Since 1990, some 30 to 40 million immigrants, legal and illegal, have entered the country.
This huge increase in the labor force, at the same time the U.S. was shipping factories abroad, brought massive downward pressure on wages. The real wages of Middle Americans have stagnated for decades.
What was wildly wonderful for Corporate America was hell on Middle America. But the Republican Party had made its choice. It had sold its soul to the multinationals. And as it went along with NAFTA, GATT, fast track and mass immigration, to appease Corporate America, it lost Middle America.
The party went with the folks who paid for their campaigns, only to lose the folks who had given them their landslides.
When Republicans accede to the demand for amnesty, and immigration without end, it does not take a political genius to see what is going to happen. For it is happening now.
Almost all of those breaking our laws, crossing the border, and overstaying their visas are young, poor or working class. Between 80 and 90 percent are from Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America.
They are Third World peoples. They believe in government action and government programs that provide their families with free education, health care, housing, food, and income subsidies. They are not Bob Taft or Barry Goldwater conservatives.
Perhaps 85 percent of all immigrants, legal and illegal, more than a million a year now, are people of color. And while over 70 percent of Hispanics and Asians voted Democratic for Obama, among voters of African descent, the Obama vote was well above 90 percent.
Four of every five U.S. citizens of Asian, African and Hispanic descent vote Democratic in presidential elections. And it is their numbers that are growing. Already they are well over a third of the U.S. population.
As has been observed often, America, demographically, is going to look like California. And while Nixon won California all five times he was on a national ticket, and Reagan won California in landslides all four times he ran, California has not gone Republican in six straight presidential elections.
Democrats outnumber Republicans there by more than two-to-one in the Congressional delegation and in the state assembly, and not a single Republican holds statewide office.
If Bush I had built that border fence back in 1992 and declared a moratorium on legal immigration that fall, as many implored him to do, the party of the Bushes would not be facing its demise well before mid-century.
-- Patrick Buchanan, Midweek, February 5, 2014
Friday, February 21, 2014
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
Shirley Temple
(CNN) -- Shirley Temple Black, who rose to fame as arguably the most popular child star in Hollywood history, died late Monday night, her publicist said.
She was 85.
Temple Black, who also
enjoyed a long career as a diplomat, died of natural causes at her
Woodside, California, home. She was surrounded by family and caregivers,
a statement from Cheryl Kagan said.
She began acting at age 3
and became a massive box-office draw before turning 10, commanding a
then-unheard of salary of $50,000 per movie.
Her first film of notice was in 1932 when she played in "War Babies," part of the "Baby Burlesks" series of short films.
For about 18 years, she
sang, tap-danced and acted her way into the hearts of millions. Her
corkscrew curls were popular with little girls from the 1930s through
the 1970s.
Early years
Her star shone brightest
as a toddler, and 20th Century Fox cranked out a series of feature films
with the adorable, talented little girl. Her hits included "Little Miss
Marker" (1934), "Curly Top" (1935) and "The Littlest Rebel" (1935).
At the box office, she
beat out the great adult stars of her day, such as Clark Gable and Bing
Crosby. Her popularity spawned a large array of merchandizing items,
such as dolls, hats and dresses.
She was the top
box-office star four years in a row, from 1935 to 1938. Her career was
at its peak as the country was suffering the effects of the Great
Depression, and her films offered uplifting moments.
She retired from filmmaking at 22 and married Charles Black, changing her last name from Temple to Temple Black.
But she did not fade from the public eye.
She embarked on a new
career as a foreign diplomat: She served in the U.S. delegation to the
United Nations from 1969 to 1974 was U.S. ambassador to Ghana from 1974
to 1976, and U.S. ambassador to Czechoslovakia from 1989 to 1992.
Monday, February 10, 2014
the Obamacare coverage gap
Ernest Maiden was dumbfounded to learn that he falls through the
cracks of the health-care law because in a typical week he earns about
$200 from the Happiness and Hair Beauty and Barber Salon.
Like millions of other Americans caught in a mismatch of state and federal rules, the 57-year-old hair stylist doesn't make enough money to qualify for federal subsidies to buy health insurance. If he earned another $1,300 a year, the government would pay the full cost. Instead, coverage would cost about what he earns.
"It's a Catch-22," said Mr. Maiden, an uninsured diabetic. Without help, he said, he must "choose between paying the bills and buying medicine."
The 2010 health law was meant to cover people in Mr. Maiden's income bracket by expanding Medicaid to workers earning up to the federal poverty line -- about $11,670 for a single person; more for families. People earning as much as four times the poverty line -- $46,680 for a single person -- can receive federal subsidies.
But the Supreme Court in 2012 struck down the law's requirement that states expand their Medicaid coverage. Republican elected officials in 24 states, including Alabama, declined the expansion, triggering a coverage gap. Officials said an expansion would add burdensome costs and, in some cases, leave more people dependent on government.
The decision created a gap for Mr. Maiden and others at the lowest income levels who don't qualify for Medicaid coverage under varying state rules. The upshot is that lower-income people in half the states get no help, while better-off workers elsewhere can buy insurance with taxpayer-funded subsidies.
The federal government offered to pay the full cost of the expansion for three years, and then states would pay 10 percent of the annual expansion costs. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the current expansion will cost the federal government nearly $800 billion over the next 10 years.
Some GOP-led states are revisiting their decision as complaints pile up over the coverage gap -- and its consequences for businesses -- in such states as Utah and Florida. The state senate in New Hampshire last week reached a tentative deal to expand Medicaid. In Virginia, newly elected Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe hopes to get legislators to reverse his Republican predecessor's stance against expansion.
Lawmakers are also getting a push to boost Medicaid rolls from hospitals that expected a vast new pool of paying customers under the health care law. Instead, the failure to expand Medicaid coverage by some states not only adds fewer insured patients, it also eliminates the payments hospitals had long received to cover the cost of uninsured people they treat free.
***
[so the dems are slowly getting their way? Maiden didn't have coverage before Obamacare. And now he might get it if Alabama (I assume that's the state he lives in) bends.]
Like millions of other Americans caught in a mismatch of state and federal rules, the 57-year-old hair stylist doesn't make enough money to qualify for federal subsidies to buy health insurance. If he earned another $1,300 a year, the government would pay the full cost. Instead, coverage would cost about what he earns.
"It's a Catch-22," said Mr. Maiden, an uninsured diabetic. Without help, he said, he must "choose between paying the bills and buying medicine."
The 2010 health law was meant to cover people in Mr. Maiden's income bracket by expanding Medicaid to workers earning up to the federal poverty line -- about $11,670 for a single person; more for families. People earning as much as four times the poverty line -- $46,680 for a single person -- can receive federal subsidies.
But the Supreme Court in 2012 struck down the law's requirement that states expand their Medicaid coverage. Republican elected officials in 24 states, including Alabama, declined the expansion, triggering a coverage gap. Officials said an expansion would add burdensome costs and, in some cases, leave more people dependent on government.
The decision created a gap for Mr. Maiden and others at the lowest income levels who don't qualify for Medicaid coverage under varying state rules. The upshot is that lower-income people in half the states get no help, while better-off workers elsewhere can buy insurance with taxpayer-funded subsidies.
The federal government offered to pay the full cost of the expansion for three years, and then states would pay 10 percent of the annual expansion costs. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the current expansion will cost the federal government nearly $800 billion over the next 10 years.
Some GOP-led states are revisiting their decision as complaints pile up over the coverage gap -- and its consequences for businesses -- in such states as Utah and Florida. The state senate in New Hampshire last week reached a tentative deal to expand Medicaid. In Virginia, newly elected Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe hopes to get legislators to reverse his Republican predecessor's stance against expansion.
Lawmakers are also getting a push to boost Medicaid rolls from hospitals that expected a vast new pool of paying customers under the health care law. Instead, the failure to expand Medicaid coverage by some states not only adds fewer insured patients, it also eliminates the payments hospitals had long received to cover the cost of uninsured people they treat free.
***
[so the dems are slowly getting their way? Maiden didn't have coverage before Obamacare. And now he might get it if Alabama (I assume that's the state he lives in) bends.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)