask yourself: would you rather earn $7.25 an hour for 40 hours a week, or $9.00 an hour for zero hours a week?

Will they raise their prices by 24 percent, making their products more expensive for everyone, including those who earn the new minimum wage?

What about people who earn a bit more than the current minimum, but less than nine bucks? They will have to be increased to $9 per hour, which makes them minimum wage earners again after having been at a rate higher than the minimum, perhaps after having worked their way up from that level. What will employers do? Will they increase those hourly wages by $1.75 an hour to keep them where they were relative to the minimum wage; will they give them a smaller raise; or will they just pay them $9?

And what about those who earned more than $9 an hour, and are now $1.75 an hour closer to the minimum? How will they react? Shouldn't everyone get a raise; wouldn't that be the "fair" thing to do? How much additional costs to employers will this cause?

"The effects of the minimum wage are declines in employment for the very least skilled workers," according to David Neumark, a University of California, Irvine, professor who has studied the issue. He says the benefits of higher minimum wages sometimes go to teens in higher-income families taking part-time jobs. "A lot of the benefits of minimum wages leak out to families way above the poverty line," he said.

So, the minimum wage hike really helps only a relative few, sometimes helps those that don't need it, reduces hiring of minimum wage workers, and makes running businesses more expensive for employers, who would have to find a way to pay for increased wages for many more workers than just those earning the minimum.  They might have to defer expanding their business or purchasing new equipment. Or, they might have to increase the prices for their products and services. Or they might have to do some of all of those things.

All jobs and workers have economic value based upon the importance of their work to the business of which they are a component that is not related to the desires of politicians to endear themselves to a segment of the populous.

 Politicians cannot change economic reality, but they do not let that stop them from trying, and we can see all around us in the current economic malaise what happens when they try to manipulate the economic environment.

Read More