Report Blames 1,000 Jobs Lost in Seattle on Minimum Wage

Leave a comment

This is from Freedom Force.

Like the old saying goes Be careful of what you wish for as you just might get it.


According to a report released Sunday by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the $15 minimum wage has caused Seattle restaurants to lose 1,000 jobs — the worst decline since the 2009 Great Recession.

“The loss of 1,000 restaurant jobs in May following the minimum wage increase in Aprilwas the largest one month job decline since a 1,300 drop in January 2009, again during the Great Recession,” AEI Scholar Mark J. Perry noted in the report.

The citywide minimum wage increase was passed in June of last year. The measure is designed to increase the city minimum wage gradually to $15 an hour by 2017. The first increase under the plan was to $11 an hour in April. According to the report, Seattle restaurants have already faced severe consequences as a result. In contrast, in the six years since the 2009 financial crisis, the industry has been recovering in areas without the $15 minimum wage.

“Restaurant employment nationally increased by 130,700 jobs (and by 1.2%) during that same period,” the report also noted. “Restaurant employment in Washington increased 3.2% and by 2,800 jobs.”

Supporters of the $15 minimum wage often argue it will help the poor and stimulate economic activity. Opponents, however, argue such policies will actually hurt the poor by limiting job opportunities. How little or how much of either outcome usually depends on the study. Nevertheless, even the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) agrees at least some job loss is expected.

Studies also show that industries with low profit margins, like restaurants, are more likely to be hit the hardest. A June report from the investor rating service Moody’s claims the minimum wage doesn’t even have to go up to $15 an hour for negative effects to occur.

From rallies to media marketing campaigns, Fight for $15 has led much of the effort to raise the minimum wage in the past year. Though claiming to be a grassroots workers movement, the group is highly influenced and funded by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

The SEIU has been criticized by some, like Worker Center Watch (WCW), for using the Fight for $15 protests as a way of bypassing labor laws to more easily unionize fast food workers. Additionally, according to a report from the Center for Union Facts, a minimum wage increase would benefit the SEIU directly while hurting non-unionized SEIU competitors.

Fight for $15 and the Seattle City Council did not respond to requests for comment from The Daily Caller News Foundation.




18 spectacularly wrong apocalyptic predictions made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970, expect more this year

1 Comment

This is from the American Enterprise Institute.

Earth Day is celebrated onVladimir Ilyich Lenins birthday a coincidence, I think not.



In the May 2000 issue of Reason Magazine, award-winning science correspondent Ronald Bailey wrote an excellent article titled “Earth Day, Then and Now” to provide some historical perspective on the 30th anniversary of Earth Day.

In that article, Bailey noted that around the time of the first Earth Day, and in the years following, there was a “torrent of apocalyptic predictions” and many of those predictions were featured in his Reason article.

Well, it’s now the 45th anniversary of  Earth Day, and a good time to ask the question again that Bailey asked 15 years ago: How accurate were the predictions made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970?

The answer: “The prophets of doom were not simply wrong, but spectacularly wrong,” according to Bailey. Here are 18 examples of the spectacularly wrong predictions made around 1970 when the “green holy day” (aka Earth Day) started:

1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.

3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”

4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” confidently declared in the April 1970 Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”

6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”

7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.

8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa.

By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

9. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”

11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.

12. Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in his 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.

13. Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980, when it might level out.

14. declared, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”

15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated the humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.

16. Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look that, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

17. In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so, it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.”

18. Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

MP: Let’s keep those spectacularly wrong predictions from the first Earth Day 1970 in mind when we’re bombarded tomorrow with media hype, and claims like this from the official Earth Day website:

 Scientists warn us that climate change could accelerate beyond our control, threatening our survival and everything we love.

We call on you to keep global temperature rise under the unacceptably dangerous level of 2 degrees C, by phasing out carbon pollution to zero.

To achieve this, you must urgently forge realistic global, national and local agreements, to rapidly shift our societies and economies to 100% clean energy by 2050. Do this fairly, with support to the most vulnerable among us. Our world is worth saving and now is our moment to act. But to change everything, we need everyone. Join us.

Finally, think about this question, posed by Ronald Bailey in 2000: What will Earth look like when Earth Day 60 rolls around in 2030? Bailey predicts a much cleaner, and much richer future world, with less hunger and malnutrition, less poverty, and longer life expectancy, and with lower mineral and metal prices.

But he makes one final prediction about Earth Day 2030: “There will be a disproportionately influential group of doomsters predicting that the future–and the present–never looked so bleak.” In other words, the hype, hysteria and spectacularly wrong apocalyptic predictions will continue, promoted by the “environmental grievance hustlers.”


Leave a comment

This is from Breitbarts Big Government.

Obama is using the IRS like his own personal Gestapo

to punish and destroy his enemies.

Yet Congress does nothing and will do nothing.


The Internal Revenue Service quietly proposed new regulationsaimed at 501(c)(4) organizations during the Thanksgiving recess that Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, called “a crass political effort by the Administration to get what political advantage they can, when they can.”

Tea Party groups and other conservative organizations were apparently singled out by the IRS starting in 2010, and the heavy hand of government suppression of these groups may have greatly attributed to Obama’s re-election, an American Enterprise Institute study revealed in October.

The Washington Post reported last week the Treasury Department said the new rules “may be both more restrictive and more permissive than the current approach.” The new rules focus on organizations known as “social welfare” groups that regulated within section 501(c)(4) of the tax code. Conservative political operations, liberal groups before them, began to organize under the 501 (c)(4) umbrella in the past ten years, and having such a tax status would allow these organizations from disclosing their donors.

A 54-year-old rule says that an organization can become a social welfare organization “if it is primarily engaged in promoting in some way the common good and general welfare of the people of the community.” The new IRS regulation now says “campaign-related political activity” cannot count towards a group’s social welfare mission. Such a regulation would discount numerous conservative advocacy groups either seeking for or wanting to maintain a 501(c)(4) tax status. According to the Post:

“The phone and e-mail exploded,” said Dan Backer, an Alexandria lawyer specializing in election law who represents many nonprofit groups on the right. “We are all going to spend a tremendous amount of time and energy fighting back against this.”

“The IRS is approaching this as, ‘We are giving you the right to speak and you are going to speak within the confines we tell you,’ ” Backer added. “And that’s wrong. This whole effort is simply a way to empower government to regulate speech.” …

“Treasury and the IRS drew a very deep and troubling line in the sand,” the Alliance for Justice, an association of more than 100 nonprofit groups on the left, said in a statement. “Though the new definitions attempt to clarify existing rules, they also create a danger to citizen participation in our democracy.”

Issa’s Committee has been investigating evidence this past year showing the IRS targeted Tea Party, religious, and other conservative organizations. In a statement released by Issa’s Committee office last week, the chairman said:

This new effort by the Obama Administration to limit traditional advocacy efforts by social welfare organizations will have a much more profound impact on grassroots and community organizations than on the well-heeled groups it supposedly targets. The fact that the Administration’s new effort only applies to social welfare organizations — and not powerful unions or business groups — underscores that this is a crass political effort by the Administration to get what political advantage they can, when they can.

The Committee’s interim report into the IRS’s targeting scandal explained how the Citizens United decision caused the IRS to handle conservative tax-exempt applicants in a distinct and unfair manner. The regulation released today continues this Administration’s unfortunate pattern of stifling constitutional free speech.

Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), Ranking Member of the Committee, saw the new IRS regulations as a positive step forward. Cummings’ office released a statement last week expressing the congressman’s satisfaction with the new rules:

Today by clarifying the confusing regulations governing the amount of political campaign activity that tax-exempt organizations can conduct, the Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury Department have taken another important step in implementing the recommendations made by the Inspector General earlier this year.   Our investigation has shown that reforming these tax rules is essential, and I hope that we can put aside partisan politics and work together to ensure that these reforms work for everyone.

In the meantime, the Oversight Committee, according to Issa, continues to be stonewalled by the FBI over the Committee’s investigation  into whether the IRS targeted the conservative group True the Vote. Issa is now threatening to subpoena FBI director James Comey to get the information he says Oversight needs.




Unfit for Combat

Leave a comment

This is from The Washington Free Beacon.

This is disgraceful what is happening to the military.

Chesty Puller would be sad to see what is happening to his beloved Corp.

What would Howlin Mad Smith have to say about his beloved Corp?

The military was devastated after World War one.

Look at what happened at Pearl Harbor.


Marines, Army shrinking force size under budgetary restraints.

The United States Marine Corps is set to shed more than 20,000 active duty positions in the coming years and have already commenced a process meant to force some senior officers into an early retirement.

The Marines are on course to cut around 4,000 positions a year through 2017, decreasing the total number of Marines to 182,100 from its peak last year of 202,100, according to a major scale-down order that was quietly issued last year.

The reduction in forces could leave the elite fighting force underprepared to battle multiple regional threats, particularly those in the Middle East, according to military experts.

The impending cuts are independent of the $1.2 trillion in mandatory cuts, otherwise known as sequestration, which will take place next month if Congress fails to reach a preventative deal.

“The effect will be that there will not be sufficient Marines available to both be ‘America’s 9-1-1 force’ and to be ready for sustained ground combat,” said Steven Bucci, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense who warned that the decreased number of Marines will leave the force overstretched.

“Right now, the Marines are trying to go back to the role of floating about on the three ship Amphibious Readiness Group (ARG) missions forward deployed around the world,” Bucci said, referring to a joint Navy and Marine unit that performs sea-to-shore missions. “There was no ARG available to respond to Benghazi [terror attacks] because the Marines have had so many combat units fighting elsewhere.”

“Cuts will prohibit [the Marines] from returning to this key role,” said Bucci, director of the Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation.

A spokesperson in the Marines’ Manpower and Reserve Affairs office said that the corps typically “transitions” 30,000-35,000 Marines per year, “so we are only talking about 5,000 more per year on top of that.”

There are currently 195,000 active duty members, according to the official.

“In order to keep faith with our Marines, we are looking to maximize voluntary measures,” the spokesperson said. “As such, several force-shaping authorities are available to us and we are offering them to Marines—in a targeted fashion.”

As the Army carries out a similarly massive drawdown in forces, the Marines are being forced to enter combat roles for which they are not primarily suited, said Thomas Donnelly, a former policy group director for the House Armed Services Committee.

The Army began discharging and reassigning 60,000 soldiers, according to the Daily News of Jacksonville, N.C.

Army leaders were informed the Army is “fundamentally” altering its structure and that “some fully qualified soldiers will be denied re-enlistment,” according to an Army Times report.

“The problem will come if there’s a need to reverse the current retreat in the Middle East, the wars most likely to demand long-term, larger-scale land forces,” explained Donnelly, who is currently a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

“In a few years, the Army will be worse off than it was prior to 9/11 and less able—though the most natural and most able long-war force—to sustain that sort of operation,” he said. “Under those circumstances the Marines will get sucked back into the sort of mission they’ve had in Anbar and Helmand [provinces in Iraq and Afghanistan] of late.”

The Marines have already announced the formation of several voluntary and coercive commissions aimed at paring down the force.

Selective early retirement boards, for example, will force at least 200 lieutenant colonels out of the service, according to unclassifiedannouncements.

“Officers selected for early retirement have been personally notified of their selection by the first marine three-star general officer in their chain of command,” states one announcement that was issued last week.

Another forced retirement notice from last year acknowledges that the Marines are under-resourced.

“As we move into an environment of reduced resources and reduced end strength, we face tough decisions that will affect the marines who have been dedicated to service throughout the recent decades of peace and war,” the announcement states. “For a second time, our corps must face the tough decision of how to manage the kind of surplus in senior field grade officers we have today.”

Other officers are being forced to compete for scant positions, according to another announcement issued in November.

An “officer retention board” will determine which officers can remain on active duty, according to the notice.

“Career designation is a force shaping tool that allows for the management of the officer population by retaining the best qualified officers from each year group,” the notice states. “Those selected for career designation are offered the opportunity to remain on active duty.”

“Officers will be considered for career designation in five competitive categories in the military occupational specialties (MOS) listed,” including proficiency in combat arms and other areas.

Several voluntary programs additionally offer enlisted members an early retirement. The programs are meant to quickly pare down the force and save costs in a tight budgetary environment.

The Marines could be forced to cut an additional number of enlisted members should the sequestration take effect later this year, leaving the force even weaker, experts said.

“Sequestration would badly hurt USMC readiness,” said Heritage’s Bucci. “Now that the president seems to have put the blame on the Republicans, the other [Joint Chiefs of Staff] have finally started to fess up to the truth: These cuts will make the military hollow.”

“They will not have enough people, trainings, or equipment to provide for the common defense,” Bucci said.





1 Comment

This is from Human Events.

It seems Harry Jaffa is suffering from dementia.

The Tea Party and the Communist are as different as night and day.

The Obama administration is closer to the Communist.

The Tea Party wants less taxes and less government.


Historian Jaffa: Tea partiers 'no different than Communists'

In this month’s New York Magazine, historian and conservative thinker Harry Jaffa called the tea party “anarchists” and said that they are “no different than Communists.”

The 94-year old Jaffa, a distinguished fellow at the Claremont Institute and author of the groundbreaking book on the Lincoln-Douglas debates, “Crisis of the House Divided: An Interpretation of the Issues in the Lincoln-Douglas Debates,” spoke with the magazine’s Eric Benson for its election special edition.

Topics included the history of one of the most infamous lines in political speechwriting: “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.”

Jaffa attended the 1964 Republican convention as a staffer at the American Enterprise Institute, but ended up crafting one of the most important speeches in the history of the conservative movement. “After a meeting where I heard Nelson Rockefeller warn about the dangers of extremism, I wrote a two-paragraph memorandum with the line about extremism in defense of liberty. Somehow that filtered up to [Presidential Candidate Barry] Goldwater. Then he said he wanted his speech written around those lines,” Jaffa told the magazine.

Aside from the 1964 convention, Jaffa was asked about this year’s presidential race, and the state of America’s political parties. “Political parties are always being formed and re-formed. They’re never a fixed entity. The great danger to the Republican Party right now is Ron Paul and the—what do they call themselves?” he said.

“[The tea party] as far as I’m concerned, they’re anarchists. And they’re no different than Communists in their opposition to capitalist government,” Jaffa said.

%d bloggers like this: