The Non-Percent: America's Working Class of "John Does";Updated

Our nation's political messaging has often been one of dichotomy--splitting America in half to pit us against each other. Both political parties are guilty of engaging in this kind of talk. Some Democrats in recent years have discussed America in context of the 1% (the wealthiest Americans) versus the 99% (the rest of us), essentially trying to capitalize on the pitting the nation's proverbial "haves" versus "have-nots". Meanwhile, some Republicans have seen things in the context of the 53% of Americans who pay federal income taxes versus the 47% of those who do not, in essence trying to dichotomize Americans as either productive or lazy. The truth is not every "one percenter" is greedy, nor is every ninety-nine percenter selfless. Not every fifty-three percenter has a strong work ethic, nor is every forty-seven percenter lazy.  In reality, the dichotomy (and the disconnect too) comes between the permanent political class and the American people--primarily the working class. The working class primarily would fall into the 99% or the 53%. These individuals are self-sufficient enough to not be dependent upon the government, but not wealthy enough to be of importance to most politicians seeking campaign donors.

Too often, the working class are political pawns for union bosses and Democrats and frequently only discussed in the context of the "small business owner" for the pro-business (but infrequently pro-market) Republicans. There are rare politicians, however, who recognize that the working class are not political pawns, nor are they a class of citizens the government needs to do something for. They are a class of citizens that the government needs to stop doing something to! Tony Lee and Stephen Bannon co-wrote a great piece at Breitbart yesterday highlighting Governor Palin's ability to connect to the working class and how the Senate immigration bill has been a slap in the face to the working class:

"Meanwhile, the upper middle classes in coastal cocoons enjoy the aristocratic privileges of having plenty of cheap household help, while having enough wealth not to worry about the social costs of illegal immigration in terms of higher taxes or the problems in public education, law enforcement, and entitlements," Hanson wrote. "No wonder our elites wink and nod at the supposed realities in the current immigration bill, while selling fantasies to the majority of skeptical Americans." 

Last Friday, a panelist on Fox News's Hannity's panel of black conservatives, which included Sirius XM Patriot's David Webb and Breitbart's Sonnie Johnson, emphasized that the Senate's immigration bill would have a "detrimental impact" on black Americans. 

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), one of the most critical opponents of the immigration bill, noted that the bill would hurt working class Hispanics in addition to all working class Americans and the "poorest among us." Sessions noted that according to the CBO report, the bill would have a devastating impact on wages of Americans looking for job security, and it would raise the unemployment rate while only solving 25% of the illegal immigration problem. He posited that between 30 million and 50 million workers will be added to the labor force in the next ten years, completely destroying the possibility of upward mobility of working class Americans of all backgrounds. Yet, Republican senators like Murkowski (R-AK), Rubio (R-FL), Ayotte (R-NH), McCain (R-AZ), and Graham (R-SC) voted for the final bill. "Why would any Member of Congress want to vote for a bill at a time of high unemployment, falling wages?" Sessions asked on CBS's Face the Nation on Sunday. 

[...] 

For Republicans to win back the majority and the presidency, they need to win the so-called Reagan Democrats and a new generation of working class minorities who will have to become Reagan Democrats 2.0. They need to win over the father who got laid off from his manufacturing job and has a child who did everything society said to do--go to college, get a degree, find a decent-paying job in the technology industry--and now may meet the same fate his father did when the labor market is flooded with an influx of cheap immigrant labor brought to do jobs Americans supposedly do not want to do. 

These Americans that the immigration bill most adversely impacts make up the backbone of this country and see in Washington a permanent political class who are against them and think they "can't cut it." They see in Palin, though, someone who fights for them because she simply "gets" it--and them.

Governor Palin linked the above mentioned piece on her Facebook page, commenting in part:

Once again, I’ll point out the obvious to you: it was the loss of working class voters in swing states that cost us the 2012 election, not the Hispanic vote. Legal immigrants respect the rule of law and can see how self-centered a politician must be to fill this amnesty bill with favors, earmarks, and crony capitalists’ pork, and call it good. You disrespect Hispanics with your assumption that they desire ignoring the rule of law. 

Folks like me are barely hanging on to our enlistment papers in any political party – and it’s precisely because flip-flopping political actions like amnesty force us to ask how much more bull from both the elephants in the Republican Party and the jackasses in the Democrat Party we have to swallow before these political machines totally abandon the average commonsense hardworking American. Now we turn to watch the House. If they bless this new “bi-partisan” hyper-partisan devastating plan for amnesty, we’ll know that both private political parties have finally turned their backs on us. It will then be time to show our parties’ hierarchies what we think of being members of either one of these out-of-touch, arrogant, and dysfunctional political machines.

The immigration bill does negatively impact the working class, but the political connected will benefit. Although he ultimately voted for the bill, Democratic Senator Leahy would boost corporate cronyism. Big GOP donors ultimately want "comprehensive immigration reform" to pass as well. What will the House GOP do? Will they cave to political pressure in order to receive the needed money for their next re-election--their own constituents be damned?

The immigration bill is not the only way that the working class is being passed over for the sake of the political connected class. Look no further than the next divisive issue de jour--climate change. Earlier this week, President Obama gave a speech touting his next "green" push. This push was gleefully described by an Obma adviser as a needed "war on coal". The war on coal has already started, however. In President Obama's home state of Illinois, in the blue collar town of Decatur, nearly 500 Caterpillar workers were laid off this past Spring. Caterpillar is the world's largest maker of mining equipment, and with decreased coal mining, less mining equipment needs to be manufactured. Meanwhile, President Obama is promising $8 billion more in green energy loan guarantees in his new climate change plan. Past is often prologue,and in  the 2009 stimulus package, 80% of Department of Energy loans went to companies with connections to Obama donors. It would surprise no one if this new round of loan guarantees again go to the political connected. Suffice it say, yet again, the working class gets a pink slip while the permanent political class get "green slips".

The working class are not simply a voting bloc, however. They are the backbone of our country and the essence of Americana's John Does. As so well voiced in "John Doe's" speech in Frank Capra's "Meet John Doe" (H/T to this great Rebecca Mansour piece from 2009):

We are the meek who are supposed to inherit the earth. You’ll find us everywhere. We raise the crops; we dig the mines, work the factories, keep the books, fly the planes and drive the buses. And when a cop yells: "Stand back there, you!" He means us, the John Does!

America's John and Jane Does are the hope of the earth. The permanent political class would do well to recognize them not as a group to be placate or to be pandered to, but instead as the very people who made America what it is today and who make it what it could be tomorrow, if the permanent political class does not transform America into something unrecognizable.

  Crossposted here and here.

 Updated: Please read this wonderful post by Gary Jackson with a great reference to "Meet John Doe".

The Obama Administration Declares War on Loretta Lynn's Father

Today, in a climate change speech President Obama declared war on Loretta Lynn's Father." Let me be clear", President Obama stated as he wiped away sweat from his brow while speaking in the seasonable late June temperature, "if we're going to reduce carbon emission, we're going to have redistribute jobs from those who mine dirty coal to those who put together clean, green solar panels. This means that folks who have followed in Mr. Webb's footsteps as coal miners are going to have to find some other line of work".

This news came as a shock to Cook County clerk Sissy Spacek. Spacek said, " Mr. Webb has been a consistent Democrat vote here in Cook County since the Kennedy administration. I don't understand why the President would tarnish the image of one of his most consistent voters".

However, Jay Carney, the President's press secretary said in a rare moment of actual candidness, "Look, The President doesn't want promote the violence of this family. I mean really, Butcher Holler? What kind of name for a town is that? As we've beefed up drone surveillance on Senator Paul's constituents following his filibuster, we've seen that town more frequently. Plus, Loretta Lynn writes songs like "Fist City". That kind of lyrical violence is unacceptable".

The Obama administration has asked Ashley Judd to take the lead on this latest war, although such an appointment would require approval of the Senate. Both Senators McConnell and Paul are fully prepared to filibuster this nomination.

Note: The above post is merely satire. Please only read it as such. Crossposted here.

Climate Change and the "Green" Light District

"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first." - President Ronald Reagan

Last week, Democratic Congresswoman Barbara Lee and others passed a resolution stating that climate change disproportionately affects women and may drive them to engage in "transactional sex" (i.e. prostitution). There is a nugget of truth in Lee's ridiculous resolution. Climate change itself may not drive women to prostitution, but the farce of climate change has driven some men (and probably some women as well) to essentially engage in political prostitution.

Yesterday, a Bloomberg article noted that Al Gore is now worth upwards of $200 million. Gore has derived his wealth from several avenues, but many of these are tied to his peddling of green Henny Penny nonsense. The Bloomberg article notes that Al Gore's film, "An Inconvenient Truth", led to speaker's fees of around $175,000 a pop. Additionally, as has been often noted, Gore's sale of Current TV to Al-Jazeera netted him $100 million by itself. Gore also has his hand in green investing, which has ultimately padded his own pocketbook. In 2004, Gore joined with former Goldman Sachs managing director David W. Blood to form Generation Investment Management (GIM), as Bloomberg notes (emphasis added):

By the time of the Capricorn investment, he was already starting to rake in cash from Generation Investment Management - - a fund that incorporates “sustainability” into its investment approach. Gore co-founded GIM in 2004 with former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Managing Director David W. Blood. 

Public filings show that in 2008 through 2011 London-based GIM racked up almost 140 million pounds ($218 million) in profits to be split among its 26 partners. Gore and Blood as founders are thought to have the largest equity stakes. 

Not of all of Gore's investments have been successful though. GIM later partnered with Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers on "green" investments. Kleiner Perkins backed Fisker, an electric car company, which received more than half a billion dollars in government loans in 2009 only to lay off about 75% of its staff last month. When Gore's "investments" have been unsuccessful, often its the American taxpayer--non-consenting investors--who lose.

The American people became non-consenting investment partners in billion of dollars of Department of Energy grants and loans from President Obama's 2009 stimulus package and other efforts over the last few years. Roughly 80% of those DOE loans went to companies tied to President Obama's donors. The Obama administration has invested hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars in biofuels for the US Navy. A biofuel company that received a more than a half a billion contract, Solazyme, has ties to former Obama adviser and donor, T.J. Glauthier. Solazyme's contract is equivalent to $16 a gallon for fuel, about four times as high as traditional fuels. Even as the Navy's budget is being cut by sequestration, they are continuing to make this expensive type of fuel a priority.

At best, climate change and its cause are unproven. Some cite a summer of higher temperatures as proof of climate change. Others say that man-created pollution may be the cause of a cooler spring. Even if anthropogenic climate change was true, the methods of mitigating its effects are unhelpful. Electric cars are often charged by coal powered electricity and are prone to catch on fire (more carbon emissions!). Biofuels, like wood and grain-based ethanol and algae based fuels, have proven to be inefficient in both their production and their consumption. All this "green" light district business does is fill the bank accounts of the politically connected at the expense of the American taxpayer...and proves President Reagan right once again.

Crossposted here and here.

The Convenience of Climate Change

The United States Senate is claiming that Cap and Trade / Climate Change legislation is being put on the back burner for the time being. However, a recent report from the State Department shows how American taxpayer dollars are being used to fund climate change initiatives on a global scale. The State Department released the Fifth Climate Action Report on April 7th that highlights "the actions the U.S. is taking to address climate change, contains updated projections on U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, and underscores the United States commitment to address climate change." Previous reports have been released in 1994, 1997, 2002, and 2007.St

The report details governmental funding to combat global climate change, including $1 billion from the Consolidation Appropriation Act for "climate related foreign assistance" and more than $400 million dollars managed by the World Bank and the United Nations for climate change in 2010 alone. The Obama administration has pledged nearly $1.5 billion as part of a multilateral agreement following the Copenhagen conference on climate change last winter. This agreement stated, "developed countries shall provide adequate, predictable and sustainable financial resources, technology and capacity-building to support the implementation of adaptation action in developing countries." Additionally, the Report highlights the Obama administration's goals of devoting $30 billion by 2012 and $100 billion by 2020 as a part of developed countries mitigation efforts.

The Fifth Climate Action Report indicates that multiple U.S. government agencies are involved in funding global climate change programs: U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Energy, the Department of State, the Department of Agriculture, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Department of Commerce, and the Millennium Challenge Corporation.

In the name of combating climate change, funds are being used to fund other types of projects. One such use is the creation of World Bank Climate Investment Funds, not only for climate change purposes, but also to "pilot new advances in governance." In 2009, the G8 committed $20 billion to combat food insecurity abroad in the name of "hunger-related emergencies" that may result because of climate change. Monies have also been earmarked for conference and forums to discuss how to combat climate change, including a 2010 Methane to Markets conference in India and a carbon sequestration forum. America has also formed energy research centers with both India and China. Additionally, the EPA is working on projects for "green" vehicles and energy efficient products in foreign countries. Among the projects receiving EPA funding include "auto rickshaws" in India and methods testing of greenhouse gas emissions in trucks in China.

Further actions highlighted by this report focus on loans and public-private partnerships, including a guarantee of $183 million in loans for US renewable and clean energy projects in foreign countries via the Export-Import bank. There are also public-private sector alliances between USAID and private companies, such as the tire company Firestone, to "combine their assets to address pressing development problems, achieving a solution that would not be possible for any individual partner alone."

In the name of increasingly discredited anthropogenic climate change, such action has been taken to re-distribute American taxpayer money to "pilot new advances on governance" and help finance foreign loans among other things. When such exorbitant funding is embraced, it gets away from the goal of reducing "climate change" and moves towards a goal of increasing foreign funding for programs, conferences, and initiatives, not actual environmental improvement. With man made "global warming" now essentially debunked, why is the federal government using billions of taxpayer dollars to fund such global initiatives? Could climate change simply be a convenient way to implement a worldwide re-distribution of monies?

Crossposted here.