Friday Noon ~ TheFrontPageCover

~ Featuring ~
Universal Basic Income: 
The Nanny State on Steroids 
by Arnold Ahlert
SO WOKE! Illegal Immigrants Will Be Voting In Local
San Francisco Elections This Fall. What Could Go Wrong?
AsrrNClefOja6LExvzcFAyCofau56QPqBHI_Dp61KviJ2LPzFLmgDN4kvD6jxcWoC3VILyE4_QIVqpR-CGHVaGuriJOu0YyINTSPng9rQKH5_gL6iQiyI0jAWgj8U1XokvfOgi6m9gKI1vUyvUovNqa8_C4Y3K8l_dEJlRAHVRORdpXY6NBY8As=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?width=450by Harmeet K. Dhillon
{ } ~ San Francisco, always a leader in the “woke” politics of the progressive left, is innovating in a big way at the ballot this fall... allowing non-citizens – including illegal aliens – to vote in school board elections. Why are noncitizens — legal and illegal — being invited to vote in the first place, in school board elections or, as in some other jurisdictions, other municipal elections? The reason is clear: Liberal politicians, devoid of ideas and with dwindling support among Americans, see a promising voter pool in foreign nationals who might be future citizens, and have decided to cut out the waiting time and just let people vote whether they meet established criteria or not. In San Francisco, Proposition N passed by a bare majority in 2016 after two prior, failed attempts at allowing non-citizens to vote in school board elections if they had school age children through the age of 18. Note: Parents don’t have to certify that their child is actually in the school system; they could be MS-13 gang members for all the city cares. San Francisco politicians are trying to play this alarming development off as no big deal, “just” a school board election because after all, some of these children are born here and are citizens themselves some, of course, are not and why shouldn’t the parents have a say? — so the argument goes. But make no mistake – if Americans stand by and allow foreign citizens to control our schools, the next step will be foreign citizens voting for Mayor, District Attorney, Sheriff, Board of Supervisors, judges, and more — after all, they live here — why shouldn’t they have a say in local government? Note as well how carefully San Francisco politicians avoid making any distinction between legal and illegal immigrants – for such distinctions contradict the open-borders extremism of the left...This ruling goes against our constitution, where is Session on this.
Anti-Defamation League Criticized for Entering
Partisan Kavanaugh Confirmation Fight 
ITOf9jBLUllztcdgo_SQz3tfttBAxn0fYp1FU81h1ke02ntrh2H_QQmyo5DAG29BP1yCQfvkZMiY9rx-kZnSsq0uhenusKccJJR1DhdDC7DnErcwfg=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?width=450by Brent Scher
{ } ~ The Anti-Defamation League was criticized in the pages of Tuesday's Wall Street Journal for stepping away from its mission of fighting anti-Semitism to focus on partisan issues... such as fighting the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Liel Leibovitz, a senior writer at Tablet Magazine, put the blame on ADL's CEO Jonathan Greenblatt, a former staffer in both the liar-Clinton and liar-nObama administrations, who Leibovitz says has "has frequently steered the ADL into the murkLeiy waters of party politics" since he took the helm in 2015. He points to the ADL's recent complaint that Kavanaugh has "demonstrated hostility to reproductive freedom" as proof it "lost sight of its mission." "With nearly 2,000 hate crimes against Jews last year, the most in more than two decades, the group could—sadly—still have its hands full with the challenges of its original mission," Leibovitz wrote in his piece, "Is Brett Kavanaugh Bad for the Jews?" "Which is why it was so dismaying to see the ADL release a statement denouncing Judge Brett Kavanaugh minutes after President Trump announced his nomination to the Supreme Court," he wrote. "Why would a group dedicated to fighting anti-Semitism engage in this sort of partisan warfare?"...ADL and Leibovitz you are both wrong about Kavanaugh.
Facebook's $100 billion-plus rout
is the biggest loss in stock market history
EJko54ROCKLsCrLNvbf4h_4ZEo64Keu_8Bmy9s5wK5yJWOFP3XNbwPI0ZJL1iMmo3XdLSrQq0oYtzvngXPCjCakyPJGqk6CUPudgantFvpDiymir6mUbBS-vJjIkASZ0x2y5-GOyuF-Hus8sehbOUHLt=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?width=300by Fred Imbert & Gina Francolla } ~ Facebook on Thursday posted the largest one-day loss in market value by any company in U.S. stock market history... after releasing a disastrous quarterly report. The social media giant's market capitalization plummeted by $119 billion to $510 billion as its stock price plummeted by 19 percent. At Wednesday's close, Facebook's market cap had totaled nearly $630 billion, according to FactSet. No company in the history of the U.S. stock market has ever lost $100 billion in market value in just one day, but two came close...
Newt Gingrich Tells Tucker Why Republicans Refuse To
Stop dummycrats-Dems On Immigration — ‘They Lose Their Nerve’
miscyAK4UWoUzbearCrNmVWaIjXoug_yi6Pi3CTfU_cbjIHh_c4AyaoWtCL57yAwMqfCDOkf6i0nC3swwroJfoRRoV0jApIyiezyQKv-KYJ8AGuQIKmCg9IayEB_Gj-iDkbE5SuKMDNWo-dkfE2_LhrCLF-qHQVhcQ6Cv4-0cBj7LSKBcaS1zFh7qMAxgkkBtzPM9KZt18Sa-dKr5aQIpuq1ufruT34BumuC9_TfuoJjC-eDN9EVMEk=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?width=450by Scott Morefield
{ } ~ Newt Gingrich on Thursday criticized Republican politicians who “lose their nerve”... when it comes to taking a strong stand on immigration. Speaking to Fox News host Tucker Carlson directly after an opening segment during which the Fox News host brought up Democratic efforts to “pack the electorate” by filling it with dummycrats-Democratic-leaning immigrants, Gingrich noted that dummycrats-Democrats would have a “harder time winning an election with law-abiding Americans.” “The more people they can bring in who don’t know American history and don’t understand the Constitution and are not part of our traditional values, the better off their chances are,” said the former House speaker. “I think that’s why every single dummycrats-Democratic senator co-sponsored Senator Fein-stein’s open border bill which would literally have opened the border to virtually everybody in the world to come to America.”...
VIDEO at the site.
scumbag-Cory Booker’s Split Personality 
JN0GmosbDIHmXw8VqREFcuFLb-C1xRUTUEGc_8WDiS5za2SIVZMsJaHdfqVQEeokTohHknKoBy9Sx14po5x08oRVGZIR2D2QoafRii3zcXma7Gt--ldFilEoCU_zdYox3Dj__-glDdVYyF21ksP14LD_so-31QLsRdSIb_4=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?width=300by David Rutz
{ } ~ Sen. scumbag-Cory Booker (D., N.J.) seems like a torn man... On one hand, he speaks eloquently about loving his fellow America, putting aside partisanship and embracing our differences as strengths. On the other, he speaks darkly about the "evil" of things like supporting conservative Supreme Court justice nominees and opposing liar-nObamacare. scumbag- Booker goes from telling Jimmy Kimmel he seeks to "generate more love" to combat hate to saying those in support of Brett Kavanaugh are "complicit in the evil."... 


Universal Basic Income: The Nanny State on Steroids 
by Arnold Ahlert:  Nothing epitomizes the American Left’s intellectual dishonesty better than its use of the word “free” to accompany some government giveaway. Be it “free” college or “free” health care, there is nothing remotely free about the transfer of costs from one group of Americans to another.

             Additional dummycrats-Democrat/sponsored wealth transfers are on the horizon. In Chicago, Alderman Ameya Pawar has proposed legislation that would provide 1,000 families with a universal basic income (UBI) of $500 per month. “Nearly 70 percent of Americans don’t have $1,000 in the bank for an emergency,” Pawar declared. “UBI could be an incredible benefit for people who are working and are having a tough time making ends meet or putting food on the table at the end of the month.
               UBI is not a new concept. As columnist Nathan Heller  points out, magistrates from the English village of Speenhamland tried a version of it in 1795, spurred by a price rise in grain that was increasing poverty, even among the gainfully employed. By 1834, for a variety of reasons, “everyone agreed” the program had failed.
               In modern day America, the bogey man is automation. Citing companies like Tesla, Amazon, and Uber, Pawar posited that many jobs sustaining middle-class employment will become obsolete, and that more unemployed Americans will fuel political polarization. “We have to start talking about race and class and geography, but also start talking about the future of work as it relates to automation. All of this stuff is intertwined,” Pawar asserts.
               Pawar should also be talking about how a nearly bankrupt Illinois has the worst credit rating in the nation; itsdummycrats- Democrat/led legislature has failed to address retirement-system debt that has skyrocketed to nearly $11,000 for every man, woman, and child in the state; and that Moody’s Investors Service stripped Chicago’s bonds of their investment-grade status — prior to the UBI giveaway Pawar envisions.
               Regardless, Michael Munge, professor of political science, public policy, and economics at Duke University, also foresees chaos, insisting that “we stand on the verge of another wrenching economic revolution, where workers at all levels will once again feel desperately insecure.” He adds that it’s a revolution where “the poor and middle class have many tools to ‘negotiate’ redistribution at gunpoint.
               Tech titans are also on board. “We should explore ideas like universal basic income to make sure that everyone has a cushion to try new ideas,” stated Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. Tesla founder Elon Musk concurred, tweeting that “will be necessary over time if AI [artificial intelligence] takes over most human jobs.
               Proponents also point to existing UBI programs as evidence of its potential for success. In Alaska, a state buoyed by oil wealth, eligible residents receive up to $2,000 per year from the Permanent Fund Dividend, and 81% of the recipients say it improves the quality of their lives. Stockton, California, is on the verge of launching a $10 million UBI project backed by Silicon Valley moguls that will pay 100 low-income residents $500 per month in a city that declared bankruptcy in 2012. In Brazil, “Programa Bolsa Familia” has reduced extreme poverty in that nation from 9.7% to 4.3% of the population after 10 years. And a village in Kenya where residents receive$22 a month over 12 years, courtesy of the GiveDirectly charity, is ostensibly disproving the biggest myth about UBI — as in people will stop working and spend the money on vices like alcohol drugs and gambling. “Anecdotal evidence and nearly all empirical research has shown that unconditional cash transfers help people help themselves,” columnist Chris Weller noted in 2017.
               Not always. In April, the Finnish government decided to  discontinue a UBI program initiated in 2017 that gave a random sample of 2,000 unemployed people aged 25 to 58 approximately $650 per month with no strings attached. Why was it ended? Finland finance minister Petteri Orpo insisted the program made people “passive.”
               Bloomberg’s Leonid Bershidsky takes the onus off government sponsorship of UBIs and puts on the tech titans. Why? “Amazon didn’t pay any U.S. federal taxes last year, and it’s been good at minimizing tax payments in Europe, too,” he writes. And because tech companies are the entities working to eliminate routine jobs, there is “something to be said for getting tech billionaires … to put some of their assets into a fund that would finance large-scale UBI experiments in specific counties or even small states,” he adds.
               Yet Bershidsky reveals the ultimate futility of such experiments: a “UBI fund” of $33 trillion — with an annual return of 5.9% interest, no less — would be required if the government paid every American $500 per month.
               As of June 2017, the total net worth of all American households was $94.8 trillion. Moreover, the national debt is $21 trillion, due in large part to automatic spending generated by the nation’s already entrenched redistribution efforts known as Medicare and Social Security. Both programs are already  approaching insolvency, and their unfunded liabilities raise the genuine national debt to nearly $100 trillion.
               What about those disappearing jobs? “The U.S. labor market has kept pace with population growth, adding 80 million net jobs since computers started coming on the scene in the 1960s and more than 25 million since the Internet became mainstream in the 1990s,” columnist Oren Cass wrote in 2016. “Approximately 60 percent of the working-age population remains employed — slightly above the post-war average.”
               What about the idea that UBI is superior to the myriad of existing welfare programs that are badly managed and inefficiently dispersed? There is some merit to that assertion, but unless UBI would replace them, (a heavy political lift at best), it would be unsustainable. Yet there is a far more important consideration, as in whether making giveaways more convenient and stigma-free ultimately undermines dignity and self-sufficiency.
               It already has. “In the 1970s, the government ran four random control experiments across six states to try the negative income tax, a similar policy proposal [to UBI] that was popular at the time. In each test, the work disincentive effect was disastrous. For every $1,000 in added benefits to a family, there was an average reduction in $660 of wages from work,” columnist Mimi Teixeira reveals.
               In other words, people who got checks either worked far less or stopped working altogether.
               Our current moral climate (or lack thereof) suggests UBI would ultimately precipitate a future where working becomes no more or less “noble” than collecting a check. If there is a better disincentive for ambition, self-reliance, and risk-taking, one would be hard-pressed to imagine what it is. Americans skeptical of such a future would be wise to remember a past when most Americans exhausted every other possibility before taking government relief.
               Yet that relief has become a multi-generational “lifestyle choice” in many American households.
               Regardless, many Americans are enamored with having “a cushion to try new ideas.” The irony they would embrace the reality of a Nanny State-on-steroids serfdom for the illusion of freedom is apparently lost on them.
               Pawar hopes that once Chicago implements UBI, “we’ll be able to hopefully scale it.” No doubt they will — until they run out of other peoples’ money to spend.

~The Patriot Post

E-mail me when people leave their comments –

You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center