Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the Obama category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘Obama’ Category

A chill ran through me when I read this article. What’s frightening is that this program is built on the theory that disparities in discipline are based in racism. This isn’t just wrong. It’s dangerous. It’s political correctness gone too far.

Paul Sperry’s investigation lies at the heart of this potential crisis. Sperry’s investigation into the PROMISE Program revealed that “Nikolas Cruz was able to escape the attention of law enforcement, pass a background check and purchase the weapon he used to slaughter three staff members and 14 fellow students because of Obama administration efforts to make school discipline more lenient. Documents reviewed by RealClearInvestigations and interviews show that his school district in Florida’s Broward County was in the vanguard of a strategy, adopted by more than 50 other major school districts nationwide, allowing thousands of troubled, often violent, students to commit crimes without legal consequence.”

Whether the Minnesota program is called the PROMISE Program or not, the guiding principles are virtually identical. The Minnesota Department of Human Rights “announced 43 districts have suspension and expulsion disparities that violate the state Human Rights Act ‘because they deny students of color and students with disabilities educational access and negatively impact academic achievement.'”

What’s required is a discipline system that outlines each district’s behavioral expectations. Penalizing schools for disciplining students of color based on quotas is dangerous. Disciplining schools based on legitimate racism is one thing. Disciplining schools based on liberal fantasies like implicit bias and white privilege is dangerous. Either a student isn’t behaving or he/she is. The color of their skin, their ethnic background or their country of origin is utterly irrelevant.

This statement is frightening:

“Studies have proven that higher rates of school suspensions and expulsions among students of color and students with disabilities can have lasting negative impacts in their lives and education. That is why the (department) takes seriously any allegation or evidence that indicate disciplinary measures are falling disproportionately upon children of color and students with disabilities in our schools. It is our responsibility to fully review such allegations, and work with local school officials to ensure equal treatment under the law for all kids.”

According to this article, the federal directive was “issued jointly in 2014 by the US departments of Education and Justice” and “warned public school districts receiving federal funding and that they could face investigation and funding cuts if they fail to reduce statistical ‘disparities’ in discipline by race.”

This isn’t proof of racism. Again, school districts have the right to expect proper behavior. Period. If students of color are getting disciplined more often, perhaps the remedy is to insist that students of color improve their behavior. In the system described by Commissioner Lindsey, what criteria is his department using in determining who gets investigated?

For more information on this subject, check out Heather MacDonald’s article.

I just finished writing this post, which I titled Applying David Hogg’s principles. (I’m pinning that post to the top of the page for the rest of today.) It’s a fair title because I’m using Hogg’s principles and definitions against him. However, it didn’t do the hero of the story, Mary Ann Mendoza, justice. With that, I’d like to tell LFR readers about Mary Ann Mendoza and her painful ordeal.

Brandon, Ms. Mendoza’s son, tragically was killed by a drunk driver whose blood-alcohol content was .24%. That’s tragic enough but it gets worse. The drunk driver was identified as Raul Silva-Corona, an illegal alien who was a “42-year-old Mexican native” who “remained in the U.S. despite being charged with burglary, assault and leaving the scene of an accident in 1994. He remained here still after pleading guilty to a charge of criminal conspiracy in 2002.”

Naturally, the articles didn’t mention that he was an illegal alien or that he’d been convicted of the crimes listed above. BTW, if letting criminals stay in St. Cloud makes it a welcoming city, then I’d rather be a hostile city. I’m not interested in being a welcoming city if we have to treat illegal aliens kindly. But I digress.

People would’ve understood if Mary Ann Mendoza had passed on the opportunity to become an advocate against lawlessness. Fortunately for us, she didn’t choose that path:

The pointlessness of it all made Mendoza’s path clear. She says she must fight against what she sees as an epidemic that’s largely ignored by the mainstream media, many politicians and most of the American public. “I never got one call, ever, from any politician in Arizona. My son was a police officer. Not one of them gave a crap about it,” she says.

Instead of feeling sorry for herself, she opted to become an advocate fighting career politicians who haven’t lifted a finger to fix the problem. They aren’t trustworthy. Meanwhile, Mary Ann Mendoza is tireless in her pursuit of justice:

To be sure, Mendoza is ideally engineered to be a mouthpiece for the pro-enforcement cause: a grieving, articulate mother whose police officer son was half-Hispanic, in a state on the front lines of the immigration war. She’s aware of the optics, but rejects the notion that she’s being used as a pawn. Mendoza says she’s learned to leverage her story to achieve results she sees as positive, such as creating a new advocacy group for people affected by illegal crime. “There are people who say I’ve politicized my son’s death. I haven’t,” she says. “I’ve aligned myself in a situation where I want to see certain things done so another American family isn’t affected like I was.”

This video tells quite the story:

If politicians (overwhelmingly Democrats) don’t give a damn about protecting us, then it’s time to fire them this November. This is a case of if-you-aren’t-part-of-the-solution-you’re-part-of-the-problem. As Rep. McSally noted in the video, this isn’t just about booting criminals out of the U.S. Border security means much more than that. It’s about stopping human trafficking, preventing MS-13 from setting up shop and interdicting drug shipments from international cartels.

Any Democrat that won’t commit to building the wall immediately should be defeated this November. If they aren’t up for re-election this November, then these Democrats must be defeated the next time they’re up for re-election. This must happen because these Democrats aren’t serious about protecting citizens. They aren’t serious about public safety. This is the litmus test of this election.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In the gospel according to David Hogg, politicians who accept money from ‘special interests’ (like the NRA) have “blood on their hands when an innocent dies. If that’s the battlefield that Mr. Hogg wants to fight and die on, let’s have at it. Hogg insists repeatedly daily that politicians (like Marco Rubio) have blood on their hands if they’ve accepted campaign contributions from the NRA.

Let’s apply those principles to illegal immigration. Instead of the NRA, let’s plug in La Raza and Eric Holder or Luis Gutierrez. Let’s swap out the NRA and Marco Rubio. Mary Ann Mendoza lost her son in May, 2014 when her son “was killed in a head-on collision with a wrong-way driver.” The driver, Raul Silva-Corona, wasn’t “deported two decades ago after he was convicted for crimes in Colorado.”

In July, 2014, Ms. Mendoza wrote to then-President Obama, saying “The prosecutors were ‘lenient’ on him and several charges were dismissed. When he was convicted of these crimes (in) 1994 and the government knew he was in the country illegally, why wasn’t he deported? Why are any of these illegal criminals in this country? I am furious that the Federal Government allowed this criminal to stay in this country and KILL my son!” Tonight, Ms. Mendoza was interviewed by Martha McCallum. Here’s that interview:

Democrats insist that people who accept campaign contributions from the NRA have “blood on their hands.” By their definition, politicians who accept campaign contributions from La Raza or other open borders organizations have blood on their hands. By Hogg’s definition, politicians like President Obama, Eric Holder, Jerry Brown and Xavier Becerra have blood on their hands because they’ve let criminal aliens out of jail, only to see them be commit more crimes, including murder, rape and other violent crimes.

BTW, yes, that means that liberals like Jeff Flake, Lindsey Graham and John McCain have blood on their hands, too. But I digress.

Let’s get serious about this. Democrats won’t vote for funding the border wall. Ever. They’ll play gimmicks and say that they’ll vote for funding the wall but they won’t actually vote for funding Trump’s wall. It’s a simple matter of admitting that Democrats are beholden to their open borders special interest allies.

Building the wall is imperative. If you think that walls don’t work, ask Prime Minister Netanyahu and the IDF if they work. Finally, here’s Ms. Mendoza’s letter to President Obama in 2014:

It’s 4 years later and Democrats still haven’t built the wall or secured the border. It’s time we stopped believing that Democrats give a damn about protecting US citizens. The façade is crumbling. It’s a myth to think that they give a damn about anything other than acquiring, then maintaining political power.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

William Saletan is attempting to rewrite history. His latest column attempts to paint over President Obama’s history by saying that President Trump “rewards America’s enemies and punishes its friends.” No president rewarded its enemies more or punished America’s allies more than President Obama. Let’s remember the multiple times that President Obama attempted to punish Israel. Think of how, during the Arab Spring, he threw Egypt under the diplomatic bus. Think of the time early in his administration when he got rid of Winston Churchill’s bust from the Oval Office.

In terms of rewarding friends, President Trump is great at it. He’s the candidate that promised to move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. He’s the president that moved the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. To the Jewish people, there’s no quicker way to endear yourself to them than by doing that. There’s no greater ally to the United States than Israel. Especially considering where it’s located and its history, Israel hasn’t survive without help from the United States. Watch the effusive praise Israeli PM Netanyahu lavished on President Trump during their recent meeting:

On the premise that President Trump “rewards America’s enemies and punishes its friends,” Saletan wrote “On Monday, in a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump took credit for recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. ‘Many presidents’ had talked about doing that, said Trump, but ‘I was able to do it.’ He seemed unaware that this supposed feat was a concession to Netanyahu, which previous presidents had held back as a bargaining chip.”

Actually, President Trump did it for a reason that DC elites can’t grasp. President Trump did it because he’s into keeping promises. Here’s something else that Saletan doesn’t comprehend:

That’s how Trump sees the meeting with Kim. It’s not about confronting North Korea. It’s a chance to upstage previous presidents.

Bulletin to Saletan: yes, it’s about confronting Kim. In fact, it’s all about confronting Kim Jung-Un. Next, Saletan said:

Trump ridiculed the idea that “Obama could have done that.” Obama “would not have done it,” he jeered. “Neither would Bush, and neither would Clinton. And they had their shot, and all they did was nothing.”

I don’t see this as being a controversial statement. The history is clear. Clinton, Bush and Obama kicked the can down the road. Now that NoKo is on the verge of getting deliverable nuclear weapons, President Trump has determined that there isn’t any more road left to kick that can down. He’s decided, totally unlike Susan Rice, that North Korea can’t get a nuclear weapon.

Not only didn’t Saletan prove his statement correct. It’s that there’s abundant proof that he’s just plain wrong.

I won’t sugarcoat this. Democrats have shown recently that they’re soft on crime, including mass murderers. Thanks to Ed Morrissey’s post and Paul Sperry’s reporting, we’re finally getting a view of why Nikolas Cruz wasn’t flagged.

Simply put, the Obama administration’s Department of Education essentially ordered schools to stop reporting crimes or risk getting federal funding pulled. Let’s remember that then-Attorney General Eric Holder went on a crusade against mass incarcerations. (I’ll return to this in a bit.)

According to Sperry’s reporting, the “responsibility falls on the Obama administration’s Department of Education, which attempted to disconnect punishment from crimes committed by students.” Further, “In 2013, the school district in Broward County rewrote its disciplinary procedures to avoid referrals to law enforcement. Current superintendent Robert Runcie developed the program, and the Department of Education not only endorsed it but made it part of their own policies.”

It goes further:

In January 2014, Duncan’s department issued new discipline guidelines strongly recommending that schools use law enforcement measures and out-of-school suspensions as a last resort. Announced jointly by Duncan and then-Attorney General Eric Holder, the new procedures came as more than friendly guidance from Uncle Sam – they also came with threats of federal investigations and defunding for districts that refused to fully comply.

Broward County was a willing participant:

No district has taken this new approach further than Broward County. The core of the approach is a program called PROMISE (Preventing Recidivism through Opportunities, Mentoring, Interventions, Support & Education), which substitutes counseling for criminal detention for students who break the law. According to the district website, the program is “designed to address the unique needs of students who have committed a behavioral infraction that would normally lead to a juvenile delinquency arrest and, therefore, entry into the juvenile justice system.”

In other words, the new disciplinary system implemented at Holder’s insistence is minimal, almost non-existent discipline based on … who knows what?

We’ve got another school shooting but at least we don’t have increased recidivism. I can’t imagine how relieved those parents in Broward County are to hear that.

Additional literature reveals that students referred to PROMISE for in-school misdemeanors – including assault, theft, vandalism, underage drinking and drug use – receive a controversial alternative punishment known as restorative justice.

“Rather than focusing on punishment, restorative justice seeks to repair the harm done,” the district explains. Indeed, it isn’t really punishment at all. It’s more like therapy. Delinquents gather in “healing circles” with counselors, and sometimes even the victims of their crime, and talk about their feelings and “root causes” of their anger.

What type of stupidity is this? Holder and Broward County superintendent Robert Runcie should be named as defendants in the parents’ wrongful death lawsuit. This should never have happened. Think of the list of crimes that are overlooked by PROMISE: assault, theft, vandalism, underage drinking and drug use. Which of those crimes sounds like a touchy-feely type of crime.

To the liberals and the shit-for-brains libertarians that think we should look past these things, I have a simple message. Tell that to the parents of those that died on Valentines Day inside Marjory Stoneman-Douglas HS.

Then there’s Holder’s foolish campaign against mass incarceration. In Medellin, Columbia, Holder said this:

The path we are currently on is far from sustainable. As we speak, roughly one out of every 100 American adults is behind bars. Although the United States comprises just five percent of the world’s population, we incarcerate almost a quarter of the world’s prisoners. While few would dispute the fact that incarceration has a role to play in any comprehensive public safety strategy, it’s become evident that such widespread incarceration is both inadvisable and unsustainable. It requires that we routinely spend billions of dollars on prison construction—and tens of billions more, on an annual basis, to house those who are convicted of crimes. It carries both human and moral costs that are too much to bear. And it results in far too many Americans serving too much time in too many prisons—and beyond the point of serving any good law enforcement reason.

Mr. Holder, I triple-dog dare you to give that speech to the parents of the students who will never see their kids again. Mr. Holder and Sheriff Israel had the ability to prevent this mass shooting. Instead, they did nothing.

Sheriff Israel should be terminated ASAP and stripped of his pension, if that’s possible. The harm he’s done is immense and irreparable. Holder should never be allowed to be part of an administration ever again. Between this mass shooting and the deaths from Fast and Furious, he’s had a hand in too much killing of innocents.

Again, the government screwed up multiple times but Democrat politicians insist that the remedy for governmental incompetence is impinging on our constitutional rights. It isn’t surprising that people think politicians are stupid.

Technorati: , , , , , , , ,

Andy Puzder’s WSJ op-ed questions whether President Obama should take credit for the Trump Bump. In his op-ed, Puzder wrote “In 2010 the Obama White House forecast gross domestic product growth would ‘accelerate in 2011 to 3.8%’ and ‘exceed 4% per year in 2012-2014,’ consistent with the 4.3% growth rate in the other 10 recoveries since World War II. That never happened. Actual post-recession growth averaged an anemic 2.1%. And Mr. Obama’s last year in office saw measly 1.5% GDP growth—hardly the springboard to our current expansion.”

While Mr. Puzder’s GDP figures tell the story that economic growth during the Obama administration was anemic, that’s only part of the story. Besides tepid economic growth during the Obama administration, another hallmark of the administration’s economic record was wage stagnation. It’s difficult to argue that the wage increases that we’re seeing now are because of President Obama’s policies. Simply put, wages didn’t start increasing until after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act passed and long after the Trump administration cut regulations.

Further, the fact that the administration said that GDP “growth would ‘accelerate in 2011 to 3.8%’ and ‘exceed 4% per year in 2012-2014′” indicates that these figures were either made up or that the forecasters were utterly incompetent. At this point, I’m leaning towards the figures were made up.

Austan Goolsbee has called Mr. Trump’s growth goals unrealistic. In May Larry Summers declared that accepting the Trump administration’s forecast of 3% GDP growth was like believing “in tooth fairies.”

Call me foolish but I think that 3% GDP has nothing to do with tooth fairies. It just requires the right policies. This is what happens when the right policies are put in place:

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of people working full time increased by 2.4 million in 2017, compared with only 1.6 million in 2016. In other words, the overall number of jobs added was lower in 2017, but only because hundreds of thousands of people left part-time for full-time jobs.

Wages are up, too. The CEOs that are announcing these wage increases are attributing them directly to the Trump tax cuts. How can the Obama administration take credit to wage increases that happened because of a tax bill that President Obama hates?

Finally, there’s this information:

Both 2016 and 2017 set some year-end records. In 2016, BLS recorded the highest number of people working part time at year’s end since it began recording the data in 1968. In 2017, it recorded the highest number of people working full time at year’s end since 1968 and the fewest working part-time since 2011.

The good news is that President Trump’s policies are working beautifully. He’s unleashed the economy’s animal spirits. Don’t take my word on that. Just ask Art Laffer:

Spoken like a true cookie cutter Democrat, last Friday night, newly minted U.S. Senator Tina Smith said that she’s opposed to building the wall, saying that “the wall is just a dumb idea”, adding that “most people don’t think it’s a good idea.” It’s good to know that Democrats think it’s smart to set national security policy based on public opinion rather than on what works.

I’d love hearing Democrats explain why they’re opposed to the wall after people read this article about El Paso. In the article, it says “Tell that to the residents of El Paso, Texas. Federal data show a far-less imposing wall than the one Trump envisions — a two-story corrugated metal fence first erected under the Bush administration — already has dramatically curtailed both illegal border crossings and crime in Texas’ sixth-largest city, which borders the high-crime Mexican city of Juarez. In fact, the number of deportable illegal immigrants located by the US Border Patrol plummeted by more than 89 percent over the five-year period during which the controversial new fence was built, according to Homeland Security data reviewed by me. When the project first started in 2006, illegal crossings totaled 122,261, but by 2010, when the 131-mile fence was completed from one end of El Paso out into the New Mexico desert, immigrant crossings shrank to just 12,251.”

In other words, a wall has already significantly reduced illegal border crossings in El Paso. That isn’t the only benefit of building the wall:

And crime abated with the reduced human traffic from Juarez, considered one of the most dangerous places in the world due to drug-cartel violence, helping El Paso become one of the safest large cities in America.

Let’s summarize. The wall in El Paso dramatically reduced illegal border crossings and it helped reduce drug-related crime, too. Let’s hear Democrats explain their opposition to something that dramatically reduces illegal border crossings and drug-related crimes.

Before 2010, federal data show the border city was mired in violent crime and drug smuggling, thanks in large part to illicit activities spilling over from the Mexican side. Once the fence went up, however, things changed almost overnight. El Paso since then has consistently topped rankings for cities of 500,000 residents or more with low crime rates, based on FBI-collected statistics.

Democrats opposed to the wall need to explain why they’re opposed to stopping violent crime and drug smuggling.

Another core promise made by Trump to justify constructing a massive wall spanning from Texas to California is that it will slow the flow of drugs coming across the border from Mexico. “We need the wall for security. We need the wall for safety,” Trump said last week while answering questions about the sweeping new GOP immigration bill. “We need the wall for stopping the drugs from pouring in.”
On that score, El Paso already has exceeded expectations.

Drug smuggling along that border entry point has also fallen dramatically. In fact, since the fence was completed, the volume of marijuana and cocaine coming through El Paso and seized by Border Patrol agents has been cut in half. The year before the wall was fully built in 2010, the volume of illegal drugs confiscated by the feds along the El Paso border hit 87,725 pounds. The year after, the amount of drug seizures plummeted to 43,783 pounds. Last year, they dropped even further to a total of 34,329, according to Border Patrol reports obtained by The Post.

Obama, Schumer and Feinstein all voted for building a wall in 2006:

I don’t doubt that Democrats will insist that things have changed since 2006. That’s true. Since then, large portions of the wall have been built. The FBI and ICE have had time to accumulate crime data. Since those sections of walls were built, illegal crossings have dropped, illegal drug confiscation has significantly increased and crime has dropped.

In other words, we now have proof that walls work. This isn’t theory anymore.

Sean Davis’s op-ed about the 10 undercovered stories of 2017 reminded me of the different approach taken towards ISIS. In a speech to the nation on Sept. 10, 2014, President Obama said “Now, it will take time to eradicate a cancer like ISIL. And any time we take military action, there are risks involved, especially to the servicemen and women who carry out these missions. But I want the American people to understand how this effort will be different from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil. This counter-terrorism campaign will be waged through a steady, relentless effort to take out ISIL wherever they exist, using our air power and our support for partner forces on the ground. This strategy of taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines, is one that we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years. And it is consistent with the approach I outlined earlier this year: to use force against anyone who threatens America’s core interests, but to mobilize partners wherever possible to address broader challenges to international order.”

Actually, that’s what happens when the United States military isn’t unleashed. Early in his administration, President Trump gave the generals the authority to do whatever it took to demolish ISIS. As I write this post, ISIS is virtually eradicated. ISIS’s strongholds in Mosul and Raqqa have been destroyed. Here’s how Davis described the situation:

Islamic State was crushed in Raqqa and Mosul

A year ago, the Islamic State wasn’t just on the rise in the Middle East, it was firmly in charge, with wide swaths of the region under its control. But in October, U.S.-backed forces completed the total liberation of Raqqa, the Islamic State’s Syrian capital. That followed the liberation of Mosul, a major Iraqi city captured by the Islamic State in 2014. In less than a year, Trump and his national security team accomplished what the previous administration suggested was impossible.

Listen to President Obama’s excuse-filled statement about the war against ISIS:

Here’s the part to focus on:

This is going to be a long-term campaign. There are not quick fixes involved. We are still in the early stages. As with any military effort, there will be days of progress and there will be periods of setback.

Actually, Mr. President, there was a quick fix. We just needed a real commander-in-chief who was serious about wiping out ISIS. Clearly, you didn’t fit that description. Further, it’s apparent that President Trump fits that description. It’s worth noting that President Trump has the advantage of having Gen. Jim Mattis as his Defense Secretary.

It’s likely that this is an underreported story because it would expose President Obama as the lackluster commander-in-chief that he was. The disgusting part is that I don’t have hope that we’ll learn from the Obama mistake. I don’t think we’ll learn from it because Obama’s supporters won’t admit that he’s a failure both on the national security front and the economic front.

Technorati: , , ,

Rumor has it that ISIS preferred the Obama administration over the Trump administration. We don’t know that for certain because ISIS hasn’t issued a statement on the issue, mostly because ISIS is too decimated these days to do much of anything. ISIS is too busy dodging bombs to issue more than a monthly rah-rah statement. When the Obama administration was in office, ISIS had time to actually recruit terrorists and plan terrorist attacks. That isn’t happening during the Trump administration.

Seriously, this article lays out what’s happening. The article’s opening paragraphs start by saying “ISIS has lost 98 percent of the territory it once held — with half of that terror group’s so-called ‘caliphate’ having been recaptured since President Trump took office less than a year ago, U.S. military officials said Tuesday. The massive gains come after years of “onerous” rules, when critics say the Obama administration ‘micromanaged’ the war and shunned a more intensive air strategy that could have ended the conflict much sooner.”

Predictably, the Obama administration attempted to push back. Predictably, it was feeble:

“This was a top priority from the early days of ISIS gaining the type of territorial safe haven in particular, there was recognition that safe havens for terrorist groups can mean terrorist plots that extend — not just into the region — but to Europe and conceivably into the United States,” said Joshua Geltzer, author of “US Counter-Terrorism Strategy and al-Qaeda: Signalling and the Terrorist World-View,” now a visiting professor at Georgetown Law School.

I don’t care if ISIS was a top priority for the Obama administration. It isn’t whether it’s a top priority. It’s whether the strategy employed is effective. Clearly, the Obama administration didn’t take things that seriously.

This report spells things out beautifully:

I’ll leave you with this parting thought:

Deptula thinks the ISIS fight would have ended much sooner if then-President Obama had given his military commander in the field more authority. He compared President Obama’s actions to President Lyndon B. Johnson during the Vietnam War. “Obama micromanaged the war,” Deptula said. “We could have accomplished our objectives through the use of overwhelming air power in three months not in three years.

Technorati: , , , , , ,

This week, President Obama tried taking credit for what Maria Bartiromo has titled “the Trump Boom.” The truth is that President Obama’s policies have nothing to do with the reinvigorated economy. In fact, businesses are saying the opposite. According to Ms. Bartiromo, “Corporate earnings have risen and corporate behavior has changed, measured in greater capital investment. Businesspeople tell me that a new approach to regulation is a big factor. During President Obama’s final year in office the Federal Register, which contains new and proposed rules and regulations, ran to 95,894 pages, according to a Competitive Enterprise Institute report.”

These businesses certainly know why they’re doing what they’re doing. What they’re saying with their actions and their words is that President Obama’s regulatory policies stifled growth, not entirely but significantly, by adding tons of regulatory compliance costs. When capital formation shrinks, job creation shrinks, too.

Others have noticed that there’s been a change and have adjusted accordingly:

For the first time in a long time the world is experiencing synchronized growth, which is why Goldman Sachs and Barclays among others have recently predicted 4% global growth in 2018. The entire world benefits when its largest economy is healthy, and the vibrancy overseas is reinforcing the U.S. resurgence.

This paragraph is especially enlightening:

Much has changed this year. Companies from Broadcom to Boeing have announced they’ll move overseas jobs back to the U.S. American companies hold nearly $3 trillion overseas and may soon be able to bring that money home without punitive taxation. Businesses have begun to open up the purse strings, which is why things like commercial airline activity are rising substantially as executives seek new opportunities. Companies are looking to invest in growth.

Investing in growth requires employees participating in the rewards. When corporations get into ‘merger and acquisition mode’, employees suffer. It’s easier for companies to merge with foreign corporations, then get taxed at lower rates. Democrats can whine about them doing that but it’s their own fault. It’s easier to work with corporations than trying to punish them. The government never wins in those match-ups.

Obama recently said that President Trump doesn’t have an answer for how he’ll get the economy growing. Either Obama is an economic illiterate or he’s intentionally lying. President Trump’s answer is to lower taxes and reduce regulations. That facts speak for themselves. Economic growth has virtually doubled under Trump’s watch. Consumer confidence is soaring. Companies are moving back from overseas. Contrary to what President Obama said, this isn’t a coincidence:

Finally, there’s this:

The Federal Register page count is down 32% this year. Mr. Trump says red tape becomes “beautiful” when it is eliminated, and people who manage businesses certainly agree.

I’m not alone in thinking that Trump’s policies are working. I’m predicting that President Obama’s policies will be discredited within another year.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,