Posted on

The False Promise of the Minimum Wage Hike

I. Introduction

Last week, the United States House of Representatives passed legislation raising the Federal minimum wage to $15 per hour by 2025. Contrary to what the Democrats would have you believe, this is less about compassion for low-skilled workers and more about the dearth of economic literacy. If you think a $15 minimum wage is a good idea, why not $1,000 or $2,000? No workers will be hired at that wage, but progressive politicians can claim that but for greedy businesses low-skilled workers would have prospered.  

The decision to raise the minimum wage is a value judgement — a conscious decision to have fewer working at a higher wage than more working at a market-based wage. This is ironic coming from a party that decries the elitist policies of those on the other side of the aisle. The worst sin of the great many sins perpetuated in Washington is committed by those who worsen the plight of workers on the lower rungs of the economic ladder with false promises that they are doing otherwise.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that the minimum wage increase would give 17 million workers a raise and move approximately 1.3 million people above the poverty level. It would also cause about 1.3 million Americans to lose their jobs, reduce business income, lower economic growth and raise prices across the economy. Like virtually all public policy decisions, raising the minimum wage entails economic tradeoffs because it creates winners and losers.

II. The Economics

The first observation is that firms in competitive markets are profit-maximizers, which means they are cost-minimizers. Workers compete not only with one another for jobs but with technology (capital) as well. Minimizing costs requires that the last worker hired contribute to revenues an amount that is just equal to its wages. A similar calculus applies to capital. Businesses will naturally seek to insulate themselves from the effects of the increase in the minimum wage. This takes two different forms — a reduction in the amount of labor that is hired and an increase in the amount of capital that is employed (e.g., robotics). Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates understands automation and he warns that increasing the minimum wage destroys jobs.  

Well, jobs are a great thing. You have to be a bit careful: If you raise the minimum wage, you’re encouraging labor substitution and you’re going to go buy machines and automate things — or cause jobs to appear outside of that jurisdiction. And so within certain limits, you know, it does cause job destruction.

The increase in the minimum wage forces employers to pay a higher wage, but it cannot force them to hire a minimum number of workers or guarantee a minimum number of hours (A lesson learned by Bernie Sanders’ campaign staffers earlier this month). Beware of progressive politicians who proclaim that “If you like your job you can keep your job.” Nor does the minimum-wage hike impose constraints on capital-labor substitution. This explains why labor unions, at least the smart ones, bargain on both wage-benefit packages and employment guarantees.

The second observation is that low-wage jobs are an indispensable training ground for young and unskilled workers that enable them through job tenure and skills acquisition to increase their prospects for higher-paying jobs. Low-skilled jobs are similar to apprenticeships and relatively low wages are to be expected. The objective is not for government fiat to mandate an above-market wage, but to provide workers with strong incentives to acquire the skills and experience that, in concert with economic growth, will naturally command a higher wage. Increasing the minimum wage will force some of these individuals out of the work force and deprive them of the opportunity to acquire the skills that would allow them to move up the economic ladder. These displaced workers are no longer able to participate in the various educational-assistance plans that many companies provide. In this sense, an increase in the minimum wage is the proverbial ”résumé killer.” Even if aggregate wage income should rise as a result of the increase in the minimum wage (contrary to what the CBO found), displaced workers still suffer a twofold loss: their job and the opportunity to invest in their human capital through additional education and skills acquisition.

Third, raising the minimum wage will increase the prices of goods and services across the economy as businesses seek to pass along these wage increases through higher prices. The increase in the minimum wage does not equate to a corresponding increase in purchasing power because the nominal wage increase is eroded by inflation. This reduces the effective increase in the minimum wage for those who retain employment and imposes even greater financial burdens on those displaced workers. These higher prices also reduce demand for goods and services and therefore the demand for minimum-wage workers.  

Fourth, the progressive politicians that advocate increasing the minimum wage also tend to support an Open-Borders policy and a dramatic influx of low-skilled labor into the country. Paradoxically, the realization of the American dream may be denied these individuals because the hike in the minimum wage forecloses the very economic prosperity they seek. The end result is an increase in the ranks of the unemployed and a concomitant rise in poverty, crime, and despair. This will necessitate an increase in outlays for various social programs and perpetuate a cycle of government dependence.  

Fifth, progressive politicians rationalize their policies to increase the minimum wage on the basis of some studies that report little or no adverse employment effects from an increase in the minimum wage. There is no consensus in the economics literature on the effects of increasing the minimum wage. This should not be all that surprising. There is an old adage that “a town too small to support one lawyer can always support two.” The counterpart is that you can always find an economic expert to support the policy directive du jour. Even peer-reviewed studies do not provide dispositive evidence given the liberal bias in academia. The Law of Demand states that the quantity demanded of a good or service varies inversely with its price. This implies that an increase in the minimum wage causes a certain number of low-skilled workers to lose their jobs and reduces the number of hours worked for a substantial percentage of those retaining their jobs.

Finally, the Federal minimum wage is an ill-conceived concept from the outset given the pronounced differences in cost-of-living across the country. Where is the economic logic in mandating the same minimum wage in San Francisco as in Little Rock?

III. Conclusion

In an ideal world, elected officials would practice something akin to the Hippocratic Oath, “First, Do No Harm.” Unfortunately, this is not an ideal world. The most progressive politicians in the U.S. House can be partitioned into two groups. The first group is arguably economically illiterate. Their heart may be in the right place, but their candlepower sheds little light on the problem at hand. The second group understands the economics, but recognizes that there are short-run political benefits to a minimum wage hike despite the harmful, long-run effects. Markets do not adjust instantaneously to an increase in the minimum wage — the wage benefit is immediate while downsizing the labor force and capital-labor substitution occurs with a substantial lag. By the time their constituency feels the cost of these policies, these politicians have already moved on to their next campaign or promise. True accountability is the Loch Ness Monster of politics because despite much folklore no one has really ever seen it. This is the problem with formulating public policy — the focus is almost entirely on the short run because this is the only period of time over which politicians have any real culpability.

In the final analysis, it does not really matter whether myopic, minimum-wage policies have their genesis in economic illiteracy or political dishonesty. Because for those workers that suffer profound and enduring economic hardship as a result of these policies, this is a distinction without a difference.

Dennis L. Weisman is Professor of Economics Emeritus, Kansas State University.  

I. Introduction

Last week, the United States House of Representatives passed legislation raising the Federal minimum wage to $15 per hour by 2025. Contrary to what the Democrats would have you believe, this is less about compassion for low-skilled workers and more about the dearth of economic literacy. If you think a $15 minimum wage is a good idea, why not $1,000 or $2,000? No workers will be hired at that wage, but progressive politicians can claim that but for greedy businesses low-skilled workers would have prospered.  

The decision to raise the minimum wage is a value judgement — a conscious decision to have fewer working at a higher wage than more working at a market-based wage. This is ironic coming from a party that decries the elitist policies of those on the other side of the aisle. The worst sin of the great many sins perpetuated in Washington is committed by those who worsen the plight of workers on the lower rungs of the economic ladder with false promises that they are doing otherwise.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that the minimum wage increase would give 17 million workers a raise and move approximately 1.3 million people above the poverty level. It would also cause about 1.3 million Americans to lose their jobs, reduce business income, lower economic growth and raise prices across the economy. Like virtually all public policy decisions, raising the minimum wage entails economic tradeoffs because it creates winners and losers.

II. The Economics

The first observation is that firms in competitive markets are profit-maximizers, which means they are cost-minimizers. Workers compete not only with one another for jobs but with technology (capital) as well. Minimizing costs requires that the last worker hired contribute to revenues an amount that is just equal to its wages. A similar calculus applies to capital. Businesses will naturally seek to insulate themselves from the effects of the increase in the minimum wage. This takes two different forms — a reduction in the amount of labor that is hired and an increase in the amount of capital that is employed (e.g., robotics). Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates understands automation and he warns that increasing the minimum wage destroys jobs.  

Well, jobs are a great thing. You have to be a bit careful: If you raise the minimum wage, you’re encouraging labor substitution and you’re going to go buy machines and automate things — or cause jobs to appear outside of that jurisdiction. And so within certain limits, you know, it does cause job destruction.

The increase in the minimum wage forces employers to pay a higher wage, but it cannot force them to hire a minimum number of workers or guarantee a minimum number of hours (A lesson learned by Bernie Sanders’ campaign staffers earlier this month). Beware of progressive politicians who proclaim that “If you like your job you can keep your job.” Nor does the minimum-wage hike impose constraints on capital-labor substitution. This explains why labor unions, at least the smart ones, bargain on both wage-benefit packages and employment guarantees.

The second observation is that low-wage jobs are an indispensable training ground for young and unskilled workers that enable them through job tenure and skills acquisition to increase their prospects for higher-paying jobs. Low-skilled jobs are similar to apprenticeships and relatively low wages are to be expected. The objective is not for government fiat to mandate an above-market wage, but to provide workers with strong incentives to acquire the skills and experience that, in concert with economic growth, will naturally command a higher wage. Increasing the minimum wage will force some of these individuals out of the work force and deprive them of the opportunity to acquire the skills that would allow them to move up the economic ladder. These displaced workers are no longer able to participate in the various educational-assistance plans that many companies provide. In this sense, an increase in the minimum wage is the proverbial ”résumé killer.” Even if aggregate wage income should rise as a result of the increase in the minimum wage (contrary to what the CBO found), displaced workers still suffer a twofold loss: their job and the opportunity to invest in their human capital through additional education and skills acquisition.

Third, raising the minimum wage will increase the prices of goods and services across the economy as businesses seek to pass along these wage increases through higher prices. The increase in the minimum wage does not equate to a corresponding increase in purchasing power because the nominal wage increase is eroded by inflation. This reduces the effective increase in the minimum wage for those who retain employment and imposes even greater financial burdens on those displaced workers. These higher prices also reduce demand for goods and services and therefore the demand for minimum-wage workers.  

Fourth, the progressive politicians that advocate increasing the minimum wage also tend to support an Open-Borders policy and a dramatic influx of low-skilled labor into the country. Paradoxically, the realization of the American dream may be denied these individuals because the hike in the minimum wage forecloses the very economic prosperity they seek. The end result is an increase in the ranks of the unemployed and a concomitant rise in poverty, crime, and despair. This will necessitate an increase in outlays for various social programs and perpetuate a cycle of government dependence.  

Fifth, progressive politicians rationalize their policies to increase the minimum wage on the basis of some studies that report little or no adverse employment effects from an increase in the minimum wage. There is no consensus in the economics literature on the effects of increasing the minimum wage. This should not be all that surprising. There is an old adage that “a town too small to support one lawyer can always support two.” The counterpart is that you can always find an economic expert to support the policy directive du jour. Even peer-reviewed studies do not provide dispositive evidence given the liberal bias in academia. The Law of Demand states that the quantity demanded of a good or service varies inversely with its price. This implies that an increase in the minimum wage causes a certain number of low-skilled workers to lose their jobs and reduces the number of hours worked for a substantial percentage of those retaining their jobs.

Finally, the Federal minimum wage is an ill-conceived concept from the outset given the pronounced differences in cost-of-living across the country. Where is the economic logic in mandating the same minimum wage in San Francisco as in Little Rock?

III. Conclusion

In an ideal world, elected officials would practice something akin to the Hippocratic Oath, “First, Do No Harm.” Unfortunately, this is not an ideal world. The most progressive politicians in the U.S. House can be partitioned into two groups. The first group is arguably economically illiterate. Their heart may be in the right place, but their candlepower sheds little light on the problem at hand. The second group understands the economics, but recognizes that there are short-run political benefits to a minimum wage hike despite the harmful, long-run effects. Markets do not adjust instantaneously to an increase in the minimum wage — the wage benefit is immediate while downsizing the labor force and capital-labor substitution occurs with a substantial lag. By the time their constituency feels the cost of these policies, these politicians have already moved on to their next campaign or promise. True accountability is the Loch Ness Monster of politics because despite much folklore no one has really ever seen it. This is the problem with formulating public policy — the focus is almost entirely on the short run because this is the only period of time over which politicians have any real culpability.

In the final analysis, it does not really matter whether myopic, minimum-wage policies have their genesis in economic illiteracy or political dishonesty. Because for those workers that suffer profound and enduring economic hardship as a result of these policies, this is a distinction without a difference.

Dennis L. Weisman is Professor of Economics Emeritus, Kansas State University.  

via American Thinker

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/

Posted on

Can someone tell Michael Moore that Cuba is out of medicine?

Cuba is going through hard times again and medicine is in very low supply, according to news reports:    

Locals on the island have complained in recent months that some drugs are so difficult to find that patients and their families are forced to camp out overnight at their local pharmacy, hoping to secure a prime place in line to purchase some of the small shipments when they arrive. 

The shortage is part of a larger economic crisis on the island that has forced Cubans to stand on lines for hours to buy basic goods like chicken, cooking oil, and flour.

As always, the regime blames everyone else but the system.   

They blame it on providers and banking problems.  In other words, foreign providers demand cash for their orders.  I guess that they are not selling to Cuba on credit anymore.  Can you blame them?  How many times has Cuba restructured its debts?

They blame it on poor domestic production, a problem that the regime has faced since it expropriated private companies in the 1960s.  In other words, once upon a time, Cuba produced its own medicine and imported the rest without difficulty.  We should add that many U.S. drug companies had faculties in Cuba and it worked very efficiently for the island’s consumers.  

They blame the embargo, although it does not stop any European, Canadian, or Latin American company from selling to Cuba.

They blame President Trump, last but not least.

Once again we see that Cuba’s health care system is a disaster.  Only Michael Moore and other leftists who benefit from private health care in the U.S. find something good to say about the Cuban health care system.

P.S.  You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.

Cuba is going through hard times again and medicine is in very low supply, according to news reports:    

Locals on the island have complained in recent months that some drugs are so difficult to find that patients and their families are forced to camp out overnight at their local pharmacy, hoping to secure a prime place in line to purchase some of the small shipments when they arrive. 

The shortage is part of a larger economic crisis on the island that has forced Cubans to stand on lines for hours to buy basic goods like chicken, cooking oil, and flour.

As always, the regime blames everyone else but the system.   

They blame it on providers and banking problems.  In other words, foreign providers demand cash for their orders.  I guess that they are not selling to Cuba on credit anymore.  Can you blame them?  How many times has Cuba restructured its debts?

They blame it on poor domestic production, a problem that the regime has faced since it expropriated private companies in the 1960s.  In other words, once upon a time, Cuba produced its own medicine and imported the rest without difficulty.  We should add that many U.S. drug companies had faculties in Cuba and it worked very efficiently for the island’s consumers.  

They blame the embargo, although it does not stop any European, Canadian, or Latin American company from selling to Cuba.

They blame President Trump, last but not least.

Once again we see that Cuba’s health care system is a disaster.  Only Michael Moore and other leftists who benefit from private health care in the U.S. find something good to say about the Cuban health care system.

P.S.  You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.

via American Thinker Blog

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/

Posted on

The Southern borders are not Auschwitz

Politics destroys both moral compasses and perspective. 

In “Will future museums study our migrant cages?” (7/21/19), readers of the Washington Post are presented an article about the Hirshhorn exhibit detailing the architecture of Auschwitz prison cells. Auschwitz is notorious as one of the most evil, sadistic murder sites ever constructed on this planet — the consequence of Nazi Germany’s “final solution” to murder the Jews of Europe. At least one million Jews were murdered at Auschwitz. The murdering only stopped when Soviet troops approached the camps toward the end of WWII. 

The Post can’t help themselves by interjecting the question of how future Americans will view the southern border detention centers, compared to how we view the concentration camp of Auschwitz today. 

The detention centers house those trying to get into the United States, not trying to get out. Yes, residents often are housed in uncomfortable conditions while the United States grapples with how to handle the huge uptick in migrants. The conditions and protocols need to be fixed and that requires Congress to act and determine a better way to handle the situation. It should be known that the conditions at the detention centers have not prevented or dissuaded migrants from wanting to enter the country.

And that, according to the Washington Post, is akin to Auschwitz… it belongs in the same conversation.

Of course, this interjection is just about politics. For if not, why were there no such articles when the “migrant cages” were created — during the Obama administration?

Politics destroys both moral compasses and perspective. 

In “Will future museums study our migrant cages?” (7/21/19), readers of the Washington Post are presented an article about the Hirshhorn exhibit detailing the architecture of Auschwitz prison cells. Auschwitz is notorious as one of the most evil, sadistic murder sites ever constructed on this planet — the consequence of Nazi Germany’s “final solution” to murder the Jews of Europe. At least one million Jews were murdered at Auschwitz. The murdering only stopped when Soviet troops approached the camps toward the end of WWII. 

The Post can’t help themselves by interjecting the question of how future Americans will view the southern border detention centers, compared to how we view the concentration camp of Auschwitz today. 

The detention centers house those trying to get into the United States, not trying to get out. Yes, residents often are housed in uncomfortable conditions while the United States grapples with how to handle the huge uptick in migrants. The conditions and protocols need to be fixed and that requires Congress to act and determine a better way to handle the situation. It should be known that the conditions at the detention centers have not prevented or dissuaded migrants from wanting to enter the country.

And that, according to the Washington Post, is akin to Auschwitz… it belongs in the same conversation.

Of course, this interjection is just about politics. For if not, why were there no such articles when the “migrant cages” were created — during the Obama administration?

via American Thinker Blog

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/

Posted on

Has World War 3 already begun? The NSA may know something

This week, the National Security Agency (NSA) made a major announcement regarding America’s plan to combat international threats in the midst of an ongoing and seemingly never-ending series of cyber-skirmishes. 

A new unit within the NSA, the Cybersecurity Directorate, will focus on the growing threat to America posed by international hacking and is set to be led by Anne Neuberger.  Neuberger was previously the agency’s chief risk officer, its first, a position that was created to plug leaks after the Edward Snowden fiasco.  She also was the NSA’s deputy director of operations and, most recently, the former head of an NSA unit known as the Russia Small Group.  That group was tasked with managing threats posed by foreign hackers during the 2018 midterm elections. 

The new group is expected to be operational by this October.  According to the NSA website, the “Cybersecurity Directorate is a major organization that unifies NSA’s foreign intelligence and cyber defense missions and is charged with preventing and eradicating threats to National Security Systems and the Defense Industrial Base.”  The website also says, “This new approach to cybersecurity will better position NSA to collaborate with key partners across the U.S. government like U.S. Cyber Command, Department of Homeland Security, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.”

That sounds good on the surface, but will this new group make a significant impact in what we can more easily identify as the embryonic stages of World War 3?  There have been several reshufflings over the past few years at the Department of Homeland Security as well as at the highest levels of America’s so-called “Cyber Command.”  These changes include the passage of the bipartisan Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Act, which rebranded DHS’s main cyber-security unit, known as the National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), as the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Protection Agency or CISA. This designated CISA as a full-fledged operational component of DHS, similar to the Secret Service or FEMA.

The White House also eliminated the position of cyber-security coordinator in April of 2018.  Former White House cyber-security coordinator Rob Joyce vacated that post to return to the NSA amid a shakeup that also saw Joyce’s boss, White House homeland security adviser Tom Bossert, pushed out of his position by national security adviser John Bolton.

Continuity and consistency will be key to American cyber-defense efforts as the newest theater of war continues to heat up.  Just last month, the New York Times reported that the United States had executed hacking attacks against Russia’s power grid.  The speculation is that these attacks were, in part, a response to the supposed election meddling that was the central theme of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

These revelations came on the heels of a two-pronged cyber-attack that not only disabled a computer network, but could also interfere with half the production of the conventional weapons of war.  The April 2019 attack against raw material–producer Norsk Hydro created a blueprint for state-sponsored hacks that could be executed in the event of total war.  The attack was carried out using a malware strain known as LockerGoga. 

Malware, a nuisance mainly thought to hold value only for profiteers on the “dark web,” has long found a militaristic purpose.  Many experts point to the malware attack of Iran’s nuclear program in the beginning of this decade as the genesis of cyber-warfare.  As technology and creativity continue to evolve, the United States will have its work cut out for it, with high-leverage targets like infrastructure serving as low-hanging fruit for countries at a militaristic disadvantage against America. 

Now more than ever, agencies like the newly forming Cybersecurity Directorate will play a critical role in our nation’s defense strategy.

Julio Rivera is a NYC-based writer, news personality, columnist, business consultant, and editorial director for Reactionary Times.  His writing, which is concentrated on politics, cyber-security, and sports, has been published by websites including Newsmax, The Washington Times, Breitbart, The Toronto Sun, The Hill, The Washington Examiner, Western Journal, LifeZette, Townhall, American Thinker, The Epoch Times, Real Clear Markets, PJ Media, and many others.  He is a fixture on cable news talk shows, making regular appearances on American and international television.

This week, the National Security Agency (NSA) made a major announcement regarding America’s plan to combat international threats in the midst of an ongoing and seemingly never-ending series of cyber-skirmishes. 

A new unit within the NSA, the Cybersecurity Directorate, will focus on the growing threat to America posed by international hacking and is set to be led by Anne Neuberger.  Neuberger was previously the agency’s chief risk officer, its first, a position that was created to plug leaks after the Edward Snowden fiasco.  She also was the NSA’s deputy director of operations and, most recently, the former head of an NSA unit known as the Russia Small Group.  That group was tasked with managing threats posed by foreign hackers during the 2018 midterm elections. 

The new group is expected to be operational by this October.  According to the NSA website, the “Cybersecurity Directorate is a major organization that unifies NSA’s foreign intelligence and cyber defense missions and is charged with preventing and eradicating threats to National Security Systems and the Defense Industrial Base.”  The website also says, “This new approach to cybersecurity will better position NSA to collaborate with key partners across the U.S. government like U.S. Cyber Command, Department of Homeland Security, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.”

That sounds good on the surface, but will this new group make a significant impact in what we can more easily identify as the embryonic stages of World War 3?  There have been several reshufflings over the past few years at the Department of Homeland Security as well as at the highest levels of America’s so-called “Cyber Command.”  These changes include the passage of the bipartisan Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Act, which rebranded DHS’s main cyber-security unit, known as the National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), as the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Protection Agency or CISA. This designated CISA as a full-fledged operational component of DHS, similar to the Secret Service or FEMA.

The White House also eliminated the position of cyber-security coordinator in April of 2018.  Former White House cyber-security coordinator Rob Joyce vacated that post to return to the NSA amid a shakeup that also saw Joyce’s boss, White House homeland security adviser Tom Bossert, pushed out of his position by national security adviser John Bolton.

Continuity and consistency will be key to American cyber-defense efforts as the newest theater of war continues to heat up.  Just last month, the New York Times reported that the United States had executed hacking attacks against Russia’s power grid.  The speculation is that these attacks were, in part, a response to the supposed election meddling that was the central theme of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

These revelations came on the heels of a two-pronged cyber-attack that not only disabled a computer network, but could also interfere with half the production of the conventional weapons of war.  The April 2019 attack against raw material–producer Norsk Hydro created a blueprint for state-sponsored hacks that could be executed in the event of total war.  The attack was carried out using a malware strain known as LockerGoga. 

Malware, a nuisance mainly thought to hold value only for profiteers on the “dark web,” has long found a militaristic purpose.  Many experts point to the malware attack of Iran’s nuclear program in the beginning of this decade as the genesis of cyber-warfare.  As technology and creativity continue to evolve, the United States will have its work cut out for it, with high-leverage targets like infrastructure serving as low-hanging fruit for countries at a militaristic disadvantage against America. 

Now more than ever, agencies like the newly forming Cybersecurity Directorate will play a critical role in our nation’s defense strategy.

Julio Rivera is a NYC-based writer, news personality, columnist, business consultant, and editorial director for Reactionary Times.  His writing, which is concentrated on politics, cyber-security, and sports, has been published by websites including Newsmax, The Washington Times, Breitbart, The Toronto Sun, The Hill, The Washington Examiner, Western Journal, LifeZette, Townhall, American Thinker, The Epoch Times, Real Clear Markets, PJ Media, and many others.  He is a fixture on cable news talk shows, making regular appearances on American and international television.

via American Thinker Blog

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/

Posted on

Mueller underwhelms – so CNN and MSNBC do pre- and post-testimony fake news and obfuscation

Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s 6½ hour long testimony in the House on Wednesday was expected to be a big ratings win for the three cable news and three broadcast television channels, all of which covered it wall-to-wall. Not only did the event under-perform, but so did President Trump’s key media nemesis, CNN, which came in dead last at #6.

The red hot competition for viewers apparently led MSNBC and CNN to add a new level of fakery – both before and after Mueller’s testimony. MSNBC contributed to the conspiracy theory that Fox News was planning to black out live coverage of Mueller, while CNN obfuscated its poor showing in a post-Mueller hearing TV ratings analysis.

Conventional wisdom has it that when the news is perceived to be unfavorable for President Trump, Resistance outlets MSNBC and CNN get a boost in viewership. Mueller’s long-awaited testimony was expected to turbocharge the Resistance and re-ignite talk of impeaching the president, but his performance clearly underwhelmed. Still, Fox News, the channel perceived as the friendliest to the president, won both the day of coverage (hosted by its news department’s anchors and reporters) and prime time, when opinion shows are programmed on all three cable “news” channels.

According to Nielsen Media Research, as reported by Forbes on Thursday:

Fox News drew a total audience of more than 3 million viewers between 8:15 a.m. and 3:45 p.m. ET, leading all broadcast and cable competition. MSNBC finished second with 2.4 million total viewers, followed by ABC (2.12 million), NBC (1.99 million), CBS (1.91 million) and CNN (1.5 million). CBS, it should be noted, is currently dark in 10 million American households because of an AT&T dispute with DirecTV, Nexstar and other carriers, which may have dampened its overall ratings.

The weekend before Mueller’s testimony, a widespread conspiracy theory emerged – with the assistance of MSNBC – claiming incorrectly that Fox News would not broadcast the hearings live because they were expected to embarrass President Trump. In fact, Fox News had been running prominent on air promos for weeks advertising its plans to cover the hearings live, initially scheduled for Wednesday July 17 and then moved back a week after Mueller was given more time to prepare.

The details of this hanky-panky suggest a new, down low strategy on the part of a cable news channel to try to depress the ratings of a competitor. On Sunday, frequent MSNBC contributor Joyce Vance tweeted her 337,000 followers the false information that Fox News would not cover the hearings. After criticism on social media, she deleted the tweet, claiming it was a sarcastic joke – but not before author and Resistance keyboard warrior Stephen King tweeted the fake news about Fox’s plans to his 5.33 million Twitter followers.

Joyce Alene’s Fake Tweet – deleted but not before it ultimately got about 7,000 retweets

 

Stephen King’s tweet – which is still online

On Monday, as Brian Flood reported in an article at Fox News dot com on Tuesday, Vance’s claim had “morphed into a full-blown conspiracy theory – and anti-Trump liberals don’t seem to care.” In fact, on Monday, MSNBC guest Rick Wilson spread the fake news about Fox during an appearance on the channel and he was not corrected.

According to Flood:

Wilson appeared on MSNBC’s “Deadline: White House” and apparently missed the memo that Vance deleted her inaccurate tweet prior to his segment.

“Now Fox isn’t covering the hearings,” Wilson said during a discussion about the upcoming Mueller testimony.

[MSNBC host Nicole] Wallace didn’t correct him and responded, “Really?”

“They’re apparently not going to take them live. Everybody else is taking them live,” Wilson said, misinforming MSNBC viewers in the process.

“TV viewership for Mueller hearings falls flat” was an article on Thursday about the Mueller hearing ratings by Brian Stelter, CNN’s chronic Trump nemesis. Stelter significantly failed to note that CNN came in last in the Mueller ratings. Instead, Stelter contrasted the total ratings for Mueller’s testimony with the numbers for James Comey, Michael Cohen, and Bret Kavanaugh when each of them testified before Congress. Stelter:

If Democrats were banking on massive viewership of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s televised testimony, they’re feeling broke today.

The Mueller hearings had a loyal audience, but they didn’t break any ratings records. Not by a long shot.

Preliminary Nielsen ratings totals — which are subject to adjustment — show an average of 13 million viewers across six major networks Wednesday.

Stelter’s closing comments ironically give one some hope that viewer interest in taking President Trump down is finally waning:

When the final Nielsen ratings come in, the Mueller hearings are likely to be in line with Michael Cohen’s testimony back in February.

In a possible sign of Trump-related fatigue, neither the Mueller or Cohen hearings were as highly-rated as former FBI Director James Comey’s explosive day of testimony in June 2017, which drew about 20 million viewers.

Peter Barry Chowka writes about politics, media, popular culture, and health care for American Thinker and other publications.  Peter’s website is http://peter.media.  Follow him on Twitter at @pchowka.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s 6½ hour long testimony in the House on Wednesday was expected to be a big ratings win for the three cable news and three broadcast television channels, all of which covered it wall-to-wall. Not only did the event under-perform, but so did President Trump’s key media nemesis, CNN, which came in dead last at #6.

The red hot competition for viewers apparently led MSNBC and CNN to add a new level of fakery – both before and after Mueller’s testimony. MSNBC contributed to the conspiracy theory that Fox News was planning to black out live coverage of Mueller, while CNN obfuscated its poor showing in a post-Mueller hearing TV ratings analysis.

Conventional wisdom has it that when the news is perceived to be unfavorable for President Trump, Resistance outlets MSNBC and CNN get a boost in viewership. Mueller’s long-awaited testimony was expected to turbocharge the Resistance and re-ignite talk of impeaching the president, but his performance clearly underwhelmed. Still, Fox News, the channel perceived as the friendliest to the president, won both the day of coverage (hosted by its news department’s anchors and reporters) and prime time, when opinion shows are programmed on all three cable “news” channels.

According to Nielsen Media Research, as reported by Forbes on Thursday:

Fox News drew a total audience of more than 3 million viewers between 8:15 a.m. and 3:45 p.m. ET, leading all broadcast and cable competition. MSNBC finished second with 2.4 million total viewers, followed by ABC (2.12 million), NBC (1.99 million), CBS (1.91 million) and CNN (1.5 million). CBS, it should be noted, is currently dark in 10 million American households because of an AT&T dispute with DirecTV, Nexstar and other carriers, which may have dampened its overall ratings.

The weekend before Mueller’s testimony, a widespread conspiracy theory emerged – with the assistance of MSNBC – claiming incorrectly that Fox News would not broadcast the hearings live because they were expected to embarrass President Trump. In fact, Fox News had been running prominent on air promos for weeks advertising its plans to cover the hearings live, initially scheduled for Wednesday July 17 and then moved back a week after Mueller was given more time to prepare.

The details of this hanky-panky suggest a new, down low strategy on the part of a cable news channel to try to depress the ratings of a competitor. On Sunday, frequent MSNBC contributor Joyce Vance tweeted her 337,000 followers the false information that Fox News would not cover the hearings. After criticism on social media, she deleted the tweet, claiming it was a sarcastic joke – but not before author and Resistance keyboard warrior Stephen King tweeted the fake news about Fox’s plans to his 5.33 million Twitter followers.

Joyce Alene’s Fake Tweet – deleted but not before it ultimately got about 7,000 retweets

 

Stephen King’s tweet – which is still online

On Monday, as Brian Flood reported in an article at Fox News dot com on Tuesday, Vance’s claim had “morphed into a full-blown conspiracy theory – and anti-Trump liberals don’t seem to care.” In fact, on Monday, MSNBC guest Rick Wilson spread the fake news about Fox during an appearance on the channel and he was not corrected.

According to Flood:

Wilson appeared on MSNBC’s “Deadline: White House” and apparently missed the memo that Vance deleted her inaccurate tweet prior to his segment.

“Now Fox isn’t covering the hearings,” Wilson said during a discussion about the upcoming Mueller testimony.

[MSNBC host Nicole] Wallace didn’t correct him and responded, “Really?”

“They’re apparently not going to take them live. Everybody else is taking them live,” Wilson said, misinforming MSNBC viewers in the process.

“TV viewership for Mueller hearings falls flat” was an article on Thursday about the Mueller hearing ratings by Brian Stelter, CNN’s chronic Trump nemesis. Stelter significantly failed to note that CNN came in last in the Mueller ratings. Instead, Stelter contrasted the total ratings for Mueller’s testimony with the numbers for James Comey, Michael Cohen, and Bret Kavanaugh when each of them testified before Congress. Stelter:

If Democrats were banking on massive viewership of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s televised testimony, they’re feeling broke today.

The Mueller hearings had a loyal audience, but they didn’t break any ratings records. Not by a long shot.

Preliminary Nielsen ratings totals — which are subject to adjustment — show an average of 13 million viewers across six major networks Wednesday.

Stelter’s closing comments ironically give one some hope that viewer interest in taking President Trump down is finally waning:

When the final Nielsen ratings come in, the Mueller hearings are likely to be in line with Michael Cohen’s testimony back in February.

In a possible sign of Trump-related fatigue, neither the Mueller or Cohen hearings were as highly-rated as former FBI Director James Comey’s explosive day of testimony in June 2017, which drew about 20 million viewers.

Peter Barry Chowka writes about politics, media, popular culture, and health care for American Thinker and other publications.  Peter’s website is http://peter.media.  Follow him on Twitter at @pchowka.

via American Thinker Blog

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/

Posted on

Winning: The Supreme Court finally ends the wall of irrationality over the border

The Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling that President Trump can indeed build the wall from already appropriated funding is a sweet one. Here’s the Washington Post’s report:

A split Supreme Court said Friday night that the Trump administration could proceed with its plan to use $2.5 billion in Pentagon funds to build part of the president’s wall project along the southern border.

The court’s conservatives set aside a lower-court ruling for the Sierra Club and a coalition of border communities that said reallocating Defense Department money would violate federal law.

Friday’s unsigned ruling came in response to an emergency filing from the administration during the court’s summer recess. The majority said the government “made a sufficient showing at this stage” that private groups may not be the proper plaintiffs to challenge the transfer of money.

At long last, one gets the sense the world is back on its axis. Suddenly, the Sierra Club’s ‘enjoyment’ of natural scenery is not quite as important as Americans’ right to hold off a million-strong illegal foreign invasion. At long last, we learn there are some kind of limits to the demands of the open borders lobby which up until now have seen continuous expansion; some kind of check-and-balance between justice for the citizens and the ‘rights’ of illegal foreigners. There’s some kind of acknowledgment that if you don’t have borders of any kind, you don’t have a country. And there’s some kind of sense that the president we elected, precisely to protect us, has some kind of power to do that. Up until now, the constant series of court rulings, by unelected leftists, has left one with the sense that the entire power structure of the country was hinged on what these leftists think.

There’s some kind of balance now, some kind of limit… and for that, the ruling was an immense relief.

Combined with the decent compromise accord reached with Guatemala, reducing the incentives of migrants to file phony asylum claims in order to get a few good years working here, and preserving the asylum system for those who truly need it, it’s a great victory. One cannot help but feel a sense of celebration.

Because the whole thing has been blown so out of proportion to what it is, by the press, the open borders lobby, and the Democrats.

The ruling itself wasn’t that extraordinary. A president has some discretion about how certain already-congressionally appropriated monies can be spent.

A wall is not that extraordinary, either. In the face of a border surge, a wall is reasonable, if for nothing else to free up the Border Patrol from babysitting illegal migrants so that they can go after real drug dealers, who’ve been having a field day as a result. Dozens of countries have them. It’s a simple, uncompromising proxy for rule of law that favors no special interest groups.

And a president has a duty to defend the country. Any country faced with more than a million foreign invaders, all unvetted, and with plenty of criminal, terrorist and deadly disease elements among them – has an obligation to protect its people. Using defense dolars to do it, instead of fight some country in the Middle East, makes perfect sense. This isn’t rocket science. The leftist lower courts’ continuous rulings in favor of all comers has reached the lunatic point, the point at which one can only see something else going on beyond mere defenses of every individual right at the expense of the whole, some different agenda.

The Democrats, of course, are unhappy, because they’ve made such a political stink about there never, ever, being a wall to go up. The wall was President Trump’s signature issue, the issue that got him unexpectedly elected. Democrats have made a huge deal about the keeping the status quo, keeping the border open, keeping the asylum loopholes in place to encourage illegals to not only abuse the system, but to keep coming, too.  That’s why they want no wall to ever go up, no matter what the circumstances. Never mind the will of the voters, of course. These Democrats were determined to get their will over his will and in so doing, get him ousted.

Their tweets are revealing for their hypocrisy:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Since when has Nancy Pelosi ever been concerned about presidential overreach? She let President Obama walk all over her on that one. Or stealing funds – which by the way, are not being stolen? Or kingly power in the post-Obama era, the world she built? Or the biggest of all – government waste? Why would a piddly $8 billion loss due to ‘waste’ bother her, given the gargantuan losses she’s signed off on in Obama’s assorted green and welfare schemes?  And if a wall is ineffective, why is she upset about it? We all know she wants the illegal migrants to flood in. Her hypocrisy is amazing.

Then there’s Kamala Harris, who calls it a medieval vanity project. Really? Why are so many nations doing them now, Kamala? Medieval suggests something rather useless and behind the times. But cocaine smugglers know what a wall means and for them it’s not a figment of the past. Again, if it’s useless, why is she against it? As for vanity, the only vanity we see is her own. Millions of unvetted foreigners are flooding into the country in an unprecedented invasion. Democrats benefit from it, as illegals roll in with impunity, encounter no law enforcement, put down roots, have children, and then vote Democrat. She can call Trump’s project as vain as she wants but the voters elected Trump for this very reason. She’s effectively calling us and our voting choices vain. The vanity is hers. And the hypocrisy.  

There’s also Chuck Schumer, crying his crocodile tears about the military and its funding. The military’s doing fine on funding, but more important, a wall is national defense, a bulwark on the border, protection of the citizens. All of this is the very thing a military is supposed to be used for. Schumer seems to think Middle Eastern wars are a better use for the military. As if Democrats have ever supported our military. Lay the hypocrisy thick on this one, too.

As for the rest of us, something is finally happening. A wall will go up. The people’s will is finally getting some respect. The law is perfectly in place. And leftists are free to un-elect President Trump, get their own operatives in there, and tear it down if they can persuade enough of us.

Let’s celebrate in the meantime.

 

The Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling that President Trump can indeed build the wall from already appropriated funding is a sweet one. Here’s the Washington Post’s report:

A split Supreme Court said Friday night that the Trump administration could proceed with its plan to use $2.5 billion in Pentagon funds to build part of the president’s wall project along the southern border.

The court’s conservatives set aside a lower-court ruling for the Sierra Club and a coalition of border communities that said reallocating Defense Department money would violate federal law.

Friday’s unsigned ruling came in response to an emergency filing from the administration during the court’s summer recess. The majority said the government “made a sufficient showing at this stage” that private groups may not be the proper plaintiffs to challenge the transfer of money.

At long last, one gets the sense the world is back on its axis. Suddenly, the Sierra Club’s ‘enjoyment’ of natural scenery is not quite as important as Americans’ right to hold off a million-strong illegal foreign invasion. At long last, we learn there are some kind of limits to the demands of the open borders lobby which up until now have seen continuous expansion; some kind of check-and-balance between justice for the citizens and the ‘rights’ of illegal foreigners. There’s some kind of acknowledgment that if you don’t have borders of any kind, you don’t have a country. And there’s some kind of sense that the president we elected, precisely to protect us, has some kind of power to do that. Up until now, the constant series of court rulings, by unelected leftists, has left one with the sense that the entire power structure of the country was hinged on what these leftists think.

There’s some kind of balance now, some kind of limit… and for that, the ruling was an immense relief.

Combined with the decent compromise accord reached with Guatemala, reducing the incentives of migrants to file phony asylum claims in order to get a few good years working here, and preserving the asylum system for those who truly need it, it’s a great victory. One cannot help but feel a sense of celebration.

Because the whole thing has been blown so out of proportion to what it is, by the press, the open borders lobby, and the Democrats.

The ruling itself wasn’t that extraordinary. A president has some discretion about how certain already-congressionally appropriated monies can be spent.

A wall is not that extraordinary, either. In the face of a border surge, a wall is reasonable, if for nothing else to free up the Border Patrol from babysitting illegal migrants so that they can go after real drug dealers, who’ve been having a field day as a result. Dozens of countries have them. It’s a simple, uncompromising proxy for rule of law that favors no special interest groups.

And a president has a duty to defend the country. Any country faced with more than a million foreign invaders, all unvetted, and with plenty of criminal, terrorist and deadly disease elements among them – has an obligation to protect its people. Using defense dolars to do it, instead of fight some country in the Middle East, makes perfect sense. This isn’t rocket science. The leftist lower courts’ continuous rulings in favor of all comers has reached the lunatic point, the point at which one can only see something else going on beyond mere defenses of every individual right at the expense of the whole, some different agenda.

The Democrats, of course, are unhappy, because they’ve made such a political stink about there never, ever, being a wall to go up. The wall was President Trump’s signature issue, the issue that got him unexpectedly elected. Democrats have made a huge deal about the keeping the status quo, keeping the border open, keeping the asylum loopholes in place to encourage illegals to not only abuse the system, but to keep coming, too.  That’s why they want no wall to ever go up, no matter what the circumstances. Never mind the will of the voters, of course. These Democrats were determined to get their will over his will and in so doing, get him ousted.

Their tweets are revealing for their hypocrisy:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Since when has Nancy Pelosi ever been concerned about presidential overreach? She let President Obama walk all over her on that one. Or stealing funds – which by the way, are not being stolen? Or kingly power in the post-Obama era, the world she built? Or the biggest of all – government waste? Why would a piddly $8 billion loss due to ‘waste’ bother her, given the gargantuan losses she’s signed off on in Obama’s assorted green and welfare schemes?  And if a wall is ineffective, why is she upset about it? We all know she wants the illegal migrants to flood in. Her hypocrisy is amazing.

Then there’s Kamala Harris, who calls it a medieval vanity project. Really? Why are so many nations doing them now, Kamala? Medieval suggests something rather useless and behind the times. But cocaine smugglers know what a wall means and for them it’s not a figment of the past. Again, if it’s useless, why is she against it? As for vanity, the only vanity we see is her own. Millions of unvetted foreigners are flooding into the country in an unprecedented invasion. Democrats benefit from it, as illegals roll in with impunity, encounter no law enforcement, put down roots, have children, and then vote Democrat. She can call Trump’s project as vain as she wants but the voters elected Trump for this very reason. She’s effectively calling us and our voting choices vain. The vanity is hers. And the hypocrisy.  

There’s also Chuck Schumer, crying his crocodile tears about the military and its funding. The military’s doing fine on funding, but more important, a wall is national defense, a bulwark on the border, protection of the citizens. All of this is the very thing a military is supposed to be used for. Schumer seems to think Middle Eastern wars are a better use for the military. As if Democrats have ever supported our military. Lay the hypocrisy thick on this one, too.

As for the rest of us, something is finally happening. A wall will go up. The people’s will is finally getting some respect. The law is perfectly in place. And leftists are free to un-elect President Trump, get their own operatives in there, and tear it down if they can persuade enough of us.

Let’s celebrate in the meantime.

 

via American Thinker Blog

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/

Posted on

The Humanitarian Hoax of the 2019-2020 Equality Act

The Humanitarian Hoax is a deliberate and deceitful tactic of presenting a destructive policy as altruistic. The humanitarian huckster presents himself as a compassionate advocate when in fact he is the disguised enemy.

The Humanitarian Hoax of the 2019-2020 Equality ActThe 116th Congress 2019-2020 Equality Act is a Democrat bill prohibiting discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity in multiple areas including public accommodations and facilities, education, federal funding, employment, housing, credit, and the jury system. Sounds great – what’s the problem?

via CanadaFreePress.Com

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://canadafreepress.com/

Posted on

PRAGER: America, Google And Me: My Senate Speech

Last week, at the invitation of Sen. Ted Cruz, I spoke to the Senate Judiciary Committee about Google’s having placed more than 60 Prager University videos on its restricted list. Any family that filters out pornography and violence cannot see those particular videos on YouTube (which is owned by Google); nor can any school or library.

via Daily Wire

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailywire.com/rss.xml