As the 2020 Democratic Party presidential candidates <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/48863/who-will-win-democratic-primary-latest-2020-josh-hammer">battle it out for the nomination</a>, politicos must also pay close attention to President Donald Trump&#8217;s approval rating across the 50 states. While Trump&#8217;s national approval rating has been hovering below 50% for his entire presidency, it was <a href="https://emersonpolling.reportablenews.com/pr/july-national-poll-biden-extends-lead-in-democratic-primary-trump-closes-the-gap-in-the-general-election">on the upswing</a> for the beginning of the summer before faltering a bit toward the end of July. The president&#8217;s approval rating recovered a bit in September before falling again as news of the Ukraine phone call incident rattled national headlines. Since the onset of the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-complete-timeline-of-the-trump-ukraine-story">Ukraine scandal</a>, it has more or less stabilized.
Historically, presidents have fared well in re-election campaigns when they maintain approval ratings above 50%. This president, to be sure, has never had such an approval rating at any point throughout his presidency. But President Trump oversees a soaring economy, with record-low unemployment rates, and has a hardened base of core supporters. One must also never forget the sheer power of incumbency: Since FDR, only Presidents Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush were elected and then subsequently not re-elected four years later.
Yet, fair-minded observers must still ask: If Trump&#8217;s overall approval rating number stays below 50%, will Trump be able to defy historical trends for presidential incumbents?
As of November 12, 2019, the <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html">RealClearPolitics average</a> for Trump&#8217;s national job approval rating sits at 43.7% — or 10.7% underwater.
Overall, <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/general_election/">national head-to-head polls</a> also do not presently show Trump to be in particularly good electoral shape. Specifically, one of the <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/news/most-accurate-2016-poll-shows-biden-warren-sanders-beating-trump/">most accurate pollsters</a> from the 2016 national election, IBD/TIPP, <a href="https://www.investors.com/news/elizabeth-warren-joe-biden-sanders-democratic-race-biden-vs-trump/">showed fairly recently</a> that Trump was losing hypothetical head-to-head matchups with each of Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Kamala Harris. While still early and despite the fact Trump does lead in some hypothetical matchups, the Trump campaign should still be taking very seriously this hypothetical head-to-head matchup polling. I have previously offered some <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-trump-needs-to-focus-on-a-safety-and-security-agenda-for-2020">unsolicited advice</a> to the Trump campaign: Focus on a safety and security agenda to appeal to persuadable moderate, independent, and suburban swing voters.
The Daily Wire will also be tracking Trump&#8217;s state-by-state approval rating as the general election nears. Here is the latest Trump approval rating information from across all the various swing states.
Battleground State-By-State Trump Approval Rating (latest data via <a href="https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump-2/">Morning Consult&#8217;s October 2019</a> monthly survey)
ARIZONA:
<ul>
<li>2016 presidential result: Trump + 3.57%</li>
<li>Governor: Republican</li>
<li>U.S. Senate: Republican, Democrat</li>
<li>Current Trump approval rating: -4%</li>
</ul>
COLORADO:
<ul>
<li>2016 presidential result: Clinton + 4.91%</li>
<li>Governor: Democrat</li>
<li>U.S. Senate: Republican, Democrat</li>
<li>Current Trump approval rating: -18%</li>
</ul>
FLORIDA:
<ul>
<li>2016 presidential result: Trump + 1.20%</li>
<li>Governor: Republican</li>
<li>U.S. Senate: Republican, Republican</li>
<li>Current Trump approval rating: -2%</li>
</ul>
GEORGIA:
<ul>
<li>2016 presidential result: Trump + 5.09%</li>
<li>Governor: Republican</li>
<li>U.S. Senate: Republican, Republican</li>
<li>Current Trump approval rating: -3%</li>
</ul>
IOWA:
<ul>
<li>2016 presidential result: Trump + 9.41%</li>
<li>Governor: Republican</li>
<li>U.S. Senate: Republican, Republican</li>
<li>Current Trump approval rating: -12%</li>
</ul>
MICHIGAN:
<ul>
<li>2016 presidential result: Trump + 0.23%</li>
<li>Governor: Democrat</li>
<li>U.S. Senate: Democrat, Democrat</li>
<li>Current Trump approval rating: -13%</li>
</ul>
MINNESOTA:
<ul>
<li>2016 presidential result: Clinton + 1.51%</li>
<li>Governor: Democrat</li>
<li>U.S. Senate: Democrat, Democrat</li>
<li>Current Trump approval rating: -14%</li>
</ul>
NEVADA:
<ul>
<li>2016 presidential result: Clinton + 2.42%</li>
<li>Governor: Democrat</li>
<li>U.S. Senate: Democrat, Democrat</li>
<li>Current Trump approval rating: -14%</li>
</ul>
NEW HAMPSHIRE:
<ul>
<li>2016 presidential result: Clinton + 0.37%</li>
<li>Governor: Democrat</li>
<li>U.S. Senate: Democrat, Democrat</li>
<li>Current Trump approval rating: -20%</li>
</ul>
NORTH CAROLINA:
<ul>
<li>2016 presidential result: Trump + 3.66%</li>
<li>Governor: Democrat</li>
<li>U.S. Senate: Republican, Republican</li>
<li>Current Trump approval rating: -3%</li>
</ul>
OHIO:
<ul>
<li>2016 presidential result: Trump + 8.13%</li>
<li>Governor: Republican</li>
<li>U.S. Senate: Republican, Democrat</li>
<li>Current Trump approval rating: -6%</li>
</ul>
PENNSYLVANIA:
<ul>
<li>2016 presidential result: Trump + 0.72%</li>
<li>Governor: Democrat</li>
<li>U.S. Senate: Republican, Democrat</li>
<li>Current Trump approval rating: -9%</li>
</ul>
TEXAS:
<ul>
<li>2016 presidential result: Trump + 8.99%</li>
<li>Governor: Republican</li>
<li>U.S. Senate: Republican, Republican</li>
<li>Current Trump approval rating: +2%</li>
</ul>
VIRGINIA:
<ul>
<li>2016 presidential result: Clinton + 5.32%</li>
<li>Governor: Democrat</li>
<li>U.S. Senate: Democrat, Democrat</li>
<li>Current Trump approval rating: -7%</li>
</ul>
WISCONSIN:
<ul>
<li>2016 presidential result: Trump + 0.77%</li>
<li>Governor: Democrat</li>
<li>U.S. Senate: Republican, Democrat</li>
<li>Current Trump approval rating: -17%</li>
</ul>
This article has been updated to reflect the most recent survey data.

Trump rally Kentucky

Will Trump Win? The Latest On Trump’s National And State-By-State Approval Ratings.

2020 Election

Donald Trump

Economy

Republican Party

Chase Bank CEO Jamie Dimon delivered strong news for President Donald Trump&#8217;s 2020 re-election hopes during a &#8220;60 Minutes&#8221; interview on CBS that aired on Sunday night, saying that the U.S. economy is not showing any signs of letting up and that this is &#8220;the most prosperous economy the world has ever seen.&#8221;
&#8220;The stock market is going through the roof, and yet manufacturing production is down over the past year,&#8221; host Leslie Stahl said. &#8220;Wage growth is slowing. So when you look at the state of the economy right now, what do you see? Do you see strength? Do you see petering out?&#8221;
&#8220;The consumer, which is 70% of the U.S. economy, is quite strong. Confidence is very high,&#8221; Dimon responded. &#8220;Their balance sheets are in great shape. And you see that the strength of the American consumer is driving the American economy and the global economy.&#8221;
&#8220;And while business slowed down, my current view is that, no, it just was a slowdown, not a petering out,&#8221; Dimon added.
&#8220;You sound pretty optimistic about the economy,&#8221; Stahl pressed.
&#8220;Yeah, well, I am,&#8221; Dimon responded.
Later, when speaking about how the U.S. economy has been able to whether numerous global incidents in the past, Dimon said, &#8220;This is the most prosperous economy the world has ever seen, and it&#8217;s going to be a very prosperous economy for the next 100 years.&#8221;
Polls <a href="https://www.bankrate.com/surveys/presidential-election-survey-july-2019/">show</a> that the U.S. economy is by far the most important issue to voters during presidential elections cycles and an estimated 30% of Americans will decide who to vote for in 2020 based on the economy.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
“This is the most prosperous economy the world has ever seen.” The CEO of America&#8217;s biggest bank, Jamie Dimon, says the U.S. consumer is &#8220;quite strong&#8221; <a href="https://t.co/fFUJgepYXG">https://t.co/fFUJgepYXG</a> <a href="https://t.co/LeLfgp56yN">pic.twitter.com/LeLfgp56yN</a>
— 60 Minutes (@60Minutes) <a href="https://twitter.com/60Minutes/status/1193684605745926144?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 11, 2019</a></blockquote>
Partial transcript of Chase Bank CEO Jamie Dimon&#8217;s &#8220;60 Minutes&#8221; interview provided <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jamie-dimon-jp-morgan-chase-ceo-the-60-minutes-interview-2019-11-10/">via</a> CBS:
Lesley Stahl: The stock market is going through the roof, and yet manufacturing production is down over the past year. Wage growth is slowing. So when you look at the state of the economy right now, what do you see? Do you see strength? Do you see petering out?
Jamie Dimon: The consumer, which is 70% of the U.S. economy, is quite strong. Confidence is very high. Their balance sheets are in great shape. And you see that the strength of the American consumer is driving the American economy and the global economy. And while business slowed down, my current view is that, no, it just was a slowdown, not a petering out.
Lesley Stahl: You sound pretty optimistic about the economy.
Jamie Dimon: Yeah. Well, I am.
Lesley Stahl: Well what about the issue of unpredictability right now on the economy. Is that worrisome to you. It must be worrisome to every businessman in the country.
Jamie Dimon: The world is unpredictable. I think it&#8217;s a mistake.
Lesley Stahl: Well, more unpredictable than usual.
Jamie Dimon: No. If you look at history, if you take a newspaper and open it at any month of any year, you&#8217;d have the same list of hugely unpredictable things.
Lesley Stahl: Why doesn&#8217;t it feel that way? Why does it feel as if we were in a particularly uncertain time?
Jamie Dimon: Human nature looks at fear and reacts to the short run. But again there&#8217;ve been like 50 or 60 international crises since World War II. Only one really affected the global economy in the short run.
Lesley Stahl: What was that? Vietnam?
Jamie Dimon: No. Vietnam did not. Vietnam obviously totally changed America, but it was the oil crisis in the Middle East in 1973 when oil went from 2 to 20 and we had a global recession. There&#8217;ve been wars with India and Pakistan, we got Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam, China had wars with Vietnam, China had wars with Russia. None of those things affected the global economy. And the other thing is: people look at the negatives. There are positives. The Berlin Wall went up, the Berlin Wall came down. So…
Lesley Stahl: And the economy wasn&#8217;t affected, is that what you&#8217;re saying?
Jamie Dimon: Barely. This is the most prosperous economy the world has ever seen, and it’s going to be a very prosperous economy for the next 100 years.

Jamie Dimon

Chase Bank CEO Jamie Dimon Has Good News For Trump’s 2020 Re-Election Chances

The modern-day Democratic Party is, on any number of issues, simply <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-democratic-party-has-become-parody-itself-josh-hammer">beyond parody</a>. The far-left tail that is the AOC-led &#8220;Squad&#8221; has long come to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-aocs-squad-will-destroy-democrats-2020-josh-hammer">wag the dog</a> that is the institutional party apparatus, and perhaps nowhere is this dynamic more obvious than in the intersection of economics and mathematics that sentient human beings have hitherto referred to as &#8220;sanity.&#8221;
In the 2016 Democratic presidential primary, Sen. Bernie Sanders (<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-bernie-sanders-entire-worldview-grotesquely-josh-hammer">Communist</a> &#8211; VT) was notable for proposing sundry pie-in-the-sky socialistic nostrums that far outflanked eventual nominee Hillary Clinton on the hard left. In the clown car pile-up that is the 2020 Democratic presidential primary, Sanders has once again outdone himself. As economic policy expert Brian Riedl recently broke down for <a href="https://www.city-journal.org/bernie-sanders-expensive-spending-proposals">City Journal</a>, Sanders&#8217; &#8220;current plans would cost as much as $97.5 trillion over the next decade,&#8221; and government spending as a percentage of gross domestic product would rise to an astonishing 70% — or three and a half times the 20% that has been the frequent post-World War II <a href="https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYONGDA188S">American norm</a>. The single priciest component of Sanders&#8217; hammer-and-sickle agenda, as the erstwhile Soviet Union honeymooner has <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNP-AQlVZKM">conceded</a>, is his bankrupting &#8220;Medicare for All&#8221; plan — to the tune of $30–$40 trillion over a ten-year timeframe.
What is simply remarkable is that Sanders&#8217; &#8220;Medicare for All&#8221; price tag now looks positively conservative compared to the newly unveiled plan of 2020 Democratic presidential primary rival Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). As The Daily Wire&#8217;s Ashe Schow <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/elizabeth-warrens-plan-to-fund-medicare-for-all-is-a-complete-fantasy">noted</a> earlier today, Warren&#8217;s new &#8220;Medicare for All&#8221; proposal &#8220;would cost $52 trillion over 10 years.&#8221; Proving even more thoroughly that the quixotic Democratic Party mind lies somewhere between the idyllic river of dragon dreams and the paradisal valley of unicorn farts, Warren doubled down on the disingenuous mathematical impossibility that she peddled ad nauseam at the last presidential primary debate and informed us gullible plebeians that her plan will somehow <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/11/01/775335150/read-elizabeth-warrens-plan-to-pay-for-medicare-for-all">not result in middle class tax hikes</a>.
Hmmmm.
As Riedl has <a href="https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/8/7/17658574/democratic-socialism-cost-medicare-college-sanders-deficits-taxes">previously</a> <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-deficits-on-the-rise-and-not-because-of-tax-cuts-democrats-will-make-it-worse">demonstrated</a>, there is simply no world in which this exorbitant level of federal spending can be sustained. It is a complete and utter mathematical impossibility. Heck, we as a nation cannot even fiscally sustain our own previously pledged commitments to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-republicans-need-be-adults-and-talk-about-josh-hammer">bankrupting entitlement programs</a>!
But sure, what&#8217;s another $52 trillion in health care going to do, once we&#8217;re all already heading straight for a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/business/international/greece-debt-crisis-euro.html">Greece-style</a> sovereign debt abyss? At this point, the entirety of both the Democratic Party and &#8220;progressive&#8221; economic firmament seem to be unanimously in thrall to the <a href="https://economics21.org/modern-monetary-theory-rational-inflation">economically illiterate</a> fiction that is co-called &#8220;modern monetary theory&#8221; (MMT) — the nonsensical notion, as <a href="https://www.investopedia.com/modern-monetary-theory-mmt-4588060">explained</a> by Investopedia, that governments that print their own currency &#8220;do not need taxes or borrowing for spending&#8221; because &#8220;they can print as much as they need and are the monopoly issuers of the currency.&#8221; Intellectually honest Democrats would publicly proclaim their fealty to the MMT cabal, in lieu of constantly equivocating when pressed about how they might possibly fund their fiscally ruinous and un-fundable schemes.
Sober-minded citizens have already seen the 2020 Democrats lurch to the far left on all sorts of bread-and-butter cultural and civilizational issues — from border security to religion to abortion to transgenderism. But on perhaps no issue is this crop of hucksters more transparently nutty than on their various plans for perhaps the most rudimentary political issue of all: Government spending.

October Democratic primary debate

HAMMER: The Democratic Presidential Primary Is A Race To The Fiscally Illiterate Bottom

Democratic Party

Health Care

Leftism

Medicare

Obamacare

Progressivism

On Friday, Economist Editor-in-Chief Zanny Minton Beddoes and former Obama administration adviser Steven Rattner slammed Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), calling her economic proposals &#8220;extreme&#8221; and suggesting that they would devastate the U.S. economy.
&#8220;Many of the things that she&#8217;s trying to address are real problems in the U.S. economy – the scale of inequality, the increasingly concentrated nature of the U.S. economy – but on balance, when you look at it, I actually think that many of her specific proposals, there are some that make a lot of sense, but many of them, when taken together, it would give a shock to the U.S. economy that on balance would be not good for the U.S. economy,&#8221; Beddoes said on MSNBC&#8217;s &#8220;Morning Joe.&#8221;
&#8220;About 50% of the stock market and private equity companies would be affected by her re-regulation, by break up, by some of, one of her many very big, ambitious proposals, and I think it&#8217;s not just that there are individual policies that one can disagree with, and there are many,&#8221; Beddoes continued.
&#8220;The broader philosophy underpinning it, I think, has two elements: one is that she has an enormous faith in government and government regulation, and as we all know, government regulation has its downsides, and we may be in a situation where we need [a] different kind of regulation of some industries, but she is driven by a faith in government,&#8221; Beddoes added. &#8220;And the converse of that is that I think she&#8217;s driven by a real punitive dislike of much of business, and that is actually some of the underpinning of American prosperity – much of that underpinning. American capitalism is strong because of its business.&#8221;
Beddoes said that there was &#8220;quite a lot to be worried&#8221; about in regard to Warren&#8217;s policies, noting that while they may sound attractive to some, they would end up hurting the people that they are supposed to help.
&#8220;Well, there&#8217;s certainly a question about how she pays for some of her policies, but I think it&#8217;s not just how she pays for it, it&#8217;s the consequences, the unintended consequences of all of this re-regulation that she&#8217;s planning,&#8221; Beddoes said. &#8220;They sound attractive, you&#8217;re helping workers, you&#8217;re shifting the balance of power back to workers. That’s a great idea, but the way she&#8217;s going about doing it will have knock-on consequences.&#8221;
Beddoes noted that Warren&#8217;s wealth tax proposal, which would confiscate large amounts of wealth from America&#8217;s richest individuals, is an antiquated idea that many European countries abandoned a long time ago.
Rattner jumped in, saying, &#8220;I would say it&#8217;d be disastrous for the American economy.&#8221;
&#8220;The fundamental different view she has of what capitalism is – she says she&#8217;s a capitalist, but she&#8217;s not a capitalist,&#8221; Rattner said. &#8220;She&#8217;s really a democratic socialist in some ways, and she wants to fundamentally change the role of an American company, how an American company is governed, what it&#8217;s supposed to do, in ways that I think at least would be disastrous for the American economy.&#8221;
Rattner concluded, &#8220;I think you could make an argument that her plans and policies are far more extreme than Bernie Sanders’ in terms of its impact on the American economy and the fundamental way in which we do our business here.&#8221;
WATCH:
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bc3CrYjD9Og" width="720" height="385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>

Elizabeth Warren

MSNBC Panel Shreds Warren: ‘Far More Extreme Than Bernie,’ ‘Disastrous For &#8230; Economy’

Bernie Sanders

MSNBC

As part of a promotional tour for his new book, &#8220;<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Way-I-Heard-Mike-Rowe/dp/1508296219">The Way I Heard It</a>,&#8221; former &#8220;Dirty Jobs&#8221; host Mike Rowe appeared on &#8220;Fox and Friends&#8221; Wednesday morning and was inevitably asked about his response to the Democratic presidential debate that took place the night before in Ohio. As he&#8217;s famous for doing, Rowe offered some incisive commentary summing up the Democrats&#8217; economic agendas.
The Fox hosts led into their initial questions about the fourth Democratic debate by playing a few clips from the event, starting with a comment by democratic socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) describing his plan to tax the 400 wealthiest Americans at a top rate of 97.5%.
&#8220;When you have  a half a million Americans sleeping out on the street today &#8230; and then you also have three people owning more wealth than the bottom half of American society, that is a moral and economic outrage,&#8221; said Sanders. &#8220;So if you are asking me, do I think we should demand that the wealthy start paying &#8212; the wealthiest top one-tenth of one percent &#8212; start paying their fair share of taxes &#8230; Yes, that&#8217;s exactly what I believe.&#8221;
The hosts then played a clip of frontrunner Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), who is also running on an aggressive tax-the-rich plan. &#8220;Taxing income is not going to get you where you want to be the way taxing wealth does,&#8221; she said. &#8220;We need a wealth tax in order to make investments in the next generation.&#8221;
Asked about his response to the Democrats&#8217; various economic plans, particularly Sanders&#8217; 97.5% tax on the 400 wealthiest Americans, Rowe said, “Yeah, okay. It’s a free country. Float ‘em. Fly ‘em. Run ‘em up the old flagpole &#8212; see who salutes.&#8221;
He then offered a memorable summary of his takeaway from Tuesday&#8217;s debate. &#8220;Look, in the end you’ve got millionaires arguing with millionaires over who hates the millionaires the most,&#8221; said Rowe.
&#8220;And I guess it&#8217;s a conversation we&#8217;ll have,&#8221; he continued, &#8220;but I remember a couple of years ago, I took my meager staff over the Reagan Ranch &#8230; One of the stories they tell is the time when Ronald Reagan just finally decided he was done doing movies. He was just done because he was paying 92% of every dollar he made on films. And it was just math. He wasn&#8217;t done acting, he just looked at it and did some basic calculus and said, &#8216;Not for me anymore. It makes no sense to do this.'&#8221;
&#8220;I live in California. I just read a report that said the exodus this year as a result of a 13.5% state tax and some other tweaks to the system is unlike anything they&#8217;ve ever seen before,&#8221; he said. &#8220;So I know it&#8217;s convenient. It&#8217;s fun to kind of hate the rich and all, but in the end they&#8217;re just people and they&#8217;re going to do the math and they&#8217;re going to go where the math is better.
Asked about the plan to give every American $1000 a month to account for lost jobs due to increased automation, Rowe said, &#8220;Why not two thousand? Why not three?&#8221;
&#8220;You can&#8217;t ignore the human condition,&#8221; he explained. &#8220;We&#8217;re fundamentally lazy people. We have to be taught, I think, to not be lazy &#8230; If you give me a choice &#8212; and I don&#8217;t see myself as lazy &#8212; but if you give me a choice of the easy way or the hard way, I can&#8217;t help it, I&#8217;m going to default to the easy way.&#8221;
&#8220;Once you say, okay, free money, the next question has to be: Why not more?&#8221; said Rowe.
Asked how he thinks the increase in average income for Americans under Trump will play in 2020, Rowe said, &#8220;If I learned anything from 2016, it&#8217;s I don&#8217;t know.&#8221;
WATCH:
&nbsp;
<iframe title="Mike Rowe talks 2020 Dems&#039; wealth tax plans, new book" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/w9-qF0BtDT4?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Partial transcript via <a href="https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/16/mike-rowe-democrat-millionaires-arguing-over-who-h/?fbclid=IwAR0GS1HOY77ob-pXVKAeo8SetZzrWD1yMHyu2tBD1S0eR-2aEw-a8D-l4jQ">Washington Times</a>.

Mike Rowe

WATCH: Mike Rowe Gives Devastating Summary Of Democratic Candidates&#8217; Economic Agenda

Fox News

On Tuesday’s episode of “The Andrew Klavan Show,” Klavan talks about the appalling pro-communist antics happening in the NBA. Video and partial transcript below: 
When I was a kid, we used to wonder: If you&#8217;d dug a hole deep enough, would you come out in China? Well, the National Basketball Association (NBA) is apparently going to try that experiment and find out. 
They started digging after Houston Rockets [General Manager] Daryl Morey tweeted his support for the demonstrators in Hong Kong — the brave men and women fighting to keep their liberty as China slowly closes its iron grip on the formerly free British colony. The NBA apologized for Morey’s righteous tweet. They&#8217;ve apologized, disgustingly, in English and even more disgustingly in Chinese. They started ejecting fans who openly supported freedom in the face of communist tyranny. Morey had to apologize to the Chinese tyrants. Players apologized. Golden State [Warriors] coach Steve Kerr, who is Superman when it comes to attacking the American president, suddenly turned into a mealy-mouthed worm, drawing a comparison between the 65 million Chinese murdered by the communists and something, something, something about America.
It was appalling crap, and now LeBron James — King James — has turned himself into Chairman James with this stupid statement:
<blockquote>JAMES: We all talked about this freedom of speech. Yes, we ought to have freedom of speech, but at times there are ramifications for the negative that can happen. When you&#8217;re not thinking about others, you know, and you’re only thinking about yourself. So, I don&#8217;t believe — I don’t want to get into a word or sentence feud with Daryl Morey, but I believe he wasn&#8217;t educated on the situation at-hand and he spoke. And so many people could have been harmed, not only financially but physically, emotionally, spiritually. So just be careful what we tweet, what we say, and what we do even though, yes, we do have freedom of speech there can be a lot of negatives that come with that, too. </blockquote>
Yeah, James tried to explain that away but it just got worse — and the thing is, I don&#8217;t even want to pick on LeBron. His job is to put a ball through a hoop; He&#8217;s very good at putting balls through hoops — he may be the best putter of balls through hoops since balls were hooped. But I do think the situation &#8230; has besmeared not just him and everyone in the sport, not to mention ever-so-woke ESPN, which suddenly went morally dark on the Chinese subject, and Disney, who owns ESPN and isn&#8217;t about to lose access to that big ol’ Chinese audience for its films. 
And by the way, let&#8217;s not forget the NFL, where all those oh-so-brave Kaepernicks disrespect the American flag. They apologized to China back in 2004 for accidentally airing a &#8230; long image of Tiananmen Square during the Super Bowl halftime show. Same exact thing. 
This situation brings a lot of things into focus and into question. It brings into question celebrity culture. Why does putting a ball through a hoop or reciting lines someone else wrote for you elevate LeBron James — his opinion or Robert De Niro&#8217;s opinion — to relevance? That is corrupting. That attitude is corrupting. It brings into question our reliance on capitalism and free trade for moral guidance. Without the brave and moral hearts of human beings, these systems will operate only on the basis of profit, and that&#8217;s corrupting. 
It brings into question the drive toward globalism. It sounds pretty to say we should all act as one world, but if we don&#8217;t act under truly moral rules as opposed to Chinese rules, then economic and military might will decide what&#8217;s right, and that&#8217;s about as corrupting as you can get. Freedom is the first moral good of politics, because without freedom, every other good is just oppression with a smiley face. If you can&#8217;t choose your own path, and speak your own mind, and spend your own money as you see fit, you&#8217;re nothing. You&#8217;re no one. No matter how much free stuff or law-and-order the state gives you in return for your soul, and no matter how much good the government tells you it is doing with your money.
I support capitalism because it&#8217;s the most free system. I support free trade because it supports capitalism. And it&#8217;s wonderful that capitalism, when it&#8217;s done honestly, raises everyone to a higher economic level. But if you put the economics before the freedom, you become corrupt and that&#8217;s what&#8217;s happened to the NBA and the NFL and Disney and a lot of other people who sold their values for the almighty yuan. No system can do the moral thing for you. Shareholders are not an excuse; cultural sensitivity is not an excuse. No one can demand that you be willing to die for freedom — not everyone&#8217;s a hero. But we can hold you in contempt when you won&#8217;t even speak up for freedom when there are people in the streets of Hong Kong risking everything.
<a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-andrew-klavan-show/id1045171376?mt=2">Listen to full episodes of “The Andrew Klavan Show” on iTunes. </a>
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-andrew-klavan-show">Watch “The Andrew Klavan Show” on-demand!</a>

LeBron James in China

KLAVAN: Economics Should Never Come Before Freedom

Capitalism

China

Communism

LeBron James

Unfortunately, for many years, Republicans have been on the &#8220;losing&#8221; end of the poverty debate. Democrats have taken the spotlight with talking points pertaining to income inequality, the shrinking middle class, and programs for the poor &#8212; but conservatives have just as much to say about reducing poverty.
On Thursday, I had the opportunity to speak with Whitney Munro, the Vice President of Communications for the Foundation for Government Accountability, a conservative-leaning public policy organization focused on &#8220;using work to lift people out of dependency &#8230; and to empower them to take control of their futures,&#8221; according to their official website.
In part one of this interview (which you can read <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/interview-part-i-foundation-for-government-accountability-talks-about-the-conservative-approach-to-fighting-poverty">here</a>), Munro discussed the messaging issues plaguing the Republican Party when it comes to poverty, why progressives seem to hold all the cards in the debate, and what policies conservatives can advance.
In part two below, Munro speaks about misleading claims against their proposals, the pervasiveness of welfare abuse, workforce issues, student loan debt, and more.
<blockquote>DW: There&#8217;s a Vox article that claims the FGA is trying to push over three million people off of food stamps. What is your response to those types of pieces from left-leaning sources?
MUNRO: You&#8217;ve gotta love Vox. So, when we hear things like that &#8212; the reality is yes, if our reforms are passed, some able-bodied, working age adults would be removed from the food stamp rolls if they chose not to work, train, or volunteer for 20 hours a week. We&#8217;re not asking for the world. We&#8217;re saying, &#8220;Hey, if you are able-bodied, you are working age, you don&#8217;t have young children at home, you’re not taking care of an elderly parent, you don&#8217;t have a disability, you need to be trying to work, train, or volunteer 20 hours a week.&#8221; If you do that, you can keep your benefits. It&#8217;s very common that when people hear that, they&#8217;re like, &#8220;Wait, you&#8217;re not actually just taking people randomly off food stamps? You&#8217;re just saying, here&#8217;s a requirement for able-bodied, working age people who should, in theory, also have this goal for themselves in mind?&#8221; [This is a] requirement that Congress passed in 1996 and Bill Clinton signed and around 80 percent of Americans support but just isn’t being enforced.
DW: Can you talk about how pervasive welfare abuse is?
MUNRO: One of the things we hear from people on a regular basis is that welfare fraud doesn&#8217;t exist. We&#8217;ve done studies, and almost every single state – looked at asset requirements, looked at income requirement – we’ve found people who are getting food stamp benefits, as well and other types of welfare programs, who have won the lottery, who have assets of more than a million dollars in the bank, who are taking their food stamps and EBT cards and selling them on the streets.
One of the law enforcement officers that we worked with in the past actually went <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4w183fOHXG0">undercover for six months</a> in Jacksonville, Florida, and was on a street corner pretending to be homeless to document people selling their EBT cards for drugs.
190 people in that town alone were busted because of welfare fraud, waste, and abuse in the drug trade, and then exchanging it for beer or different things at grocery stores. We find it everywhere. If you go on Craigslist, there’s story after story of people posting, &#8220;Hey, I have an EBT card. I’ll trade you for this, or this, or cash.&#8221; It&#8217;s everywhere, and some of the reforms that we work on put in place stopgaps for that.
Even if state systems just talk to one another. For example, if someone wins the lottery, the state knows that database should be crosschecked with people who are getting public benefits to make sure that no one who has won the lottery is still receiving food stamps years after the fact when they have those assets in the bank.
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9dl9Ot29sU">Rob Undersander</a> was a Minnesota millionaire who was volunteering with elderly populations in his community, helping them navigate state aid programs, when he realized that there was not an asset test for food stamp enrollment. So he thought, &#8220;Well, gosh! I&#8217;m going to see if I can qualify.&#8221; He had more than a million dollars in real estate assets, and he did, and he collected them, and then he went to the state and said, &#8220;Hey, I shouldn&#8217;t be allowed to collect food stamps, but under your law, I am allowed to.&#8221; So, he&#8217;s also been trying to raise the awareness that that’s not fraud; that’s what the law is allowing people to do because there are not systems in place to check those things.
DW: Is there anything that we haven&#8217;t touched on in the interview that you&#8217;d want our readership to know?
MUNRO: FGA founder Tarren Bragdon started this organization eight years ago really around the idea that there are a lot of opportunities out there for people to better their lives and take a step up from where they are. It’s some of the things that we&#8217;ve discussed &#8212; the work requirement for benefits, because we actually believe, and unlike what the Left would tell you, that those safety nets need to be there for the truly needy, and they need to be there for the disabled, for those who are unable to help themselves, for poor children, for the elderly, for people who find themselves in temporary periods of hardship. When we are allowing millions and millions of able-bodied, working age adults to collect benefits, that means those programs are not serving the people that they were truly intended for.
We’ve covered things like the Medicaid waiting list where there are people who should qualify for Medicaid benefits, but Medicaid expansion has crowded them out and provided benefits to working age adults who are capable of working.
We say that the power and dignity of work is the number one way for people to improve their lives.
On the flip side, we&#8217;ve also done a lot of work in workforce issues. So we&#8217;re looking at what barriers are in place preventing people from working. We&#8217;ve worked on occupational licensing reform. We had a fresh start initiative to help people who come out of jail to be able to get licenses to work if they were a nonviolent offender who maybe just wants to be a barber, or a cosmetologist, or a massage therapist. What can we do to make sure that they are in the workforce and not in dependency or, even worse, back in jail or prison.
We’ve looked at lobbying boards and the type of cronyism that exists to stop people who are new to a profession &#8212; veteran, veteran spouses, young people. We really do focus on that aspect of things as well. It&#8217;s not just looking at entitlement programs, it&#8217;s looking at those barriers to work that exist for people once they are active and getting them back into the workforce, and other ways that licensing laws just don&#8217;t make any sense.
On the health care front &#8212; how can we help people get access to affordable yet quality health care? We&#8217;ve worked on association health plans, and short-term plans. We are involved in Telemedicine and direct medical care &#8212; ways to open the market up so that people have choices and opportunities, and the cost of health care isn&#8217;t the thing that&#8217;s restricting their opportunities.
How is student loan debt and this problem affecting millions of Americans, and what are the actual solutions? Because the solution to the student loan debt problem is not, &#8220;Let’s forgive everyone&#8217;s debt&#8221; or &#8220;Let’s make college free for everyone to attend.&#8221; That’s actually a really bad band-aid that would bankrupt the country and not hit the problem at the core of where it lives, and so we&#8217;re currently looking for those solutions. We know this is hurting a generation. No, we don&#8217;t want this problem to continue, but we also know the solutions on the table aren&#8217;t the ones that we need.
So how do we provide transparency and accountability so that students make the right choices, so we can extend access to vocational education, and career and technology education, and really promote alternatives to that four-year-college set goal for those who can&#8217;t afford it [and] don&#8217;t want to go there, and then that, in turn, would help prevent some of the dependency that we see occur.
That’s a long-winded answer to kind of tell you, we&#8217;re looking at this from all sides. We&#8217;re trying to think from different perspectives, and outside the box. We believe that these solutions actually exist and that they&#8217;re powerful and that they work. We&#8217;re always looking for that next opportunity to help people.</blockquote>
I’d like to thank Ms. Munro for speaking with me about such a vital issue. For more information about the Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA) and their policy ideas, you can visit their official website <a href="https://thefga.org/">here</a>.

Charity line.

INTERVIEW (Part II): Foundation For Government Accountability Talks About The Conservative Approach To Fighting Poverty

Conservatism

Federal Government

During a recent <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-rep-dan-crenshaw-slams-democratic-resentment-narrative-on-income-inequality">hearing</a> by the House Committee on the Budget, titled: “Solutions to Rising Economic Inequality,&#8221; Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) spoke with American Enterprise Institute’s (AEI) Romesh Ponnuru about poverty in the United States.
Crenshaw noted that the conservative &#8220;focus&#8221; is on the individual &#8220;who actually needs our help &#8230; the people who are having trouble moving up the economic ladder.&#8221;
Unfortunately, for many years, Republicans have been on the &#8220;losing&#8221; end of the poverty debate. Democrats have taken the spotlight with talking points pertaining to income inequality, the shrinking middle class, and programs for the poor — but conservatives have just as much to say about reducing poverty.
On Thursday, I had the opportunity to speak with Whitney Munro, the Vice President of Communications for the Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA), a conservative-leaning public policy organization focused on &#8220;using work to lift people out of dependency &#8230; and to empower them to take control of their futures,&#8221; according to their official website.
In part one of this two-part interview, Munro discusses the messaging issues plaguing the Republican Party when it comes to poverty, why progressives seem to hold all the cards in the debate, and what policies conservatives can advance.
<blockquote>DW: Do you think there’s a messaging problem among Republican politicians, and conservatives in general, when it comes to poverty and the alleviation of it?
MUNRO: Yeah. I think part of the problem is that the Left is really good at making us look bad about poverty no matter what, and we tend to always end up in the reactive, and the defensive instead of on the offensive with the messages and the things we know that work. We, as a movement, need to do a better job of putting ourselves out there and showing that we have solutions that we know work, we have solutions that actually help people, and we have solutions that reduce dependency — that’s our focus, and here’s what they are – instead of allowing ourselves to always respond to somebody else’s accusation that we’re uncaring and cold people. The truth is that our solutions help the truly needy by getting them out of dependency.
DW: What can conservatives do to counter those progressive talking points about poverty?
MUNRO: I think conservatives need to make this a priority. I think we’re a little scared to say things like, “Our solutions are actually an opportunity,” and we have to take back what that means. Paul Ryan had his whole “opportunity” message, and I think a lot of that got lost in the shuffle, but opportunity is really something that free market solutions are intended for, to empower people.
The Left is really good at saying, “We need benefits. Benefits are the starting ground for people. If you take benefits away, you’re hurting people and you’re taking away their opportunity.” We need to talk about the fact that benefits are not intended to be anything long term. They’re intended to be a trampoline, to be a springboard. They’re a short term solution, and the opportunity comes through work, through stimulating the economy, and through creating opportunities for government to get out of the way, and for people to do what they’re really good at.
DW: Is that why you think progressives have the lead on this issue? Their talking points combined with the lack of response from the Right?
MUNRO: Yeah, I think so. We end up getting caught – the Right tends to think about, what is the nitty gritty of the policy, right? So when we’re talking on the Right, it’s, “We have this great reform called ‘X,’ and it does all of these things that we talk about in terms of dollars and cents,” but we’re not really talking about people, and real people are the focus of these policies. We need to flip that switch and show that there are real people out there who are impacted by this stuff – they need it, they want it, they’re hungry for it, they support it — and less about, “here’s the graph, and here’s a chart, and here’s the very black and white, dry aspect of these reforms.”
There’s a reason we all do what we do, which is to change and impact lives. It’s not about a cool chart or the number of taxpayer dollars saved in the long run. It’s about impacting people. The Left is great at talking about people, and bringing people out, and almost using people. I think it’s kind of a knee-jerk reaction on our part to do the opposite.
DW: What’s a policy for which conservatives can advocate that will help the poor and lift people up?
MUNRO: There’s two things here. We have to turn away from the idea that government can create a new program that is designed around that. The goal here is to get government out of the way, to make sure that government programs actually impact the truly needy, those who cannot help themselves. Then, we turn everything back to work, the private sector, personal responsibility, turn things back to their communities and the people who live in them.
Right now, there’s this sense, if you talk to anyone that, “Well, what is government going to do to solve that problem?” and we all know that that’s not working. So, the first thing we need to do is just change that cultural conversation away from that. At the FGA, we focus on work as a solution, and we don’t make work a bad thing. Work is a good thing. I think that’s the other piece that’s missing – sometimes we allow work to be demonized, like, “work is so hard” and “work is hard for people,” and “what happens to a person if you require them to work?” When in reality, we know that work is the number one way that people get out of poverty. The first job leads to the next job, which leads to the next best job, and it gets people out of those situations. So, we have to talk about work in a way that’s empowering, not giving into the false dichotomy from the left which presents work in a way that’s a detriment to people and not working necessary for a lot of able-bodied people.
We’ve done tracking studies in <a href="https://thefga.org/research/report-the-power-of-work-how-kansas-welfare-reform-is-lifting-americans-out-of-poverty/">Kansas</a> and <a href="https://thefga.org/research/new-report-proves-maines-welfare-reforms-working/">Maine</a> and <a href="https://thefga.org/research/commonsense-welfare-reform-has-transformed-floridians-lives/">Florida</a> and <a href="https://thefga.org/research/work-requirements-arkansas/">Arkansas</a> (we’re in the middle of a few more) that show that incomes more than double when you get people back to work and out of poverty and even triple within two years. They find work in 600 or more industries, in Florida, with 1,000 or more industries. We need to celebrate those things, and make work something that is beautiful and awesome instead of something that is scary and, “Oh, gosh! How could you even think about making someone do that?”
DW: I know there are issues sometimes with state and federal laws where people are afraid to get a job that pays slightly better because then they’ll lose their benefits. What is the solution to that?
MUNRO: That’s a great question, and that is some of the pushback that people get when they talk about things like work requirements. The reality is, once you get to that place where you’re making enough that you lose, maybe it’s food stamps, you’re more than making up for the loss of that benefit in your wages. All of the tracking studies and all the data we have kind of proves that people aren’t financially hurt by those situations where they would be working and then lose some of that benefit.
DW: Who or what organization runs your research?
MUNRO: We do all of our research in house. However, we partner — and we do a tracking study with people who are on welfare, on Medicaid — we actually partner with the state agencies. So, all of the data we use for that research comes directly from the state agencies’ data storage, with them removing any personal information before we get it. We get their files, we give them an amount of time that we’re tracking people, and then we whittle that down into the results that we’re looking for.
DW: Is there a reason we’re not really seeing conservative politicians at large pushing these reform ideas that your organization advocates?
MUNRO: With the Farm Bill battle earlier this year and last year, there was a big push for things like work requirements. The House really did try to get this out there. There were anti-fraud measures, there were different provisions that were put into the Farm Bill. I do think though, and it goes back to what I told you in the beginning, a lot of this was about dollars and cents, and we’ve got to talk about people.
At a state level, the states have been incentivized. That’s something that we’re working on, but I think that there’s a challenge there in knowing what are the barriers in place, what are the problems that you’re facing, and what is the right step. That’s what FGA is doing on a regular basis — just talking to policy makers and saying, did you even know that your state has this waiver in place? Did you even know that in counties in your state, there were this many people not working simply because you guys aren’t following the 1996 welfare reform? There’s a lot of misinformation out there, and we’re trying to flip that on its head and make sure people know and understand what they can do to help the people in their community.</blockquote>
Stay tuned for part two of this interview, which will be released on Tuesday, where Munro will talk about attacks from leftist organizations, pervasive welfare abuse, &#8220;workforce&#8221; issues, and much more.

Homeless guy.

INTERVIEW (Part I): Foundation For Government Accountability Talks About The Conservative Approach To Fighting Poverty

On September 19, the House Committee on the Budget held a hearing, titled: &#8220;Solutions to Rising Economic Inequality.&#8221;
During the hearing, Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) dispelled a common myth regarding income inequality, and spoke with American Enterprise Institute’s (AEI) Romesh Ponnuru about where the focus should be as it pertains to reducing poverty in the United States.
Crenshaw first noted the stark differences between progressive and conservative views on poverty. 
<blockquote>CRENSHAW: [It’s] great to be at this hearing, and it&#8217;s great because it exposes two very different ways of thinking about our economy, opportunity, and the mutually-shared goal of overcoming poverty.
So, on the one hand, you have a deep and persistent focus on inequality – it&#8217;s defined as the gap between the rich and the poor – and at first glance, that seems pretty reasonable. But in reality, it means you&#8217;re dividing your attention. Half your attention is focused on protesting the wealthy – and these days that seems actually where most of the attention is – and that leaves only a small amount of focus on the real issue, which is people in poverty and their ability to move up the economic ladder. This is the kind of backwards thinking that leads to ideas like Andrew Yang&#8217;s, where we raise taxes on the rich only to give it right back to them in the form of universal basic income. It’s hard to imagine a more inefficient and ineffective way to reduce poverty.
As a conservative, our approach is different. Instead of creating resentment against success, we focus on who actually needs our help, which is the people who are having trouble moving up the economic ladder. After all, the fact that there&#8217;s a much wealthier person down the street from you is not the problem. The problem occurs that if you can&#8217;t find opportunities even when you make all the right decisions. So, the first step to understanding any problem is to get to the truth. Mr. Ponnuru, I want to go to you on this. We’ve heard inequality is worse than ever. Is that true – especially if we use a more accurate measure of inflation and account for welfare programs and cash transfers?
PONNURU: No, it does not appear to be true. The Congressional Budget Office&#8217;s reports on the distribution of income suggest that income inequality peaked in 2007, that it has been falling since then, and so, we are, I think to some extent, looking at a problem in the rearview mirror. Of course that could change. Maybe next year&#8217;s numbers will be different, but the trends over the last decade or so have been toward shrinking inequality.</blockquote>
Ponnuru’s claim is accurate. According to the <a href="https://www.cbo.gov/publication/55413">Congressional Budget Office</a>, between approximately 2007 and 2016, the gap between the upper, middle, and lower quintiles shrank, after &#8220;transfers and taxes&#8221; are taken into account.
Crenshaw then asked Ponnuru to explain the demographics of those in the bottom quintile.
Ponnuru replied, making a critical point in the process about the way in which quintiles are measured:
<blockquote>So, people in the bottom quintile differ from people in the other quintiles across a variety of measures. One of the more important things to look at is the number of workers in the household. The top quintile is going to be much more likely to have two earners in that household, and the bottom quintile is much more likely to have zero earners in the household. Obviously, that’s going to make a huge difference in how much income you&#8217;ve got. There’s also the question of age. If you&#8217;re retired or if you&#8217;re young and in school, you may very well be in the lowest quintile – it doesn&#8217;t mean you are always going to be in that quintile or always were. Lifetime inequality is lower.</blockquote>
Crenshaw then offered several statistics on economic mobility:
<blockquote>It also turns out that 56% of Americans will at some point in their lives be in the top 10% of earners. 73% of Americans will be in the top 20% of earners in their lifetime. It’s an amazing statistic. Doesn’t mean we can&#8217;t always do better, but it&#8217;s an amazing statistic. Also turns out my colleagues are right that the middle class is shrinking – it&#8217;s just not in the way that they think. Turns out the data shows the middle class is shrinking because they&#8217;re moving up into higher income households over time. This is all good news – doesn&#8217;t mean we can&#8217;t improve – the point is that the rhetoric about inequality is not only inaccurate, but it&#8217;s just flat-out unhelpful to the people we are actually trying to help.</blockquote>
According to AEI’s Mark Perry, using <a href="https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/animated-chart-of-the-day-americas-middle-class-is-disappearing-but-its-because-theyre-moving-up-into-higher-income-groups/">data from the U.S. Census Bureau</a>, from 1967 to 2017, the percentage of high-income households in the United States increased from 9% to 29.2%. Meanwhile, the percentage of low-income households decreased from 37.2% to 29.5%. The share of middle-income households did shrink (from 53.8% to 41.3%), but many moved upward.
A 2018 publication from <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/09/06/the-american-middle-class-is-stable-in-size-but-losing-ground-financially-to-upper-income-families/">Pew Research</a> states: &#8220;From 1971 to 2011, the share of adults in the middle class fell by 10 percentage points. But that shift was not all down the economic ladder. Indeed, the increase in the share of adults who are upper income was greater than the increase in the share who are lower income over that period, a sign of economic progress overall.&#8221;
Crenshaw then spoke of potential solutions, as well as barriers to such solutions. Ponnuru agreed that one of the best ways to try and reduce poverty is to eliminate barriers to mobility, which, he says, are &#8220;often created by the government.&#8221;
<blockquote>CRENSHAW: If you want to empower people to rise up instead of disempowering them with more handouts, how do we do that? You don&#8217;t need to take my word for this. Mayor Bloomberg, a prominent Democrat, studied this extensively with 30 different pilot programs, and what they found is there&#8217;s different solutions for different kinds of poverty, and they&#8217;re localized solutions. We have to be thinking about it that way.
So back to you, doctor. How else can we empower people to rise up? We talked about occupational licensing. I have a constituent in my district – her name is Ashley. She owns a hair wash and style company – she can&#8217;t find stylists because Texas requires a thousand hours of licensing to wash and dry hair. I learned how to free-fall out of an airplane at 30,000 feet in less time than that. That’s crazy. Can you talk about more solutions like that. You mentioned housing. What kinds of deregulation, what kind of vocational training can we be working on so that we empower people to rise above their current economic status?
PONNURU: So, I think with the little time I have here, what we should be doing is focusing specifically on mobility, opportunity, and fighting poverty, not as much on inequality, per se, and identifying barriers often created by the government that we can get out of the way.</blockquote>
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/LgrklBVa98Y" width="720" height="385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
Regarding occupational licensing, the Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA) <a href="https://thefga.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/How-Occupational-Licensing-Inhibits-Economic-Opportunity-10-23-17.pdf">writes</a>:
<blockquote>A 2012 study by the Institute for Justice that examined licensing requirements for 102 different low- and medium-income occupations found an average requirement of $209 in fees, one exam, and approximately nine months’ worth of education and training for licensure. Manicurists in Virginia need to pay $290 to work legally, and cosmetologists in Michigan must pay $291 for an application, license, and exam—in addition to the cost of state-required schooling. After completing the required training, residential painters in Arizona must pay $870 to receive a license. These administrative charges, testing fees, tuition payments, and time requirements all make it harder for low-income Americans to climb the economic ladder.</blockquote>
In April 2011, Professor Morris Kleiner from the University of Minnesota, as well as Princeton’s Alan Krueger and Alexandre Mas, <a href="https://www.hhh.umn.edu/file/9441/download">penned</a> a &#8220;proposal to the Brookings Institution &#8230; to encourage states to rationalize occupational licensing practices and make them more efficient and fair.&#8221;
In their proposal, the professors wrote about the ways in which occupational licensing can negatively impact workers.
Upon analysis, Kleiner &#8220;found that partially licensed occupations had a 20% lower growth rate in states with licensing relative to states without licensing and relative to the difference in growth rates between these sets of states of fully licensed and fully unlicensed occupations. This estimate implies that a licensed occupation that grew at a 10 percent rate between 1990 and 2000 would have grown at a 12 percent rate if it were unregulated.&#8221;
<blockquote>To get a sense of magnitudes of the effect of licensing on employment and consumers, consider the following (“back-of-the-envelope”) calculation. Suppose that the entire 15 percent wage premium for licensing is from rents (as opposed to human capital), labor supply is perfectly elastic and the labor demand elasticity is 0.5. There are approximately 38 million licensed workers in the US with average annual earnings of $41,000. Under these assumptions, licensing results in 2.8 million fewer jobs with an annual cost to consumers of $203 billion&#8230;</blockquote>
The authors note that they would require a much greater data set to understand which occupations are more suited to licensing, however, they add that studies &#8220;have found at least in a number of cases licensing reduces employment, increases prices, but does not result in better services.&#8221;
The authors then offer an example pertaining to dentistry, citing a finding that occupational licensing for dentists increased overall costs to consumers for &#8220;certain services,&#8221; but did not &#8220;lead to improved measured dental outcomes&#8230;&#8221;

Crenshaw.

WATCH: Rep. Dan Crenshaw Slams Democratic ‘Resentment’ Narrative On Income Inequality

Dan Crenshaw

Just before midnight Sunday, over 1,000 autoworkers marched out of GM&#8217;s Flint Assembly plant in Flint, Michigan, in what is the first national strike by the United Automobile Workers (UAW) union in over a decade and what could be extremely costly to the company — and the employees — if it&#8217;s not resolved quickly.
&#8220;An estimated 1,200 Flint Assembly workers streamed out of the plant along Van Slyke Avenue in their cars at 11:59 p.m. Sunday, marking the beginning of the UAW&#8217;s first national strike since 2007,&#8221; the <a href="https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/2019/09/15/uaw-strike-gm-autoworker-contract-talks/2333883001/">Detroit Free Press</a> reports. &#8220;The autoworkers, cheered by a large crowd of labor supporters, turned toward the UAW Local 598 union hall down the street to pick up picket signs. They lined street that snakes around the plant that builds the popular Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra pickups.&#8221;
The Detroit Free Press&#8217;s Phoebe Wall Howard posted a series of tweets featuring video of the big strike along with updates on the protest.
&#8220;GM strike is official as UAW autoworkers cur shift early and take position at 11:59a. at Flint Assembly,&#8221; she wrote (formatting adjusted). &#8220;GM⁩ workers jam Van Slyke outside the Flint Assembly Plant as ⁦UAW⁩ members cut short a shift at 11:59a to strike the site that makes ⁦Chevrolet⁩ Silverado&#8230; Strike crowd growing by the minute as GM workers emerge from Flint Assembly Plant &#8230; Police arrive at Flint Assembly as UAW GM crowd pours into Van Slyke 28 mins into contract strike launch &#8230; Flint Councilman Eric Mays arrives at Flint Assembly for GM strike at 1a Monday. The retired UAW member worked in trim at the plant. Flint Mayor Karen Weaver was on site too.&#8221;⁦
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">GM strike is official as <a href="https://twitter.com/UAW?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@uAW</a> autoworkers cur shift early and take position at 11:59a. at Flint Assembly. ⁦<a href="https://twitter.com/freep?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@freep</a>⁩ ⁦<a href="https://twitter.com/freepautos?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@freepautos</a>⁩ ⁦<a href="https://twitter.com/GM?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@GM</a>⁩ <a href="https://t.co/r3omcFbj64">pic.twitter.com/r3omcFbj64</a>
— Phoebe Wall Howard (@phoebesaid) <a href="https://twitter.com/phoebesaid/status/1173447719165353989?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 16, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">.⁦<a href="https://twitter.com/GM?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@GM</a>⁩ workers jam Van Slyke outside the Flint Assembly Plant as ⁦<a href="https://twitter.com/UAW?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@UAW</a>⁩ members cut short a shift at 11:59a to strike the site that makes ⁦<a href="https://twitter.com/chevrolet?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@chevrolet</a>⁩ Silverado &#8230; ⁦<a href="https://twitter.com/freep?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@freep</a>⁩ ⁦<a href="https://twitter.com/freepautos?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@freepautos</a>⁩ ⁦<a href="https://twitter.com/AFLCIO?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@AFLCIO</a>⁩ <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/uaw?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#uaw</a> <a href="https://t.co/GIC8W7O9y9">pic.twitter.com/GIC8W7O9y9</a>
— Phoebe Wall Howard (@phoebesaid) <a href="https://twitter.com/phoebesaid/status/1173449625367453697?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 16, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">Strike crowd growing by the minute as <a href="https://twitter.com/GM?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@GM</a> workers emerge from <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Flint?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Flint</a> Assembly Plant &#8230; ⁦<a href="https://twitter.com/freep?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@freep</a>⁩ ⁦<a href="https://twitter.com/freepautos?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@freepautos</a>⁩ ⁦<a href="https://twitter.com/UAW?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@UAW</a>⁩ ⁦<a href="https://twitter.com/AFLCIO?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@AFLCIO</a>⁩ <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/UAW?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#UAW</a> <a href="https://t.co/VequYqI0HC">pic.twitter.com/VequYqI0HC</a>
— Phoebe Wall Howard (@phoebesaid) <a href="https://twitter.com/phoebesaid/status/1173451254997102592?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 16, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">Police arrive at Flint Assembly as <a href="https://twitter.com/UAW?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@uaw</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/GM?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@gm</a> crowd pours into Van Slyke 28 mins into contract strike launch &#8230;⁦<a href="https://twitter.com/freep?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@freep</a>⁩ ⁦<a href="https://twitter.com/freepautos?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@freepautos</a>⁩ <a href="https://t.co/t6q4MYKXd9">pic.twitter.com/t6q4MYKXd9</a>
— Phoebe Wall Howard (@phoebesaid) <a href="https://twitter.com/phoebesaid/status/1173453847618080770?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 16, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">Flint Councilman Eric Mays arrives at <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Flint?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Flint</a> Assembly for <a href="https://twitter.com/GM?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@GM</a> strike at 1a Monday. The retired <a href="https://twitter.com/UAW?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@UAW</a> member worked in trim at the plant. Flint Mayor Karen Weaver was on site too. ⁦<a href="https://twitter.com/freep?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@freep</a>⁩ ⁦<a href="https://twitter.com/freepautos?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@freepautos</a>⁩ ⁦<a href="https://twitter.com/AFLCIO?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@AFLCIO</a>⁩ <a href="https://t.co/cg6FkVcAYZ">pic.twitter.com/cg6FkVcAYZ</a>
— Phoebe Wall Howard (@phoebesaid) <a href="https://twitter.com/phoebesaid/status/1173462718675849216?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 16, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
The Free Press notes that the strike could cost GM around $400 million a day. The automaker will be able to weather a strike for a brief period by relying on existing inventory, but the situation could get highly problematic very quickly.
Workers will also suffer if the strike goes on for long. Citing the Center for Automotive Research&#8217;s Kristin Dziczek, the outlet notes that despite recently increasing its strike wages fund to $850 million, UAW can only pay members $250 a week in strike wages.
The strike began after the union let its contract with GM expire midnight Saturday. Negotiations were set to begin at 10 a.m. Monday.
The strike comes at a precarious time for the union, which has been hit with a federal investigation into both its current and former presidents, Gary Jones and Dennis Williams.
In her follow-up <a href="https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/general-motors/2019/09/16/strike-uaw-workers/2338281001/">report </a>on the strike, Howard makes clear that the UAW members are deeply worried about the potential fallout of the strike.
&#8220;My concern is not just for myself, but for the many other families that are affected by this strike,&#8221; UAW member Ralph Burchart, who&#8217;s been with the company for 30 years, told Howard. &#8220;Our kids are grown and married, but I have co-workers with younger children who would have a much harder time of it if this is an extended strike. My hope and prayer is that a reasonable contract that benefits both parties would be agreed upon sooner rather than later.&#8221;

uaw_gm_strike_gi.jpg

WATCH: GM Strike Officially Begins; Here’s How Much It Could Cost GM, Employees

Thomas Fahr Steyer, a California-based billionaire and leftist activist focusing on environmental issues, is a candidate for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential nomination. Steyer, a longtime leftist philanthropist and prolific donor to Democratic candidates and causes, is by far the wealthiest candidate in the 2020 Democratic field. Steyer&#8217;s political activism has focused disproportionately on environmentalism and global warming/climate change issues, although he has the political profile of an across-the-board, full-spectrum progressive/leftist. As the most recent entrant into the 2020 Democratic presidential field, he does not yet register in <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/democratic_nomination_polls/">current polling for the nomination</a>.
Steyer, who has a bachelor degree from Yale University and a MBA from Stanford University, is the founder of San Francisco-based hedge fund Farallon Capital and the co-founder of Oakland-based Beneficial State Bank. In 2012, Steyer stepped down from Farallon in order to focus more of his time on environmentalist/alternative energy advocacy. In addition to his involvement with Beneficial State Bank, which focuses on community development, Steyer has been involved with other leftist philanthropic causes — including his <a href="http://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Tom-Steyer-says-effort-to-end-inequality-isn-t-6438690.php">2015 founding</a> of the Fair Shake Commission on Income Inequality and Middle Class Opportunity, which promotes reducing income inequality. But above all, Steyer has spent more time and resources on environmentalist activism. In 2013, for example, Steyer founded NextGen America, an environmentalist nonprofit and political action committee.
Steyer, who would become the first president with a Jewish parent if successfully elected, is married and has four children. He has an <a href="https://www.forbes.com/profile/thomas-steyer/">estimated net worth</a> of $1.6 billion, and has committed self-funding his 2020 presidential bid to the tune of <a href="https://time.com/5623149/tom-steyer-presidential-campaign/">$100 million</a>.
Electoral History: Steyer has never sought political office prior to his current campaign for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential nomination. However, he has a lengthy history of involvement in partisan Democratic causes. Steyer has been a prolific fundraiser for many leading Democrats over the past few decades, including for Barack Obama in 2008. Steyer also spoke at the 2012 Democratic National Convention, and reportedly considered a 2018 run for California governor.
On The Issues: Perhaps more so than any of the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates, Steyer&#8217;s candidacy revolves around one core issue: Environmentalism. He has made global warming prevention, opposition to the oil and natural gas industries, and a concomitant greater government role in investing in alternative energy sources the central tenets of his public activist profile. Steyer has a less prolific track record and history of commentary on other issues, but all available evidences points toward his being an across-the-board, full-spectrum progressive/leftist. For example, his 2020 campaign <a href="https://www.tomsteyer.com/about-tom/">website</a> also touts his work in &#8220;promot[ing] social justice and increas[ing] participation in our democracy through voter registration and grassroots organizing.&#8221;
Constitution: Steyer has a very thin public record of commenting on legal and judicial issues. He has, however, been a prominent advocate for impeaching President Donald Trump. Steyer has stated that he opposes Citizens United v. F.E.C., the U.S. Supreme Court&#8217;s landmark 2010 political speech-affirming case. He also <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/12/megadonor-steyer-abortion-rights-candidates-241563">supports</a> Roe v. Wade, thus indicating a belief in the so-called constitutional &#8220;right to privacy&#8221; and &#8220;right to abortion.&#8221; Steyer has suggested sympathy for gun control measures that would undermine Americans&#8217; Second Amendment rights, and he also supports a robust role for the federal government in economic regulation that is consistent with mainstream legal progressivism.
Economy: Steyer supports raising personal taxes and strongly opposed President Trump&#8217;s 2017 tax cut law. In his 2020 campaign announcement video, Steyer <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-does-tom-steyer-believe-where-the-candidate-stands-on-6-issues">lamented</a> how corporations have an &#8220;unlimited ability to participate in politics, [which] will skew everything because they only care about profits.&#8221; His anti-corporation message is also decidedly populist, as Steyer has also <a href="https://www.axios.com/tom-steyer-on-the-issues-in-under-500-words-2020-presidential-election-2e5a747a-b6bf-459d-a581-e7d1efcd75bd.html">said</a> that &#8220;the only way for us to solve the urgent problems facing our country is to loosen the stranglehold that corporations have over our politicians and return political power to the American people.&#8221; Like many of his 2020 Democratic rivals, Steyer also <a href="https://www.latimes.com/la-pol-sac-essential-poli-tom-steyer-praises-minimum-wage-hike-1459196428-htmlstory.html">supports</a> raising the federal minimum wage. Steyer, though a billionaire, <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/12/this-billionaire-wants-trump-to-raise-his-taxes.html">vocally opposes</a> income inequality.
Health Care: Steyer <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/09/tom-steyer-2020-democrats/540357/">supports</a> &#8220;Medicare for All,&#8221; which would effectively amount to a single-payer health insurance system and a de facto governmental takeover of health insurance and imposition of socialized medicine in America. He <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-does-tom-steyer-believe-where-the-candidate-stands-on-6-issues">has been critical</a> of the perceived corporate greed of large pharmaceutical companies.
Immigration: Steyer has been harshly critical of the Trump administration&#8217;s attempts to secure our border amidst a hitherto unprecedented influx there of Central American migrants. Steyer <a href="https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/392482-billionaire-steyer-to-invest-1-million-to-help-immigrants-fight">donated</a> last year to leftist/open-borders legal groups at the southern border working to assist illegal aliens facing deportation. He <a href="https://twitter.com/TomSteyer/status/1146079566374457344">addresses</a> illegal immigration in starkly pro-illegal alien — and not rule-of-law — terminology. Steyer appears to <a href="https://nextgenamerica.org/issues/immigration/">support</a> a pathway to citizenship for much of America&#8217;s illegal alien populace.
Foreign Policy: Steyer has a thin track record on foreign policy, although he <a href="https://twitter.com/TomSteyer/status/1005947721361121281?s=20">has been critical</a> of President Trump&#8217;s foreign policy approach. He has also taken the standard leftist approach to Special Counsel Bob Mueller&#8217;s now-infamous report: <a href="https://www.needtoimpeach.com/obstruction-of-justice/">Accusing</a> President Trump of obstruction of justice.
Abortion: Steyer is <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Thomas_Steyer">emphatically pro-abortion</a>.
Guns: Steyer has founded organizations have <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Thomas_Steyer">worked closely</a>, at times, with anti-Second Amendment organizations. He is largely seen as sympathetic to gun control initiatives.

Where Does Tom Steyer Stand On The Issues? Here’s Everything You Need To Know.

Abortion

Climate Change

Constitution

Democratic Socialism

Environmentalism

Foreign Policy

Amy Jean Klobuchar has served since 2007 as a U.S. senator from Minnesota. Initially the state&#8217;s junior senator, Klobuchar has served as Minnesota&#8217;s senior senator since Democrat Al Franken&#8217;s <a href="https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2010/07/20/al-franken-may-have-won-his-senate-seat-through-voter-fraud">controversial</a> defeat of incumbent Republican Norm Coleman in 2008. A member of the Democratic Party — or, more specifically, the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor (DFL) Party — Klobuchar previously served as county attorney for Hennepin County, Minnesota. Although hardly centrist by recently historical, Bill Clinton-era Democratic Party standards, Klobuchar now seeks the 2020 Democratic Party presidential nomination by orienting herself as centrist-inclined and possessing a vague aura of Midwestern sensibility. In current 2020 Democratic presidential nomination <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/democratic_nomination_polls/">polling</a>, Klobuchar currently gets national support in the low single digits.
Klobuchar, a Minnesota native, has a bachelor degree from Yale University and a law degree from the University of Chicago. Earlier in her legal career, Klobuchar worked as a corporate attorney before becoming a local prosecutor. Her name was sometimes floated as a possible U.S. Supreme Court nominee during President Barack Obama&#8217;s presidency. Klobuchar serves on the influential U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, where her tone and demeanor during the inflammatory Brett Kavanaugh nomination saga placed her, alongside Committee member Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE), firmly on the less hysterical wing of the raucous Senate Democratic caucus. Klobuchar still voted against Kavanaugh&#8217;s nomination.
Klobuchar is married to fellow attorney and legal academic John Bessler. They have one daughter, Abigail.
Electoral History: Klobuchar first entered the public sphere in 1994, where she initially declared a run for county attorney of Hennepin County before dropping out. She successfully sought the same position in 1998, winning narrowly. In 2002, she was easily re-elected to the local prosecutor perch.
In 2006, Klobuchar announced her U.S. Senate run for the seat vacated by incumbent Sen. Mark Dayton (D-MN). She won the DFL Party primary in a landslide and easily won the general election. Klobuchar was subsequently re-elected by huge margins in both 2012 and 2018.
Klobuchar now seeks the 2020 Democratic Party presidential nomination.
On The Issues: Klobuchar&#8217;s prosecutorial background, gentle public (though <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/43852/klobuchar-abusive-toward-staff-stories-eating-hank-berrien">perhaps not private</a>) demeanor, and background from a largely rural state combine to make her somewhat more centrist-oriented than many of her 2020 Democratic Party presidential nomination rivals. However, Klobuchar can still be fairly characterized as a full-spectrum leftist/progressive. Her 2020 presidential campaign <a href="https://amyklobuchar.com">emphasizes</a> universal/socialized medicine and climate change, among other issues.
Constitution: Klobuchar consistently supports a leftist/progressive view of the Constitution and rule of law. She supports Roe v. Wade and <a href="https://amyklobuchar.com/issues/a-strong-democracy/">opposes</a> Citizens United v. F.E.C., the Supreme Court&#8217;s landmark political speech-affirming ruling in 2010. Klobuchar is generally defensive of Fourth Amendment-inspired civil liberties, although she had a more centrist record on the National Security Agency&#8217;s surveillance programs earlier in her Senate career. She supports gun control measures that would restrict Americans&#8217; Second Amendment rights. Klobuchar <a href="https://urbanmilwaukee.com/pressrelease/historic-comprehensive-lgbt-non-discrimination-legislation-re-introduced-in-congress/">supports</a> the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/47176/hammer-house-democrats-equality-act-both-josh-hammer">Equality Act</a>, which would expand LGBT protections at the behest of private property rights and religious conscience rights alike. Her expansive view of the federal government&#8217;s role in regulating the economy is consistent with legal progressivism.
Economy: Klobuchar supports a robust role for the federal government in matters pertaining to economic regulation and, more generally, her views on economics reflect those of modern progressivism. Klobuchar&#8217;s 2020 campaign website touts her belief in the need for &#8220;<a href="https://amyklobuchar.com/issues/shared-prosperity-and-economic-justice/">shared prosperity</a>,&#8221; and supports a greater governmental role in <a href="https://www.brainerddispatch.com/news/government-and-politics/4427911-klobuchar-leads-roundtable-discussion-child-care-shortage">child care</a>. Like many of her 2020 Democratic presidential rivals, she <a href="https://twitter.com/amyklobuchar/status/1098652573685477378?lang=en">supports increasing</a> the federal minimum wage to $15. Klobuchar supports greater governmental investment in infrastructure. She supports strong labor unions and opposes &#8220;right to work&#8221; laws that would increase worker freedom.
Health Care: Klobuchar supports &#8220;universal health care,&#8221; which effectively would amount to socialized medicine in America. Earlier in her Senate career, Klobuchar voted for Obamacare. She has recently <a href="https://urbanmilwaukee.com/pressrelease/u-s-senator-tammy-baldwin-helps-reintroduce-legislation-to-create-state-public-health-care-option/">co-sponsored legislation</a> that would expand Medicaid access across the 50 states.
Immigration: Klobuchar has taken a hard line in support of the DREAM Act and other amnesty legislative initiatives that would undermine America&#8217;s sovereignty and empower brutal Mexican cartels and human trafficking rings. She supports a full <a href="https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1097709817404235777?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1097709817404235777&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.twincities.com%2F2019%2F02%2F18%2Fklobuchars-cnn-town-hall-five-questions-and-how-she-answered-them%2F">pathway to citizenship</a> for the vast majority of America&#8217;s illegal alien population. She has been a consistently harsh critic of the Trump administration&#8217;s attempts to secure our border amidst a hitherto unprecedented influx there of Central American migrants. Klobuchar has been harshly critical of Immigration and Customs Enforcement during the Trump administration. She has been <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/439339-20-dems-demand-no-more-money-for-ice-agents-trump-wall">very skeptical</a> of the utility of a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border.
Foreign Policy: Klobuchar&#8217;s 2020 campaign <a href="https://amyklobuchar.com/issues/a-safer-world/">website</a> seems to pinpoint China and Russia as America&#8217;s two top national security threats. More generally, throughout her Senate career, she has taken a harder line on China than have many of her Democratic colleagues. Klobuchar was an Iraq War skeptic earlier in her Senate career, and has supported arms reductions measures with Russia. Klobuchar supported President Obama&#8217;s 2011 intervention in Libya, which resulted in Libya turning into a destabilized jihadist stronghold. She supported President Obama&#8217;s 2015 Iran nuclear deal and opposed President Trump&#8217;s decision to remove the U.S. from the <a href="https://www.cotton.senate.gov/?p=press_release&amp;id=120">non-binding</a> accord. In February 2019, she <a href="https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/why-these-democratic-presidential-hopefuls-voted-no-on-an-anti-bds-bill-1.6919089">voted for</a> Senate Republicans&#8217; introduced anti-BDS legislation.
Abortion: Klobuchar is emphatically pro-abortion, vigorously supports Roe v. Wade, and <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/05/19/sen_amy_klobuchar_new_abortion_restrictions_are_a_violation_of_civil_rights.html">opposes restrictions</a> on late-term abortion. Like many of her 2020 Democratic Party presidential nomination rivals, she <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/democratic-candidates-hyde-amendment-abortion_n_5cf964b5e4b06af8b50570bd">supports overturning the Hyde Amendment</a>, which has historically proscribed taxpayer funding of abortion.
Guns: Despite her representation of a largely rural state, Klobuchar has a historically poor record on Second Amendment issues. Klobuchar supports &#8220;universal&#8221; background checks, which often serve as a rhetorical euphemism for the government serving as an intermediary in all private firearms transfers. She <a href="https://amyklobuchar.com/issues/a-safer-world/">supports</a> a ban on the undefinable sub-class of firearms referred to as so-called &#8220;assault weapons&#8221; — a line of thought that, if taken to its logical conclusion, could lead to the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/42837/hammer-kamala-harriss-flirtation-banning-all-semi-josh-hammer">banning of all semi-automatic firearms in America</a>.

Where Does Amy Klobuchar Stand On The Issues? Here’s Everything You Need To Know.

Amy Klobuchar

Barack Obama

Writing recently in The Wall Street Journal, Iain Murray of the Competitive Enterprise Institute declared that free-marketeers have taken social conservatives for granted. &#8220;The free-market coalition is in urgent need of repair. If enough conservatives join progressives in seeing free trade as a threat to their values, America could end up with protectionist policies for the foreseeable future,&#8221; he noted.
I share his embrace of the free market. But I am sympathetic to right-leaning concerns about corporate America. While I think free market supporters should not cheer on &#8220;creative destruction&#8221; when local businesses collapse due to free trade, I think they do have a case to sell social conservatives on the benefits of free market creative destruction.
The chief problem, from my vantage point as someone active in evangelical circles and the social conservative movement, centers less on worries about job loss and more on progressives using corporations to censor and punish conservatives. Banks, technology companies and other major corporations seem complicit in censoring conservatives, Christians, gun manufacturers and other groups progressives hate. Conservatives routinely see, for example, Twitter use its power to punish conservatives in ways it never uses its power against progressives.
Conservatives see banks refusing to do business with gun manufacturers and intuitively understand banks should be free to do business with whichever companies they choose, and they also understand banks are doing this because of progressive concerns and would never bend so easily for conservatives. Should banks that refuse to do business with lawful enterprises be given protections by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.?
Conservatives see Fortune 500 companies threaten states such as Georgia and Texas for advancing religious liberty legislation and protections for faith-based adoption agencies. Corporations have free speech rights, too, but when they reliably advance left-wing causes, even in conservative states, it is not hard to understand why conservatives might no longer be faithfully attached to a free market that benefits those companies. If corporations are going to reliably side with the left, they can hardly expect conservatives to defend the system that enriches these corporations into powerhouses that can use their influence to steer social policy leftward.
There is the other issue for which I have no answer but think conservatives must give consideration. American antitrust law is premised on the idea that giving consumers cheaper prices is a good thing. The government loathes breaking up companies that drive down prices. But is it really a good thing that Amazon can drive down prices to such an extent that it prohibits innovation and competition? Cheapest is not always best, but Amazon&#8217;s marketplace — and its willful habit of turning a blind eye to cheap counterfeits on its website — prevents creative destruction in the free market. To the extent the average consumer benefits from cheap products delivered in 24 hours, he loses out on access to superior quality and innovation.
In the supply and demand curve of the digital age, tech companies who profit from clicks can use their leverage to create ceilings on prices because of their size. They do so by limiting innovative competitors through patent laws and keeping prices exceedingly low, as well as through venture capital and size. Consumers benefit in the digital stores in which they shop but potentially lose as employees or entrepreneurs of businesses that directly — or even tangentially — come into conflict with a digital behemoth.
Lastly, the free-marketeers need to point out creative destruction can never happen if tech giants and other corporations are allowed to draft the laws and rules. Congress, in trying to regulate Facebook, will draft laws and rules focused on Facebook. But the very laws designed to regulate Facebook necessarily consider Facebook the default. That will make it harder for competitors to even have a chance to become a default social media platform. Free-marketeers and social conservatives can find common ground opposing companies carving out exceptions for themselves in the tax code, laws and other regulations.
All that said, however, if corporations continue to embrace wokeness, then nothing else will matter. Leveraging their capital, lobbyists and access against conservative values and interests will just cause more conservatives to abandon their support of free markets in favor of legislative and regulatory revenge.
To find out more about Erick Erickson and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

Cash.jpeg

ERICKSON: Free Market Wokeness

Free Trade

On Friday, &#8220;Fox News Sunday&#8221; host Chris Wallace appeared on the network&#8217;s &#8220;Shepard Smith Reporting&#8221; to discuss the latest economic news and jobs numbers.
Wallace first noted that the employment report, which stated that the United States added just 130,000 jobs in August (about 30,000 fewer than what was reportedly predicted), as well as a pull-back in consumer confidence, &#8220;some indications of contraction in the manufacturing sector,&#8221; and other factors &#8220;indicate growing uncertainty about the strength of the economy.&#8221;
Host Shepard Smith then asked Wallace about Republicans, conservatives, and the deficit.
<blockquote>SMITH: There was a time really not that long ago, Chris, when conservatives were always very concerned about deficits and deficit spending. Do you have a sense beyond presidential politics why we&#8217;re not really hearing that from conservatives as much right now, because the deficit is quite large?
WALLACE: Yeah, the deficit is going to be up to close to a trillion dollars this year, and the projection is it&#8217;s going to be over a trillion dollars for the rest of the the 2020s, for a decade, and our debt is up over $22 trillion. This has really been going on for some time. I mean, you go back to George W. Bush, and he was a big spender, a big-government Republican, and you see that now with Donald Trump. The economic benefits of the [tax] cut in 2017 have begun to diminish, and what you’re now &#8230; paying the price of the fact that there&#8217;s not as much revenue coming in. And in addition, there is a big increase in spending. They just passed a spending bill to get them past the 2020 election, and they’ve basically done away with sequestration, with all those spending caps. So, there&#8217;s a kind of an unholy conspiracy, if you will, by Democrats, who have been big spenders for a while, and now Republicans, that deficits and debt don&#8217;t really matter.</blockquote>
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/VGV2vfgMznM" width="720" height="385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></div>
The <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/3877​">Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019</a> passed the House 284 &#8211; 149 in late-July, passed the Senate 67 &#8211; 28 on August 1, and was signed into law by President Trump on August 2. According to the summary, the legislation &#8220;increases discretionary spending limits, suspends the debt limit, and modifies budget enforcement procedures.&#8221;
During President Trump&#8217;s first two years in office, while the Republican Party controlled the House and Senate, the deficit grew, according to <a href="https://www.thebalance.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306">The Balance</a>:
<ul>
<li>2016: $585 billion</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>2017: $665 billion</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>2018 (estimated): $779 billion</li>
</ul>
In 2018, the Democratic Party took control of the House, and the estimated deficits for 2019, 2020, and 2021 look increasingly grim:
<ul>
<li>2019: $1.09 trillion</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>2020: $1.1 trillion</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>2021: $1.06 trillion</li>
</ul>
When Obama took office in 2009, the national debt was approximately $11 trillion. During his eight years in office, the debt grew by roughly $7.6 trillion to approximately $19.5 trillion. That’s an increase of around 77.2%.
Over the course of Trump&#8217;s presidency, the debt has gone from $19.5 trillion to approximately $22 trillion and counting. <a href="https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-by-year-compared-to-gdp-and-major-events-3306287">The Balance</a> estimates that by 2020, the national debt will stand at around $24 trillion. If the estimate holds true, that would mean that during Trump’s first term as president, the debt will have grown by a little over 23%.

Fox News’ Chris Wallace: ‘Deficits And Debt Don’t Really Matter’ To Republicans

Chris Wallace

<a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-05/two-way-stock-volatility-shows-the-bull-case-alive-and-kicking?cmpid%3D=socialflow-twitter-markets&amp;utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&amp;utm_medium=social&amp;utm_content=markets&amp;utm_source=twitter">Bloomberg</a> spoke to financial experts about the possibility of a recession in the near future, and their general reaction was … nahhhh.
John Stoltzfus, chief investment strategist at Oppenheimer Asset Management, &#8220;There&#8217;s another story out there that&#8217;s gathering the attention of investors. The fundamentals remain intact in the sense of the U.S. economy, which continues to show us sustainability. The slowing does not appear to us to be recessionary.&#8221;
Michael Antonelli, institutional equity sales trader and managing director at Robert W. Baird &amp; Co. explained, &#8220;If you think about the last month of market action, it was dominated by trade headlines, but in the background was pretty stable economic data absent of manufacturing. All the noise is masking that the economy, by and large, is doing OK.&#8221;
Dennis DeBusschere, head of portfolio strategy at Evercore ISI, added that if the manufacturing sector doesn&#8217;t plunge downward any more, &#8220;which seems like a much higher-probability event than many expect, an extended reversal of the safety panic should be expected.&#8221;
Kate Warne, an investment strategist at Edward Jones shares: &#8220;The earnings outlook is actually one of the things that is positive for stocks going forward. Expectations are a little higher for next year and I think that’s appropriate because we begin to get into a period where companies aren&#8217;t facing such strong comparisons from the previous year.&#8221; She added, &#8220;Companies are continuing to see good demand for their products even though they&#8217;re also facing rising costs.&#8221;
Bloomberg writes that those concerned about the currently low treasury yields should calm down, as &#8220;they&#8217;re also low enough to give cover to equity multiples that are frequently cited by bears as being too high.&#8221;
In mid-August, Democratic presidential candidate and former congressman John Delaney <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/john-delaney-dems-are-cheering-on-a-recession">was asked</a> if he thought a recession was imminent; he answered, &#8220;I hope it&#8217;s not. You know, it feels like some Democrats are cheering on a recession because they want to stick it to Trump. I don&#8217;t want a recession because I don&#8217;t want these workers in here to face a recession, but I worry that Trump&#8217;s policies are bringing one on … I&#8217;m not going to name names, but you just get a sense, like my position is very clear, which is I hope a recession doesn&#8217;t happen.&#8221;
Delaney may very well have had a point; in July, Senator Elizabeth Warren stoked fears of a recession, writing <a href="https://medium.com/@teamwarren/the-coming-economic-crash-and-how-to-stop-it-355703da148b">in a Medium post</a>, &#8220;Warning lights are flashing. Whether it&#8217;s this year or next year, the odds of another economic downturn are high ― and growing. Congress and regulators should act immediately to tamp down these threats before it&#8217;s too late.&#8221;
In August, former congressman Beto Rourke <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/08/18/beto_orourke_trump_is_driving_global_economy_into_recession.html">echoed</a>, &#8220;I&#8217;m afraid that this president is driving the global economy and our economy into recession.&#8221;
Jeff Weaver, a senior adviser to Senator Bernie Sanders, <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2019-08-15/u-s-is-about-to-enter-the-trump-recession-sanders-adviser-weaver-says-video">said in August</a>, &#8220;I think what everybody understands now is that we&#8217;re coming to the end of the Obama recovery and we&#8217;re now about to enter the Trump recession.&#8221;

Dollar bills folded into paper airplane in atmosphere

Bloomberg Asks Experts If A Recession Is Near. Their Answer: Nahhh.

Bloomberg News

In a <a href="https://www.adpemploymentreport.com/2019/August/NER/docs/ADP-NATIONAL-EMPLOYMENT-REPORT-August2019-Final-Press-Release.pdf">new report</a> released on Thursday that bolsters President Trump’s chances of reelection, the ADP Research Institute and Moody&#8217;s analytics said private sector employment increased by 195,000 jobs from July to August, surpassing the estimates that employment would increase by 140,000 new jobs.
<a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-05/u-s-companies-add-most-jobs-in-four-months-adp-report-shows">Bloomberg</a> reported, &#8220;Businesses’ payrolls increased by 195,000 after a downwardly revised 142,000 gain in July, according to the ADP Research Institute. The latest data compared with the median estimate of economists for a 148,000 increase. A separate Labor Department report Thursday showed filings for unemployment benefits were little changed last week, near the lowest level since 1969.&#8221;
The Wall Street Journal added, &#8220;The U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics will release its August nonfarm jobs data on Friday. Economists polled by The Wall Street Journal are expecting 150,000 jobs to have been added and for a 3.7% unemployment rate.&#8221;
Ahu Yildirmaz, vice president and co-head of the ADP Research Institute, stated, &#8220;In August we saw a rebound in private-sector employment. This is the first time in the last 12 months that we have seen balanced job growth across small, medium and large-sized companies.” Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Analytics, added, “Businesses are holding firm on their payrolls despite the slowing economy. Hiring has moderated, but layoffs remain low. As long as this continues recession will remain at bay.&#8221;
The report found that small businesses increased by 66,000 jobs, medium businesses by 77,000 jobs, and large businesses by 52,000 jobs.
On Thursday, CNBC&#8217;s Jim Cramer, noting that President Trump is standing firm in his trade war with China, <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/05/cramer-us-economic-strength-empowers-trump-on-china-trade-war.html">stated</a>, &#8220;President Trump is set in his ways because he doesn’t see any weakening. I mean, look at the jobless report today; someone earlier said that manufacturing is in a recession. Well, manufacturing’s been in a recession in this country for ages. What I’m surprised at is how strong the consumer is. I think the Chinese still need it more than we do. I know when I say that everyone just says, &#8216;But wait a minute; that’s a nice bias that you’re showing.&#8217; It’s statistical; I just think our economy is very strong.&#8221;
As <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/51390/economist-new-york-times-has-good-2020-news-trump-hank-berrien">The Daily Wire</a> reported, Neil Irwin, a senior economics correspondent for The Upshot, wrote in The New York Times that fears of a coming recession are overblown, basing it on a number of factors, including:
<blockquote>1. The sectors affected by trade wars and a diminution of global manufacturing only represent a &#8220;relatively small share of the economy.&#8221;
2. There is little sign of reduced consumer spending, and consumer spending comprises over two-thirds of the American economy; business investment represents 14%;
3. The Federal Reserve has embraced easier money policies since the beginning of 2018, and that kind of shift usually evidences itself in delayed fashion, so it hasn’t been factored in yet;
4. The unemployment rate has stayed at 4% or lower for over a year, which may very well trigger employers to think more long-term and not panic and opt for actions that would inhibit longer-term growth;
5. Despite the fact that business investment seems to be slowing, there are numerous instances in which business investment slowed but consumer spending still grew. Irwin names a few instances, including mid-2015 to mid-2016 and the period after the dot-com crash in 2000 and 2001;
6. The impact of the trade war has most profoundly affected manufacturing and commodity-related industries; Irwin notes, &#8220;As of August, only 8.5 percent of American jobs were in manufacturing.&#8221;
7. The American economy has shifted toward a more service-based economy, leaving it less vulnerable;
8. A Wall Street Journal <a href="https://projects.wsj.com/econforecast/?standalone=1#ind=recession&amp;r=60">survey</a> of economists found only roughly one-third think a recession is forthcoming.</blockquote>

trump_thumbs_up

Good News For Trump: Private Sector Added More Jobs Than Expected in August

Acknowledging that talk of a coming recession has mushroomed recently, one economics expert writing in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/04/upshot/recession-not-inevitable-economic-optimism.html">The New York Times</a> attempted to assuage those fears by noting that the American economic system is far more resilient than the fear-mongerers would have others believe.
Neil Irwin, a senior economics correspondent for The Upshot, starts his explanation by noting, &#8220;In August, consumer sentiment suffered its <a href="https://news.umich.edu/u-m-surveys-of-consumers-tariffs-weaken-confidence/">biggest drop</a> since 2012, and Google searches for the term &#8216;recession&#8217; surged to their <a href="https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&amp;geo=US&amp;q=recession">highest levels</a> in more than a decade.&#8221; But after pointing out that business activity has slowed and American manufacturing began shrinking in August for the first time in three years, Irwin turns positive, opining that an outright recession seems unlikely and a period of sluggish growth looks more probable.
Irwin bases this rosier outlook on various factors:
<ol>
<li>The sectors affected by trade wars and a diminution of global manufacturing only represent a &#8220;relatively small share of the economy.&#8221;</li>
<li>There is little sign of reduced consumer spending, and consumer spending comprises over two-thirds of the American economy; business investment represents 14%;</li>
<li>The Federal Reserve has embraced easier money policies since the beginning of 2018, and that kind of shift usually evidences itself in delayed fashion, so it hasn’t been factored in yet;</li>
<li>The unemployment rate has stayed at 4% or lower for over a year, which may very well trigger employers to think more long-term and not panic and opt for actions that would inhibit longer-term growth;</li>
<li>Despite the fact that business investment seems to be slowing, there are numerous instances in which business investment slowed but consumer spending still grew. Irwin names a few instances, including mid-2015 to mid-2016 and the period after the dot-com crash in 2000 and 2001;</li>
<li>The impact of the trade war has most profoundly affected manufacturing and commodity-related industries; Irwin notes, &#8220;As of August, only 8.5 percent of American jobs were in manufacturing.&#8221;</li>
<li>The American economy has shifted toward a more service-based economy, leaving it less vulnerable;</li>
<li>A Wall Street Journal <a href="https://projects.wsj.com/econforecast/?standalone=1#ind=recession&amp;r=60">survey</a> of economists found only roughly one-third think a recession is forthcoming.</li>
</ol>
Irwin concludes, &#8220;There are a lot of risks out there, and it makes sense for C.E.O.s and ordinary consumers to be wary of what the future could hold. But for now, a gloomy economic future remains a far-from-certain possibility.&#8221;
The Washington Post, in an article titled, &#8220;<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/08/12/how-recession-could-doom-trumps-reelection/?noredirect=on">How A Recession Could Doom Trump’s 2020 Reelection</a>,&#8221; noted that only one president since the Civil War won reelection when a recession hit in the last two years of his first term: William McKinley in 1900. The Post added, &#8220;Since then, all four presidents running for reelection who had such a recession lost: William Taft, Herbert Hoover, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush. Over the same span, all 10 who have sought reelection without such a recession have won: Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt (3x), Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard M. Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama.&#8221;

FRANCE-G7-SUMMIT

Economist In New York Times Has Good 2020 News For Trump: A Recession Is Unlikely. Here&#8217;s Why.

Seemingly every year, some prominent conservative goes out of his way to contemptuously mock the U.S.-recognized federal holiday known as Labor Day. The general rationale for such scorn is that Labor Day came into being and, to some extent, still exists to glorify and harken us back to the once-dominant labor movements of yore. Labor Day, the narrative goes, was a capitalism-undermining governmental fabrication that bestowed unnecessary social capital and legitimacy upon the restive, and oftentimes outright violent, unionized forces of the proletariat.
It is true that sometimes, shibboleths and outmoded orthodoxies require <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/49750/hammer-national-conservatism-conference-josh-hammer">fresh, innovative thinking</a>. But it is also the case that the general conservative disdain for Labor Day is not a particularly good example of that. This &#8220;holiday&#8221; deserves all the derision it can possibly receive.
Simply put, Labor Day is indeed an anti-capitalism, anti-economic growth federal &#8220;holiday&#8221; born out of the ashes of the late 19th century&#8217;s societally ruinous labor movement. It is a manifestly stupid socialist &#8220;holiday&#8221; and conservatives are wholly justified to make fun of it.
While the precise origins of how Labor Day came to be recognized as a federal holiday in 1894 are subject to historical debate, it is uncontested that various cogs of Big Labor served as the driving force. According to one version of the history, Central Labor Union (CLU) Secretary Matthew Maguire first proposed the federalization of the holiday after the CLU successfully held a pan-organizational parade of labor organizations in New York City on September 5, 1882. According to a different version of the history, American Federation of Labor Vice President P.J. McGuire initially proposed the federalized holiday to the CLU as a means of publicly demonstrating and flaunting Big Labor&#8217;s institutional might.
But the Haymarket massacre of 1886 threw a wrench into Big Labor&#8217;s self-aggrandizing plot. On May 4, 1886, radical leftist anarchist forces disrupted a pro-worker labor rally in Chicago by throwing a bomb at local police. Seven police officers and four civilians paid the ultimate price, and eight committed leftist anarchists were ultimately convicted of conspiracy. Indeed, Grover Cleveland&#8217;s initial 1887 decision to campaign on a September-based Labor Day, as well as his ultimate 1894 presidential decision to sign the holiday into law, were both based on a conscientious awareness that allowing the holiday to be celebrated in May — in accordance with the venerable European tradition known as May Day — risked the perception of positively commemorating the violent, radical leftist anarchy of the Haymarket massacre.
In a nutshell, then, Labor Day was born out of violence and Big Labor intimidation. Chris Pandolfo, writing at Conservative Review two years ago, <a href="https://www.conservativereview.com/news/happy-labor-day-a-holiday-born-in-violence/">elaborated</a> upon how even President Cleveland&#8217;s ultimate signing of the holiday into law was itself a final act of gross capitulation toward the insubordinate socialist rabble-rousers of the labor movement:
<blockquote>When the Panic of 1893 hit, several workers were laid off from the Pullman Car Company, while the rest suffered an average of a one-fourth wage cut. Eventually, the downtrodden and livid workers organized a strike, and to their aid quickly came the American Railway Union (ARU) and its socialist leader, Eugene V. Debs. Debs helped orchestrate a national boycott of trains carrying Pullman cars.
The strike lasted three months, from May 11 to July 11, 1894. When replacement workers (&#8220;strikebreakers&#8221;) were called in to cross the picket line, violence erupted. Riots, the pillaging of railway cars, and property destruction ensued.
But it was the interruption of postal mail delivery that really brought the strike to the federal government’s attention. President Cleveland declared the strike a federal crime — insisting that the strikers were prohibiting the government from carrying out its constitutional responsibility for mail delivery. Soon after, 14,000 federal and state troops were called upon to break up the strike.
By the strike’s end, as many as 30 people had been killed. In Chicago, lawless strikers took advantage of the violence to &#8220;rob, burn, and plunder,&#8221; leading to an estimated $80 million in property damages. Debs and the leaders of the ARU were jailed and the union dissolved.
With the nation roiling and the 1894 midterm elections approaching, Cleveland’s administration sought a way to appease the labor movement. Thus came Labor Day. The legislation was expedited through Congress and signed by the president on June 28, 1894, in the midst of the Pullman strike.</blockquote>
By all means, conservatives, enjoy your day off work. Enjoy your end of summer sales. Enjoy your barbecues and picnics. Enjoy your final day showcasing the sartorial delight that is seersucker before our fashion overlords deem the fabric verboten tomorrow.
But while you are enjoying yourselves today, do be aware of Labor Day&#8217;s wretched, leftist, socialist, anarchist origins. And do not hesitate to mock this remarkably silly &#8220;holiday&#8221; as much as your heart desires.

Construction Workers

HAMMER: Labor Day Is A Stupid Socialist ‘Holiday’ And Conservatives Are Right To Bash It

Socialism

United States

Former Republican New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu criticized Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) on Monday for promoting policies that are so far to the left that they resemble those of socialist dictator Nicolas Maduro.
“It sounds like Bernie Sanders is having his policies and statements written by the Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro,” Sununu told Fox News host Sandra Smith when asked about the presidential candidate’s new proposal to cancel $81 billion of medical debt. “I mean, this is socialism to the extreme.”
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></div>
“I think it indicates that Bernie has decided that it is down to a two-person race with Elizabeth Warren and what he has to do in order to win is to out-pander her,” he continued. “And so you’re going to see a continuing series of all of these.”
Accordingly, the Vermont senator previewed an upcoming plan that would wipe away individuals’ past-due medical bills without impacting their credit scores. The $81 billion price tag is exclusive of his Medicare-for-All plan — a keystone of his presidential campaign — which estimates indicate could cost as much as $40 trillion.
In June, Sanders unveiled a separate proposal to eliminate the student loan debt of every American — approximately 45 million people. That sweeping plan would cost upwards of $1.5 trillion.
“But the other thing that comes out of this statement — and Republicans ought to take advantage of it — is that Bernie Sanders is doing an extremely good job of telling us what a disaster Obamacare is and that Obamacare really has to be replaced,” Sununu said.
The New Hampshire governor also noted that as Sanders and fellow progressive challenger Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) battle for the far-left lane of the current Democratic presidential primary, both candidates will likely try to outdo each other on the “everything for everybody” front.
“[Health insurance] is becoming a big test and they’re all pounding Obamacare and in ways that Republicans weren’t as effective as these Democrats seem to be,” Sununu said. “The only one defending Obamacare — and it’s beginning to slip even there — is [former Vice President] Joe Biden.”
Biden, who is largely running on former President Barack Obama’s legacy, is one of the only leading Democratic contenders not to advocate for a Medicare-for-All system that would overhaul the entire health insurance market. Rather, he has vowed to reinstate Obamacare&#8217;s individual mandate to attempt to ensure all Americans obtain sufficient health insurance.
The mandate was initially part of the Obama administration’s Affordable Care Act, more commonly referred to as Obamacare. As a way to bypass the unconstitutional requirement to force Americans to purchase insurance, the individual mandate was upheld in 2012 by the U.S. Supreme Court as an income-based tax levy.
The individual mandate was repealed after President Donald Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017.
“For everyone but Biden this has become an effort to be attractive to the millennials who have absolutely no idea what things cost and who have absolutely no idea that eventually — as Margaret Thatcher said — in socialism, you begin to run out of other people’s money,” Sununu added.

WATCH: New Hampshire Governor: Bernie Sanders Policies Sound Like They’re Written By Nicolas Maduro

Joe Biden

New Hampshire

Nicolas Maduro

On Monday&#8217;s episode of &#8220;The Michael Knowles Show,&#8221; Knowles debunks some of the misconceptions regarding the trade war and shows how President Donald Trump has actually landed a victory for the United States. Video and partial transcript below: 
This trade war has been so misrepresented. Most people have no idea what&#8217;s going on, part of that is because trade negotiations are extremely boring, and they&#8217;re extremely complicated, and all shallows are clear — and if you think that there is a simple answer to our trade relationship with China, you are completely out of your mind. The only wrong answer on trade is that it&#8217;s simple. It&#8217;s really, really not simple.
This trade relationship has been pretty poisoned since 2001 when we stupidly let China into the World Trade Organization. We had no leverage on it whatsoever. It was completely unlike our letting other economies in, like South Korea or Japan, where we had military leverage over them. We were providing a lot of their defense — they were relatively small economies — we could manage that relationship. China — not the case. They had over a billion people. Huge economy. Obviously, they don&#8217;t rely on our military protection. From the beginning, this was a tough problem. They&#8217;ve been cheating from the beginning; they&#8217;ve been stealing our property, illegally subsidizing steel and aluminum, stealing our jobs by illegally devaluing their currency. So, it&#8217;s not just that it was the natural flow of market forces that took some of our manufacturing jobs away to the tune of 3 million or more. That&#8217;s not what happened.
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/9hFB0adqOcE?start=2149" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></div>
We would have saved millions of jobs had we stopped them from illegally devaluing their currency, which violates the World Trade Organization treaties — and it&#8217;s something that we can&#8217;t really fight against because if we devalued our currency the world would spin into economic chaos. Because we are the superpower, we are the global reserve currency.
I&#8217;m not even scratching the surface on how complicated this trade relationship is, I&#8217;m just telling you it&#8217;s very complicated. And so when people say you know drop the tariffs that is just nonsense. That is not an adult way to handle this. So, this trade war has been heating up it&#8217;s been tit-for-tat, tit-for-tat.
China goes hardcore in its negotiating position. People walk away from the table — things are looking really bad, President Trump has to face re-election in 2020. Then apparently, allegedly, the White House called, or China, rather, called the White House over the weekend and asked the White House to get back to the negotiating table. Why? Because President Trump said — rather than backing down on the tariffs, which he also signaled he might do — that he would raise the existing duties on a quarter — on 250 billion dollars worth of Chinese products to 30% from 25% starting on October 1. He also said that tariffs on another 300 billion dollars of Chinese goods would take effect on September 1, and they would now be 15% to 10%.
So, he just, at the moment when it seems like he&#8217;s going to back down because it&#8217;s hurting his own base — It&#8217;s going to hurt him in re-election — he says nope I&#8217;m going all the way baby. I&#8217;m turning the covfefe up to 11. Guess what happened? The Chinese Yuan fell to an 11-year low against the Dollar.
In China, it looked like the U.S. was going to blink. Now it looks like the U.S. isn&#8217;t going to blink. China, perhaps, is blinking. This is a huge win for the United States.
It doesn&#8217;t solve the problem. It&#8217;s not even close to solving the problem. It just shows that we&#8217;re moving in the right direction and the left is furious about that. Here is the CNBC headline reporting on this latest turn, &#8220;Chinese newspaper editor&#8221; debunks &#8220;Trump&#8217;s trade war claims: China didn&#8217;t change its position.&#8221; Oh, ok. Well, if the Chinese newspaper editor said that, what newspaper was that by the way? Could you? Ok, let me see you. Johnson is editor in chief of The Global Times, a tabloid under the People&#8217;s Daily, which is the official newspaper of communist China.
It&#8217;s the official party newspaper.
Oh, oh you&#8217;re saying that the Chinese government disagrees? The Chinese government doesn&#8217;t want it to become clear that the U.S. has just won its position on the trade war? Well, if that&#8217;s so, I wouldn&#8217;t have expected that. Thank you for reporting that CNBC, for carrying the pravda of China and end their propaganda against the United States. It&#8217;s ridiculous.
This is good news. I mean, I hate agreeing with Chuck Schumer on anything. The only place I&#8217;ve probably ever agreed with the guy — two places: On the Iran deal and on this trade war with China. He said not to back down. It requires a lot of political courage for President Trump not to back down on this issue. But it&#8217;s very important that he doesn&#8217;t. I think if he does blink, if he does back down, actually, it will hurt him in the 2020 presidential election because it will show he&#8217;s weak and he&#8217;s weak on one of the biggest issues facing our country. And one of the biggest issues he talked about on the campaign trail the other reason, I think, he shouldn&#8217;t back down is I think he&#8217;s going to win. And I don&#8217;t think that Americans are going to vote based on bean-counting.
I don&#8217;t think that we&#8217;re going to vote because GDP is a little bit lower. If we go into an all-out recession, we might have some trouble in re-election, but otherwise, people want to win. They want to solve this problem. They want someone to fix it. Neither party has done it for 20 years and they want Americans to be respected — American jobs, American manufacturing — they want to make America great again. This was Reagan&#8217;s call in the 80s, actually, pursuing similar policies. This is Trump&#8217;s call now, I think it&#8217;ll work. You gotta stay strong. He&#8217;s done a good job so far, it&#8217;s probably the highlight of his administration. Even though some Nervous Nancys on the Right were clutching their pearls And who are nervous that their stocks are going to tick down a few days out of the week are saying that he should give up and let China eat our lunch. Terrible idea.
<a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-michael-knowles-show/id1266577963?mt=2">Listen to full episodes of &#8220;The Michael Knowles Show&#8221; on iTunes.</a>
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/podcasts/show/michael-knowles-show">Watch &#8220;The Michael Knowles Show&#8221; on-demand!</a>

Menu