The Future

Youth: As riots roil Ferguson and Baltimore, a new poll shows it isn’t just inner-city youth who are disaffected. It seems young adults across America are profoundly dissatisfied with the big institutions of their country.

A new Harvard University Institute of Politics poll suggests that 18-29-year-olds have a deep distrust of major American institutions. Such profound distrust doesn’t bode well for our future.

Only the U.S. military and scientists score over 50% when young Americans are asked if they trust them.

To be sure, many of those institutions (see chart) might deserve distrust. The biased mainstream media has plainly done a poor job. So has Congress. And so have local, state and federal government agencies.

Still, it’s disquieting to see that America’s young adults have so little faith in the institutions of the richest, freest nation ever. And the cynicism starts early.

A big part of the blame belongs to 40 years of liberal control of our education system, which, coupled with the decline of intact families, has left an entire generation deeply distrustful of America and the institutions that have, over the years, worked quite well.

From the start, kids are taught a litany: America is racist, greedy and hypocritical. Such instruction alienates them from their society and culture.

Yet the doubt and alienation come despite the fact that many young Americans know little about our nation’s history or how its government works.

Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.

–George Orwell

Newspeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought, and this purpose was indirectly assisted by cutting the choice of words down to a minimum.

Thus removing any concept or thought pattern not desired by the ruling elite.

How could you have a slogan like “freedom is slavery” when the concept of freedom has been abolished?

“Thoughtcrime does not entail death: thoughtcrime IS death.”

A new survey of eighth graders by the National Assessment of Educational Progress underscores this. It found less than a quarter of those tested are proficient in civics, geography and U.S. history.

Locally, it was reported here that 650 3rd Graders who couldn’t read were going to passed onto the 4th Grade. First of all, if they are roughly 8 years old and they can’t read to begin with is a problem that no one wants to address.

In just a few years they too will be cynical young adults, just as those in the Harvard poll.

“If the next generation doesn’t understand the causes and the purpose of our American Revolution, the reasons for the separation of powers in our government or the role of the states in our federal system, that generation isn’t likely to notice when its liberties slowly slip away and will not be equipped to hold elected officials accountable,” said Roger Beckett, executive director of the Ashbrook Center.

But damn, they’ll know everything about Snap Chat and The Kardashians!

He’s absoutely right. If young Americans do not understand how our system ideally works, they have no way of understanding what’s wrong — or how to fix it.

Which I think was the point all along. But then the old guard dies off and these “feel good” idiots take over the country is doomed.

Unfortunately, our young are deeply susceptible to liberal teachers sneering that “nothing works” in America and that today’s students are victims of social forces beyond their control — race, wealth inequality, gender, whatever — not masters of their own fates.

Are we being too harsh on our education system?

NO.

Not at all. Since the 1960s, K-12 educators have used the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci’s theories of “cultural Marxism” to indoctrinate kids with poisonous, anti-social ideas — ranging from multiculturalism, political correctness and diversity, to affirmative action, social justice and inequality.

Meanwhile, they relegate fact-based study of history, geography and culture to the academic ash heap.

No longer teaching a fact-based curriculum, left-wing teachers, unions and administrators can fill young heads with all sorts of useless, nihilistic nonsense.

Yes, young adults might be right: Our institutions are flawed and dysfunctional. But they should also know this: In democracy, you get the institutions you deserve. (IBD)

They just think they are “entitled” and “enlightened” because the Left wing has told them so since birth.

Among college-aged Americans, 58 percent report a positive view of socialism and 56 percent a positive view of capitalism. In contrast,  only 28 percent of seniors have a positive view of socialism while 61 percent have a favorable view of capitalism. This may give the impression young people are trending socialist.

However, college-aged Americans are far more supportive of a free market system (72%) than they are of a government-managed economy (49%). Seniors concur with young people on the free market system (74%), while only 28 percent have a positive view of a government-managed economy.

Several forces could likely be at play. First, young people don’t know what these words mean. The fact that they are more favorable toward socialism than a government-managed economy, which if anything is socialism-lite, demonstrates this. Second, young people like free markets and the technology, products, and wealth it creates, but they also want to feel confident the poor have access to what they need. In their minds socialism might simply connote a social safety net rather than government ownership. Third, individuals often trend left in their youth, but may change as they age. Fourth, this cohort of young people may be systematically different from older generations in holding a preference for both markets and government activism. It remains to be determined how this young generation will make the trade-off when markets and government action are at odds. (reason.com)

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson
Political Cartoons by Dana Summers

The Madness

Minimum wage madness

Political crusades for raising the minimum wage are back again. Advocates of minimum wage laws often give themselves credit for being more “compassionate” towards “the poor.” But they seldom bother to check what are the actual consequences of such laws.

Because they don’t care. They are self-righteous, ego maniacal and have enough narcissism to rival the Gods themselves and anyone who would dare to challenge them must be a very evil Devil.

And since they have the all the “compassion” and it “feels so good” that anything else must be bad.

Like the Truth.

One of the simplest and most fundamental economic principles is that people tend to buy more when the price is lower and less when the price is higher. Yet advocates of minimum wage laws seem to think that the government can raise the price of labor without reducing the amount of labor that will be hired.

Or race the price of labor and not expect the price of the goods to go up because after all that just “Corporate Greed” and “profiteering”. 🙂

When you turn from economic principles to hard facts, the case against minimum wage laws is even stronger. Countries with minimum wage laws almost invariably have higher rates of unemployment than countries without minimum wage laws.

Norway has a 3% unemployment and no minimum wage, by the way.

Most nations today have minimum wage laws, but they have not always had them. Unemployment rates have been very much lower in places and times when there were no minimum wage laws.

Switzerland is one of the few modern nations without a minimum wage law. In 2003, “The Economist” magazine reported: “Switzerland’s unemployment neared a five-year high of 3.9 percent in February.” In February of this year, Switzerland’s unemployment rate was 3.1 percent. A recent issue of “The Economist” showed Switzerland’s unemployment rate as 2.1 percent.

Most Americans today have never seen unemployment rates that low. However, there was a time when there was no federal minimum wage law in the United States.

For a good portion of it there was no welfare either.

The last time was during the Coolidge administration, when the annual unemployment rate got as low as 1.8 percent. When Hong Kong was a British colony, it had no minimum wage law. In 1991 its unemployment rate was under 2 percent.

As for being “compassionate” toward “the poor,” this assumes that there is some enduring class of Americans who are poor in some meaningful sense, and that there is something compassionate about reducing their chances of getting a job.

Well, Liberal doe need dependents and the fearfully ignorant to vote for them. “Vote for Me, the other guys Rich” doesn’t quite work otherwise.

Most Americans living below the government-set poverty line have a washer and/or a dryer, as well as a computer. More than 80 percent have air conditioning. More than 80 percent also have both a landline and a cell phone. Nearly all have television and a refrigerator. Most Americans living below the official poverty line also own a motor vehicle and have more living space than the average European — not Europeans in poverty, the average European.

In a worldwide sense Americans are 1%ers. How evil are we. 🙂

Why then are they called “poor”? Because government bureaucrats create the official definition of poverty, and they do so in ways that provide a political rationale for the welfare state — and, not incidentally, for the bureaucrats’ own jobs.

Most people in the lower income brackets are not an enduring class. Most working people in the bottom 20 percent in income at a given time do not stay there over time. More of them end up in the top 20 percent than remain behind in the bottom 20 percent.

There is nothing mysterious about the fact that most people start off in entry level jobs that pay much less than they will earn after they get some work experience. But, when minimum wage levels are set without regard to their initial productivity, young people are disproportionately unemployed — priced out of jobs.

$15/hr flipping burgers at McDonalds will only make less jobs. And would make that “Value Meal” $5 instead of 1 or 2. 🙂

In European welfare states where minimum wages, and mandated job benefits to be paid for by employers, are more generous than in the United States, unemployment rates for younger workers are often 20 percent or higher, even when there is no recession.

Unemployed young people lose not only the pay they could have earned but, at least equally important, the work experience that would enable them to earn higher rates of pay later on.

Minorities, like young people, can also be priced out of jobs. In the United States, the last year in which the black unemployment rate was lower than the white unemployment rate — 1930 — was also the last year when there was no federal minimum wage law. Inflation in the 1940s raised the pay of even unskilled workers above the minimum wage set in 1938. Economically, it was the same as if there were no minimum wage law by the late 1940s.

Relative to inflation the minimum wage in 1963 is the same as it is now.

In 1948 the unemployment rate of black 16-year-old and 17-year-old males was 9.4 percent. This was a fraction of what it would become in even the most prosperous years from 1958 on, as the minimum wage was raised repeatedly to keep up with inflation.

Some “compassion” for “the poor”!

A survey of American economists found that 90 percent of them regarded minimum wage laws as increasing the rate of unemployment among low-skilled workers. Inexperience is often the problem. Only about 2 percent of Americans over the age of 24 earned the minimum wage.

Advocates of minimum wage laws usually base their support of such laws on their estimate of how much a worker “needs” in order to have “a living wage” — or on some other criterion that pays little or no attention to the worker’s skill level, experience or general productivity. So it is hardly surprising that minimum wage laws set wages that price many a young worker out of a job.

Because it’s all about “feelings” and not reality. Emotion, not logic. And a base of sticking it to “corporate greed” and the liberal genetic necessity, Class Warfare.

What is surprising is that, despite an accumulation of evidence over the years of the devastating effects of minimum wage laws on black teenage unemployment rates, members of the Congressional Black Caucus continue to vote for such laws.

Because it’s about THEM, not the people they are “advocating for” and they stay where they are by “advocating”.

Once, years ago, during a confidential discussion with a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, I asked how they could possibly vote for minimum wage laws.

The answer I got was that members of the Black Caucus were part of a political coalition and, as such, they were expected to vote for things that other members of that coalition wanted, such as minimum wage laws, in order that other members of the coalition would vote for things that the Black Caucus wanted.

Quid Pro Quo! 🙂

You grease my skids I’ll grease yours!

When I asked what could the black members of Congress possibly get in return for supporting minimum wage laws that would be worth sacrificing whole generations of young blacks to huge rates of unemployment, the discussion quickly ended. I may have been vehement when I asked that question.

They got POWER.

The same question could be asked of black public officials in general, including Barack Obama, who have taken the side of the teachers’ unions, who oppose vouchers or charter schools that allow black parents (among others) to take their children out of failing public schools.

Minimum wage laws can even affect the level of racial discrimination. In an earlier era, when racial discrimination was both legally and socially accepted, minimum wage laws were often used openly to price minorities out of the job market.

In 1925, a minimum wage law was passed in the Canadian province of British Columbia, with the intent and effect of pricing Japanese immigrants out of jobs in the lumbering industry.

A well regarded Harvard professor of that era referred approvingly to Australia’s minimum wage law as a means to “protect the white Australian’s standard of living from the invidious competition of the colored races, particularly of the Chinese” who were willing to work for less.

In South Africa during the era of apartheid, white labor unions urged that a minimum wage law be applied to all races, to keep black workers from taking jobs away from white unionized workers by working for less than the union pay scale.

Some supporters of the first federal minimum wage law in the United States — the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 — used exactly the same rationale, citing the fact that Southern construction companies, using non-union black workers, were able to come north and under-bid construction companies using unionized white labor.

These supporters of minimum wage laws understood long ago something that today’s supporters of such laws seem not to have bothered to think through. People whose wages are raised by law do not necessarily benefit, because they are often less likely to be hired at the imposed minimum wage rate.

Labor unions have been supporters of minimum wage laws in countries around the world, since these laws price non-union workers out of jobs, leaving more jobs for union members.

People who are content to advocate policies that sound good, whether for political reasons or just to feel good about themselves, often do not bother to think through the consequences beforehand or to check the results afterwards.

Why would they, it either feels good and gives them a sense of moral superiority or it gives them power. Why bother with worrying about consequences. That’s someone’s fault.

If they thought things through, how could they have imagined that having large numbers of idle teenage boys hanging out on the streets together would be good for any community — especially in places where most of these youngsters were raised by single mothers, another unintended consequence, in this case, of well-meaning welfare policies?

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.

Because of Narcissism.

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne
Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

Is

The U.S. still employs more than 2.5 million fewer people than when the recession began. At 180,000 jobs a month, it will take until the middle of 2014 to close that gap. Adjust for population growth, and it will take nine more years to return to the prerecession level of employment at the current rate of growth, according to the Brookings Institution.

That would be the middle of President Hilary Clinton’s Second term and very good for her hand picked successor.

“Headwinds and tailwinds are canceling each other out,” said Lou Crandall of the economic research firm Wrightson ICAP.

The longer that stalemate continues, the worse the long-term damage will be. Already, millions of unemployed Americans have given up looking for jobs; many will likely never work again.

Youth unemployment stands at 16.1% and would be a Europe-like 22% if more than 1.5 million young people hadn’t dropped out of the labor force; economic research suggests their early-career woes will leave lasting scars. The slow pace of growth leaves the economy more vulnerable to an unexpected shock—meaning a flare-up in Europe’s debt crisis or surge in oil prices could send the U.S. back into crisis mode. (WSJ)

Never let a Crisis go to Waste! 🙂

Obama has 3 fundraisers in New York along in next week. It’s not like he’s got anything to worry about… 🙂

“I would love nothing better than an effective, loyal opposition that is willing to meet us halfway and move the country forward (and do whatever I want them to) — because that’s what the American people are looking for (but since they won’t do everything I want when I want I’ll just blame them for everything). The economy is growing but there is still a lot of folks out there who are struggling; still way too many people who are unemployed; (I’m focused like a laser beam on jobs! 🙂 not campaigning or covering up) people who haven’t seen a raise in a decade (unlike Congress); people whose homes are still underwater; people who when they see $4-a-gallon gas  (it was less than$2 when you became President-but I’m sure that’s the evil oil companies you’ve been trying to destroy’s fault!) know that that is money that’s coming straight out of their pockets or their retirement funds and is going to be very hard to make up. (And ObamaCare will certainly help!) 🙂 And they’re hoping that we can do some governing (why break the trend!) 🙂. And that’s what I intend to do this year, and the year after that and the year after that,” Obama told the group. (Translation: Campaign!)

“But I would be dishonest if I didn’t say that it would be a whole lot easier to govern if I had Nancy Pelosi as Speaker.” (WS)

Yeah, the last time we got Stimulus Spending and a year-and-half mud fight cramming ObamaCare down our throats. That was progress.

But yes, it would be so much easier if their was no opposition to The Agenda and they could just do whatever they wanted, when they wanted, and because they wanted. And they could thumb their noses at the peons and peasants who objected to their high and mighty superiority.

Hope 🙂

“And I want her once again as a fully empowered partner for us to be able to move our agenda forward.”

Campaign Mode Overdrive: Engaged!

BY-Partisanship is our goal!

2014 totalitarianism or bust!

IRS UPDATE: At various points over the past two years, Internal Revenue Service officials targeted nonprofit groups that criticized the government and sought to educate Americans about the U.S. Constitution, according to documents in an audit conducted by the agency’s inspector general.

On Jan. 15, 2012 the agency decided to target “political action type organizations involved in limiting/expanding Government, educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, social economic reform movement.,” according to the appendix in the IG report.

And next year they get to enforce ObamaCare. Doesn’t that just fill you with hope & glee. 🙂

BENGHAZI UPDATE

ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.

Removed: Al-Qaeda , CIA warnings, and terrorism.

Over the course of about twenty-four hours, the remarks evolved from something specific and fairly detailed into a bland, vague mush.

State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland raised specific objections to this paragraph drafted by the CIA in its earlier versions of the talking points:

“The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya.  These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.”

In an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence agencies, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information because it “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either?  Concerned …”

The paragraph was entirely deleted. (ABC)

Nothing to see here, move along… 🙂

The CIA draft included: The draft went on to specifically name  the al Qaeda-affiliated group named Ansar al-Sharia.

Instead we got the Internet Video storyline.

Democrats will argue that the editing process wasn’t motivated by a desire to protect Obama’s record on fighting Al Qaeda in the run-up to the 2012 election. They have a point; based on what we’ve seen from Karl’s report, the process that went into creating and then changing the talking points seems to have been driven in large measure by two parts of the government—C.I.A. and State—trying to make sure the blame for the attacks and the failure to protect American personnel in Benghazi fell on the other guy.

And the White was trying to avoid it altogether!

But the mere existence of the edits—whatever the motivation for them—seriously undermines the White House’s credibility on this issue. This past November (after Election Day), White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters that “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”

Remarkably, Carney is sticking with that line even now.

So it makes you go hmmmmm….

The only edit made by the White House or the State Department to those talking points generated by the C.I.A. was a change from referring to the facility that was attacked in Benghazi from “consulate,” because it was not a consulate, to “diplomatic post”… it was a matter of non-substantive factual correction. But there was a process leading up to that that involved inputs from a lot of agencies, as is always the case in a situation like this and is always appropriate.

This is an incredible thing for Carney to be saying. He’s playing semantic games, telling a roomful of journalists that the definition of editing we’ve all been using is wrong, that the only thing that matters is who’s actually working the keyboard. It’s not quite re-defining the word “is,” or the phrase “sexual relations,” but it’s not all that far off, either. (NY)

Depends on your definition of what is, is… What IS editing… What IS Terrorism…What IS a cover-up….

If it smells like a duck, and quacks like a duck, IS it a duck? 🙂

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

 

Not Helpful

My first job paid $4.35/ hr. I was a “detailer” for Avis Rental Cars. That’s a fancy word for Window Washer.

That’s what I did all day.

After 18 months of that I decided to go back to College and get a degree.Which I did.

Then after college, got my first job in a Call Center. At 5.35/hr. But then I started moving up.

You don’t move up from a Window Washer. And at least one guy I worked with at that job wasn’t looking to move up from it.

It was slow. It was hard. It wasn’t glamorous or profitable. But eventually I made enough to buy this house. But it was hardly overnight. And I’m hardly set for life. I still have to perform or else.

You wanna know what the punch line to this is?

Adjusted for inflation that $4.35/hr would now be $8.82 because of inflation caused by the government and other entities.

So Obama wants to raise the minimum wage to be effectively the same as that was all those years ago.

So it’s about the politics of “caring” not about the actual problem – inflation. Especially inflation from devaluing the currency because of all the spending and borrowing.

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — The unemployment rate for teens is at 23%, and the rate for unskilled workers is at 12%. Why does President Obama propose raising the minimum wage to $9 per hour and indexing it for inflation, as he stated in his State of the Union Address?

Obama and his advisors seem to believe that if the minimum wage were raised and then indexed, all workers would retain their jobs. But this is not the case.

Between 2007 and 2009, the federal hourly minimum wage rose to $7.25 in three steps from the $5.15 rate that had prevailed for a decade. If the wage were raised to $9 and then indexed for inflation, it would rise every year.

It sounds compassionate to alleviate poverty by mandating that employers raise wages, but employers often replace low-skill workers with machines. Think self-checkout machines in supermarkets, or computerized call centers.

Or, try a thought experiment — would you have your job if the minimum wage were $50 an hour? Probably not.

At its current level, the minimum wage disproportionately affects teens and low-skill workers, many of whom qualify only for entry-level slots.

University of California (Irvine) economists David Neumark and J.M. Ian Salas, together with Federal Reserve Board economist William Wascher, have written extensively on the effects of the minimum wage on employment. In a National Bureau of Economic Research paper published in January, they conclude that “minimum wages pose a tradeoff of higher wages for some against job losses for others.”

They specifically mention that a higher minimum wage results in more unemployment for teens and low-skill workers.

Why is it that some studies, such as those by Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers chairman Alan Krueger, have found that increases in the minimum wage do not affect employment in the restaurant industry?

Two reasons, according to Neumark and his coauthors. First, many restaurant workers are paid above minimum wage. Second, a higher minimum wage can encourage employers to substitute more-skilled employees for less-skilled employees, so that total unemployment in that industry does not decline substantially.

Minimum wage workers are overwhelmingly young and work part-time. See the Labor Department’s Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers.

Two-thirds of minimum wage earners worked part-time in 2011, the latest year available. Only 3% of hourly wage earners earn minimum wage or less.

Workers under the age of 25 made up about half of the 3.8 million workers who earned at or below the minimum wage in 2011. Employed teenagers are seven times more likely to be among the minimum wage earners than workers older than 25.

Another 11 million workers earned between $7.26 and $8.99. Some will be in danger of losing their jobs if the minimum wage is increased.

In his State of the Union Address, Obama said that a full-time minimum-wage worker makes $14,500 a year. That’s 1.3 million workers, in a labor force of 156 million, about eight-tenths of 1%. But this understates actual income, because it does not include transfer payments.

As Michael Saltsman of the Employment Policies Institute has shown, the Earned Income Tax Credit adds to the minimum wage. Read Michael Saltsman.

Then you also add in your Obama Phone, Your Obama Internet….

In addition to the EITC, the value of the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, formerly food stamps, has risen over the past 20 years, increasing the resources of low-income workers. (See chart.)

In 1992, the hourly minimum wage was $4.25. For a family with one parent and two children, the value of the earned income tax credit was 69 cents, and the value of food stamps was just over a dollar, for total income of $5.96 an hour. (Other possible benefits include housing and Medicaid, depending on the state.)

Fast forward to 2012. The minimum wage was $7.25 an hour. For the same family, the EITC rose to $2.62, and the food stamps program added $1.67, for a total of $11.54. Assuming 2,000 hours of work annually, and including the EITC, the family makes not $14,500, but $19,736. This family also qualified for food stamps, bringing the total family income to $23,072.

Unlike increases in the minimum wage, these government transfers do not discourage employers from hiring.

The minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, plus the mandatory employer’s share of social security, unemployment insurance, and workers’ compensation taxes, brings the hourly employer cost to $8, even without benefits. Raising the hourly minimum wage to $9 will bring the cost to employers to about $10.

And in 2014, employers with more than 49 workers who do not offer the right kind of health insurance will have to pay a penalty of $2,000 per worker per year, further increasing costs and discouraging hiring. Many are already cutting back or reducing workers’ hours, because no penalty is owed on those working less than 30 hours weekly.

Unemployment rates for teens and low-skill workers rose faster than others in the recession. The adult unemployment rate stood at 7.3% in January 2012. That’s over 3 percentage points higher than the 3.8% rate in December 2007, five years earlier, at the start of the recession. But the January 2012 unemployment rate for teens was about 6 percentage points higher than December 2007, at 23%.

Employers now only employ workers who can produce $8 an hour or more of goods or services. Under Obama’s proposal, they would employ only those who could produce $10 an hour, an amount that would rise every year. The government can mandate steadily rising minimum wages, but not steadily rising teen skills and productivity.

As minimum wages rise, employers change technologies or hire more skilled workers.

Forbidding employment of those whose skills aren’t worth $10 an hour prevents workers getting their foot on the bottom of the career ladder. Obama is essentially proposing to take away the right to work for low-skill workers.

Most American employers have to pay more than minimum wage just to attract and hold the workers they need. Almost 140 million workers now earn above minimum wage, not because of federal or state law, but because that is the only way that firms can attract and keep employees with skills.

Instead of more money for youth employment, why not expand the federal minimum wage exception for teens? Under federal law, employers are allowed to pay teens $4.25 an hour for 90 consecutive calendar days, or until their 20th birthday, at which point the wage has to revert to $7.25 an hour.

The law is not simple. Employers have to show that teen workers don’t displace others. If the state minimum laws don’t specifically include the teen exception, then teens have to be paid the regular minimum — and the large states, such as California and New York, don’t mention teens. Ninety calendar days might cover a summer job, but if teens want to continue the job during the school year, employers have to pay them the standard wage.

Youth unemployment is a serious social problem in some European countries, such as France (27%), Spain (55%), and Italy (37%). These governments have taken every possible step to discourage the young from working short of criminalizing work: wages are regulated to be high, and it is costly to hire a new worker and even more costly to let one go. In these countries, young people have a much harder time getting started up the career ladder than their American counterparts.

America does not want to go down this road. Working at an early age teaches useful skills, transferable to future jobs, such as getting to work on time, staying the whole day, and putting up with unpleasant colleagues.

Increasing the hourly minimum wage to $9 and indexing it for inflation is bad news for teens and low-skill workers who deserve a better opportunity, and it is bad news for America where we cannot afford to further cripple our economy. (Market Watch)

But because he “cares” he will make your boss fire you because he can’t afford you any longer and that is your Boss’s fault because he’s just a greedy capitalist pig.

But at least now you have 2 years+ of unemployment, Food Stamps, you could move back in with your parents, Your Obama Phone and Internet so Life is good… 🙂

Rich Detour 590 LI 2

Lincoln Comp 590 cdn

Prove The Mayans Wrong

For the Record on upcoming Republican “obstructionist” ads and ads that say Republicans WANT to crush College Students over the loan rates because you surely won’t here this from the Ministry of Truth:

Republicans defied a veto threat and the House voted Friday to prevent federal loan costs from doubling for millions of college students. The vote gave the GOP a momentary election-year triumph on a bill that has become enmeshed in partisan battles over the economy, women’s issues and President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul.

The measure’s 215-195 passage was largely symbolic because the package is going nowhere in the Democratic-dominated Senate. Both parties agree students’ interest costs should not rise, but they are clashing along a familiar fault line over how to cover the $6 billion tab: Republicans want spending cuts and Democrats want higher revenues.(revenues=Taxes).

Democrats wrote a version of the bill, paid for by ending subsidies for oil and gas companies.

Big Oil is, after all, Evil Incarnate.

But this whole created mess is the centerpiece of the President’s strategy to gin up young, naive, stupid people to vote for him. It can’t be over this fast. He can’t have the Republicans being given credit for it. He has so much more fear and loathing to spread!

FEAR IS HOPE!

So they obstruct them, then blame them for not passing a bill that does it there way. After all, it’s their way or the highway!

And the Republicans keep “obstructing” them on that.

Damn them. 🙂

Democrats trained their fire on the Republican plan to pay for the bill by abolishing a preventive health fund created by Obama’s 2010 revamping of the health care system. Democrats said that program especially helped women by allocating money for cancer screening and other initiatives and that eliminating it was only the latest GOP blow against women _ a charge Republicans hotly contested.

“Give me a break,” roared House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, to rousing cheers from Republican lawmakers. “This is the latest plank in the so-called war on women, entirely created by my colleagues across the aisle for political gain.”

Democrats voted solidly earlier this year to take money from the preventive health fund to help keep doctors’ Medicare reimbursements from dropping. Obama’s own budget in February proposed cutting $4 billion from the same fund to pay for some of his priorities.

Since the early days of this year’s GOP presidential contest, Democrats have been accusing Republicans of targeting women by advocating curbs on contraceptives and other policies. Polls show women leaning heavily toward Obama and Democrats would like to stoke that margin.

In its veto message, the White House argued that “women in particular” would be helped by the prevention fund and added, “This is a politically motivated proposal and not the serious response that the problem facing America’s college students deserves.” (Townhall)

Never Let a Crisis Go to Waste! 🙂

2008: The Obama campaign spokesman, Bill Burton, accused the Clinton team of playing “the politics of fear” just like George W. Bush.

Burton, now the head of the Democratic super PAC, Priorities USA (one of the main backers of ObamaCare), said at the time: “When Senator Clinton voted with President Bush to authorize the war in Iraq, she made a tragically bad decision that diverted our military from the terrorists who attacked us, and allowed Osama bin Laden to escape and regenerate his terrorist network. It’s ironic that she would borrow the President’s tactics in her own campaign and invoke bin Laden to score political points. We already have a President who plays the politics of fear, and we don’t need another.

Now: We have Throwing Grandma off a cliff, race-baiting, racial division, and so much more.

FEAR IS HOPE

In a new web video titled “One Chance,” the Obama team features former President Bill Clinton praising Obama for deciding to launch the strike last year. “What path would Mitt Romney have taken?” the clip asks.

Mind you, like the “silver spoon” comments it’s all implied. He wants to led your horse to his kool-aid so you’ll drink it.

While I am not the biggest fan of Romney, I am totally against Obama and these kind of tactics are just the opening salvo in an all-out Nuclear Armageddon that the Democrats and their Liberal Media Minions will launch.

After all, all that they have worked for for 90 years is at stake. ObamaCare is potentially still at stake depending on how it goes with the Supreme Court. And if goes against them then they have to double down to win so they can pass it again!

Don’t doubt that. It’s the Holy Grail of Liberalism. They won’t give up quite so easily. All they have to do is win again, replace at least 1 conservative Justice on the Supreme Court and they are off to the Totalitarian races!

So expect nothing less than total and absolute Nuclear Annihilation.

So you pander to base fears. You pander to Hispanics big time (gotta have that Illegal alien Vote – sorry the Liberal want to ban that phrase to because it’s “inhumane” – perfect crimethink). You get the stupid and the naive to vote for you. You get as many independents as possible to stay home and not vote for anyone as you can so you can get your base+the stupid+ the naive to overwhelm the rational.

Vote for me, The Other Guy’s an Asshole!!!

And it starts with the ludicrous notion that a President presented with info to kill or capture the #1 enemy of the country would pass on it.

I think the only reason Obama went for it is because if it leaked out that he didn’t that it would be bad politiks. After all President Clinton passed on Bin Laden several times in the 1990s (but that didn’t hurt him because the liberal media covered it up and they could have for Obama but the internet is much more pervasive now than than it was and it would have leaked out somehow).

“Thanks to President Obama, bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive. You have to ask yourself, if Gov. Romney had been president, could he have used the same slogan — in reverse?” Biden said

Yeah, and The UAW thanks you Mr. Vice President. After all, that was what it was all about in the first place– Unions. The Stimulus was also about Unions.
If you aren’t in a Union (which the vast majority of people aren’t) then you don’t have compulsory “donations” to the Democrat Party as part of your salary and that has to change.
Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul said Friday. “It’s now sad to see the Obama campaign seek to use an event that unified our country to once again divide us, in order to try to distract voters’ attention from the failures of his administration.”

But don’t worry, the fear campaign has only begun to ratchet up and the swagger of “I got him and you didn’t” is only just beginning.
Before it’s over the Mayans will be right.

WSJ: Try this thought experiment: You decide to donate money to Mitt Romney. You want change in the Oval Office, so you engage in your democratic right to send a check.

Several days later, President Barack Obama, the most powerful man on the planet, singles you out by name. His campaign brands you a Romney donor, shames you for “betting against America,” and accuses you of having a “less-than-reputable” record. The message from the man who controls the Justice Department (which can indict you), the SEC (which can fine you), and the IRS (which can audit you), is clear: You made a mistake donating that money.

Richard Nixon’s “enemies list” appalled the country for the simple reason that presidents hold a unique trust. Unlike senators or congressmen, presidents alone represent all Americans. Their powers—to jail, to fine, to bankrupt—are also so vast as to require restraint. Any president who targets a private citizen for his politics is de facto engaged in government intimidation and threats. This is why presidents since Nixon have carefully avoided the practice.

Save Mr. Obama, who acknowledges no rules. This past week, one of his campaign websites posted an item entitled “Behind the curtain: A brief history of Romney’s donors.” In the post, the Obama campaign named and shamed eight private citizens who had donated to his opponent. Describing the givers as all having “less-than-reputable records,” the post went on to make the extraordinary accusations that “quite a few” have also been “on the wrong side of the law” and profiting at “the expense of so many Americans.”

These are people like Paul Schorr and Sam and Jeffrey Fox, investors who the site outed for the crime of having “outsourced” jobs. T. Martin Fiorentino is scored for his work for a firm that forecloses on homes. Louis Bacon (a hedge-fund manager), Kent Burton (a “lobbyist”) and Thomas O’Malley (an energy CEO) stand accused of profiting from oil. Frank VanderSloot, the CEO of a home-products firm, is slimed as a “bitter foe of the gay rights movement.”

These are wealthy individuals, to be sure, but private citizens nonetheless. Not one holds elected office. Not one is a criminal. Not one has the barest fraction of the position or the power of the U.S. leader who is publicly assaulting them.

“We don’t tolerate presidents or people of high power to do these things,” says Theodore Olson, the former U.S. solicitor general. “When you have the power of the presidency—the power of the IRS, the INS, the Justice Department, the DEA, the SEC—what you have effectively done is put these guys’ names up on ‘Wanted’ posters in government offices.” Mr. Olson knows these tactics, having demanded that the 44th president cease publicly targeting Charles and David Koch of Koch Industries, which he represents. He’s been ignored.

The real crime of the men, as the website tacitly acknowledges, is that they have given money to Mr. Romney. This fundraiser of a president has shown an acute appreciation for the power of money to win elections, and a cutthroat approach to intimidating those who might give to his opponents.

He’s targeted insurers, oil firms and Wall Street—letting it be known that those who oppose his policies might face political or legislative retribution. He lectured the Supreme Court for giving companies more free speech and (falsely) accused the Chamber of Commerce of using foreign money to bankroll U.S. elections. The White House even ginned up an executive order (yet to be released) to require companies to list political donations as a condition of bidding for government contracts. Companies could bid but lose out for donating to Republicans. Or they could quit donating to the GOP—Mr. Obama’s real aim.

The White House has couched its attacks in the language of “disclosure” and the argument that corporations should not have the same speech rights as individuals. But now, says Rory Cooper of the Heritage Foundation, “he’s doing the same at the individual level, for anyone who opposes his policies.” Any giver, at any level, risks reprisal from the president of the United States.

It’s getting worse because the money game is not going as Team Obama wants. Super PACs are helping the GOP to level the playing field against Democratic super-spenders. Prominent financial players are backing Mr. Romney. The White House’s new strategy is thus to delegitimize Mr. Romney (by attacking his donors) as it seeks to frighten others out of giving.

The Obama campaign has justified any action on the grounds that it has a right to “hold the eventual Republican nominee accountable,” but this is a dodge. Politics is rough, but a president has obligations that transcend those of a candidate. He swore an oath to protect and defend a Constitution that gives every American the right to partake in democracy, free of fear of government intimidation or disfavored treatment. If Mr. Obama isn’t going to act like a president, he bolsters the argument that he doesn’t deserve to be one.

If I can’t get you to vote for me, I can at least try to get you to not vote at all.

But if you vote for the wrong team, expect to feel my wrath if I’m re-elected for I am vengeful God!

We already have a President who plays the politics of fear, that’s why we need to get rid of him.

And the only way is to wade through an all out Nuclear Armageddon of Liberal attacks and vote him out.

Be a Proud Enemy of This State.

And prove the Mayans wrong. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

 Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

The Real Story

To make this easier I have removed the Trillions (now dollars) and the like to simplify it.

You take in $2.00

You spend $3.60

So now when people are screaming at you to cut spending you say “ok I’ll  promise that my ‘super committee’ will cut .15 cents a year (That’s a $1.50 over TEN years) if you let me spend another $1 NOW on top of what I am ALREADY spending.

I will gladly pay you .15 cents on Thursday if you loan me a dollar now.

Oh, you don’t want to?

Well, rich Uncle Warren can afford it. He has more than he needs so let’s force him to give it to me.

And that will solve everything.

It’s only “fair” He has more than me, or you, after all.

And what are you going to do with that dollar, young man, you might ask? Pay down your debts?

No. I’m going to spend it on my union buddies,entitlements, and government jobs so they can kick it back to me for my campaign just like I have done before.

So how is that going to create more jobs?

It will create government jobs (government jobs are paid for by whom exactly? — taxpayers! and unions make up how much of the actual workforce- 18%!!).

The Top 2% spend 1/3 of all the consumer cash in this country. They also pay the most taxes.

The Top 1% pay nearly 40% of all the income taxes.

47% of all American pay no income taxes AT ALL.

But the rich  are the greedy bastards who have to be taken down by the Bolsheviks.

Hate them!

Mind you they create most of the actual jobs.

But they are evil, hoarding little bastards and we must take their money.

Not cut spending or pay down the debt. We need to give out more freebies to my apparatchiks and monetary drug dealers.

The number of households receiving food stamps swelled by 2 million to 13.6 million, meaning that nearly 1 in 8 receives the government aid.

But food stamps are an economic stimulus according to Obama Administration officials. So it’s all good.

In record-setting numbers, young adults struggling to find work are shunning long-distance moves to live with Mom and Dad, delaying marriage and buying fewer homes, often raising kids out of wedlock. They suffer from the highest unemployment since World War II and risk living in poverty more than others – nearly 1 in 5.

“We have a monster jobs problem, and young people are the biggest losers,” said Andrew Sum, an economist and director of the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University. He noted that for recent college grads now getting by with waitressing, bartending and odd jobs, they will have to compete with new graduates for entry-level career positions when the job market eventually does improve.

“Their really high levels of underemployment and unemployment will haunt young people for at least another decade,” Andrew Sum, an economist and director of the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University said.

In all, the employment-to-population ratio for all age groups from 2007-2010 dropped faster than for any similar period since the government began tracking the data in 1948. In the past year, 43 of the 50 largest U.S. metropolitan areas continued to post declines in employment, led by Charlotte, N.C., Jacksonville, Fla., Las Vegas, Phoenix, Los Angeles and Detroit, all cities experiencing a severe housing bust, budget deficits or meltdowns in industries such as banking or manufacturing.

Without work, young adults aren’t starting careers and lives in new cities, instead hanging out with their parents.

“Many young adults are essentially postponing adulthood and all of the family responsibilities and extra costs that go along with it,” said Mark Mather, an associate vice president at the private Population Reference Bureau. He described a shift toward a new U.S. norm – commonly seen in Europe – in which more people wait until their 30s to leave the parental nest. (AP)

And it’s “the rich”‘s fault don’t you know!. And Republicans “protect” the rich so vote for me (the Democrat) because the other guy’s an asshole!

If we just SPEND EVEN MORE and have even more government largess everything will eventually work out.

If you bang your head against the wall hard enough YOU WILL BREAK THE WALL!

The Wimpy President : Wimpy is soft-spoken, very intelligent, and well educated, but also cowardly, very lazy, overly parsimonious and utterly gluttonous. He is also something of a scam artist and, especially in the newspaper strip, can be notoriously underhanded at times.

“I’ll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today”

I’ll gladly cut $1.5 Trillion OVER TEN YEARS (most of which I won’t be the President for) if I can spend yet another Trillion Now!

And if you don’t let me “pass the bill now” you’re just an obstructionist protecting greedy rich people, and a violent tea-bagger racist! 🙂

New campaign ad for Obama in Spanish only, “In the face of Republicans, the President can’t do it alone. Read the plan. Stand together for more jobs.”

Welcome to Obamanomics. The Land of Opportunists and Apparatchiks!

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

As the U.S. government grapples to find ways to trim the bloated federal deficit, a new report suggests officials might start with cutting out $16 muffins and $10 cookies.

“We found the Department (of Justice) spent $16 on each of the 250 muffins served at an August 2009 legal conference in Washington,” said a DOJ Office of Inspector General report released on Tuesday.

The DOJ spent $121 million on conferences in fiscal 2008 and 2009, which exceeded its own spending limits and appeared to be extravagant and wasteful, according to the report that examined 10 conferences held during that period.

The review turned up the expensive muffins, which came from the Capital Hilton Hotel just blocks from the White House, as well as cookies and brownies that cost almost $10 each.

The department spent $32 per person on snacks of Cracker Jack, popcorn, and candy bars and coffee that cost $8.24 per cup at another conference, the report said.

The DOJ also spent nearly $600,000 for event planning services for five conferences, the document said.

A Justice Department spokeswoman said most of the gathering were held when there were no strict limits on food and beverage costs, adding the DOJ had taken steps since 2009 “to ensure that these problems do not occur again.”

Word of the agency’s extravagant spending drew a swift response from Capitol Hill.

Senator Chuck Grassley, the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee which has oversight of the Justice Department, said the report was a blueprint for the first cuts that should be made by the “super committee” searching for at least $1.2 trillion in savings.

“Sixteen dollar muffins and $600,000 for event planning services are what make Americans cynical about government and why they are demanding change,” Grassley said in a statement. “People are outraged, and rightly so.” (yahoo)

Let them Eat Cake!  or in this case Muffins! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

Political Cartoons by Henry PaynePolitical Cartoons by Eric AlliePolitical Cartoons by Steve BreenPolitical Cartoons by Henry Payne
Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

How to Cook your own Goose

First off, it does seem a bit silly for me to write me blog today after what happened in Japan.

That is a true human tragedy. And it is still unfolding.

(But no this is not about Charlie Sheen either!!)

But I can’t wait for the whacko environmentalist to start exploiting it for their own agenda.

Much like the NFL.

I was talking to a friend last weekend about why sports means basically nothing to me. I used to be a big sports fan, in my youth.

I happily attended every Michigan home football game for 12 years until I went off to college (just not there).

I went to the Tiger games. Even a few Lions games.

My last hurrah seems to have been the 1980 Olympics, the “Miracle on Ice”.

Shortly after that it was all Unions, strikes and a total greed fest.

And that’s the way I regard sports today.

A bunch of Millionaires arguing about how you split up the Millions and who get how many.

It’s the sort of thing Liberals think goes on in general society on the right.

According to a USAToday article for the 2009-2010 Season the lowest team median income was $500,000 for the Kansas City Chiefs. (They were 4-12 that year).

Jeff Pash, the league’s lead negotiator, said owners had offered to keep player pay at 2009 levels and raise it by $20 million per club over the next four years. The NFL season would remain at 16 games for the next two years, but then could expand to 18 games. Off season and pre-season workouts would be cut. Retirement and health care benefits would improve and contracts could be guaranteed beyond one year.

Jim Quinn, a lead negotiator for the union, said the owners’ proposal would have rolled back player pay to 2007 levels and amounted to a giveback of up to $8 billion over the course of the proposed 10-year deal. In addition, he said a flat salary cap would be imposed at $130 million, as the league would move away from basing player compensation on the percentage of revenues. (WSJ).

Now interestingly the Player’s Union is likely to de-unionize themselves, voluntarily giving up their holy right to collective bargaining.

Why?

So they can sue the owners pants off and run away with even more Millions! They Hope.

And the Owners would rather run off with the millions themselves.

GREED. Pure unadultered GREED.

But you won’t see the Left going all Wisconsin on The Green Bay Packers.

But I hope the fans do.

Maybe they’ll learn the lesson I apparently learned long before I was ever even political, Unions suck!

Because, you know if the players win in court and run off with the cash, they will reform their Union so they can screw the Owners the next time too.

This is what Unions do.

And that’s why I loathe them.

It’s all about the power and the money.

It’s exactly what the Left thinks the Right does on a daily basis.

The question is, will the players hang together in “solidarity” and will Jesse Jackson show up at Lambeau Field to support the “oppressed” Millionaire players. 🙂

Maybe the SEIU can rush NFL headquarters and set up squatters and chant “Hell no! We won’t go!!”

I bleed green in “solidarity” for them. 😦

But the Left and their insatiable need for cash and class warfare to pay for it never learn.

Ignoring the truism that when you tax something you get less of it, Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn on Thursday signed legislation making the Land of Lincoln the latest state to enact what’s dubbed the Amazon Tax. It’s designed to collect state sales taxes from online companies if in-state businesses do business through websites such as Seattle-based Amazon.com.

Called the “Main Street Fairness Act”. Liberals so have an special talent for Orwellian language.

Illinois now joins Hawaii, North Carolina and Rhode Island in getting around this impediment by considering affiliates as the required nexus. Amazon’s in court with New York over a similar law.

According to the Tax Foundation, such taxes do not produce huge revenue streams. “Rhode Island,” it says, “has seen no additional sales tax revenue from its Amazon tax, and because Amazon reacted by discontinuing its affiliate program, Rhode Islanders are earning less income and paying less income tax.”

Illinois has about 9,000 such affiliates, and Rebecca Madigan, director of the Performance Marketing Association, an affiliate trade group, estimates the state will lose 25% to 30% of tax revenues collected from the affiliates themselves as they lose business, cut jobs or move out of Illinois.

“It’s not going to accomplish anything,” said Tom Storm, CEO of FatWallet.com, an Amazon affiliate based in Rockton, Ill. He said he plans to move his company and 54 employees out of the state at once.

CouponCabin.com, an Illinois company that offers printable and local coupons, announced it’s planning a move to neighboring Indiana.

“Many thriving businesses like CouponCabin and other affiliate marketing will be forced to move to other states,” it said. “And most important, this law will not generate the tax revenues Illinois thinks it will collect.”

Most new taxes don’t increase revenues or jobs. When you increase the cost of doing business, you get less business and fewer jobs.

But Liberals get that warm and fuzzy endorphin buzz from their Class Warfare.

And that after all, is what it’s all about, the endorphin high “sticking it to the man!” in “defense” of the “little guy”.

<<barf bag on standby>>

Last year, Texas sent Amazon a bill for $269 million in back sales taxes based simply on Amazon’s having a warehouse there. Last month, Amazon announced it was closing the warehouse, costing 110 tax-paying employees their jobs.

The way to increase tax revenues is to increase the tax base, not tax rates. Of course, one can also spend less, and Illinois is one of those states trapped with a huge budget shortfall and bloated and unfunded state pension liabilities.

As we’ve said, the way out of our federal and state fiscal mess is to spend less time worrying about the distribution of the golden eggs and more time worrying about the health of the goose — or our goose is cooked. (IBD)

Over cooked more like.

This is hilariously on point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbwMPzbzVJM

But it sure makes Liberals and Union thugs “feel good” and they get that endorphin buzz from striking against “the rich” in the name of “the middle class”.

Problem is, the rest of us get par boiled in the process.

P.s. NPR

That bastion of “fairness” and “objectivity”. That fired a Liberal, Juan Williams for daring to say Muslims on planes make him nervous.

“The current Republican Party, particularly the Tea Party, is fanatically involved in people’s personal lives and very fundamental Christian,” said NPR’s Ron Schiller to two undercover reporters. “I wouldn’t even call it Christian; it’s this weird evangelical kind of [movement].”

Not knowing he was being videoed, Schiller continued: “The current Republican Party is not really the Republican Party, it’s been hijacked by this group; that is, not just Islamo-phobic but really xenophobic. I mean, basically, they are, they believe in sort of white, middle-American, gun toting—I mean, it’s scary. They’re seriously racist, racist people.”

Schiller is being heavily criticized for these comments, as is NPR and elite liberal thinking in general. Schiller, NPR Foundation president and vice president for development (until these comments), is the Left’s latest exhibit in smearing the Tea Party movement as bigots, racists, fascists, Hitler-ites, followers of Attila the Hun, Torquemada, Genghis Khan, or whatever other handy demon.

Yet, what’s telling about Schiller’s comments is their lack of factual basis, an even greater sin from a man whose business, and erstwhile employer, is the reporting of facts. His comments are a PR problem for NPR, furthering the perception that NPR is not about unbiased reporting but primarily about opinion—a leftist opinion camouflaged as objective news.

Who was behind the set-up, why the ACORN stinger himself, James O’Keefe.

The NPR head was there to discuss a $5 million dollar donation from a Muslim group and instead got caught on Candid Camera.

And now the Left is whining about it. AGAIN.

ACORN, Planned Parenthood, now NPR.

The Public Sector Unions.

Whine, Whine, Whine.

But mind you, when Liberals manufacture “evidence” and trot it out and it’s exposed as fake they say sure it is, “but what was in it was true” as they said about the Dan Rather memo.

It’s all about the power and the money folks.

That’s all it ever is about.

But if Michael Moore is right, it’s all “our money” anyways. 🙂

Except HIS millions, that is….

‘Nuff Said.

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler