The federal government took in a record of approximately $765,645,000,000 in tax revenues in the first three months of fiscal 2016 (Oct. 1, 2015 through Dec. 31, 2015), according to the Monthly Treasury Statement released today.
That equaled approximately $5,107 for every person in the country who had either a full or a part-time job in December.
It is also an increase of about $24,288,810,000 in constant 2015 dollars from the $741,356,190,000 in revenue (in constant 2015 dollars) that the Treasury took in during the first three months of fiscal 2015. (Read more from “$765,645,000,000: Taxes Set Record Through December” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-01-14 00:19:422016-04-11 10:53:53$765,645,000,000: Taxes Set Record Through December
That harrowing advice is from The Royal Bank of Scotland, which has warned of a “cataclysmic year” ahead for markets and advised clients to head for the exit. Do not wait. Do not pass go.
“Sell everything except high quality bonds,” warned Andrew Roberts in a note this week.
He said the bank’s red flags for 2016 — falling oil, volatility in China, shrinking world trade, rising debt, weak corporate loans and deflation — had all been seen in just the first week of trading.
“We think investors should be afraid,” he said. (Read more from “Sell Everything! 2016 Will Be a Cataclysmic Year” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-01-13 23:23:402016-04-11 10:53:53Sell Everything! 2016 Will Be a Cataclysmic Year
By Sandy Fitzgerald. Republican front-runner Donald Trump slammed South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley for her veiled references during her response to the State of the Union.
Trump, in a telephone interview on Fox News’ “Fox & Friends” Wednesday criticized Haley as being “weak” on illegal immigration and said he’d likely look to someone stronger as a potential running mate, despite talk that the South Carolina governor might be a good pairing for him.
“She certainly has no trouble asking me for campaign contributions,” Trump said. “Over the years, she’s asked me for a hell of a lot of money in campaign contributions. So, it’s sort of interesting to hear her. Perhaps if I weren’t running she’d be in my office asking me for money. But now that I’m running she wants to take a weak side on immigration.” (Read more from “Trump Hits Back at Gov. Haley’s Slam on His Muslim Immigration Position” HERE)
_____________________________
Nikki Haley to Donald Trump: Turn Down the Volume
By Gregory Kreig. The Republican Party tapped South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley to deliver its response to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address [and] Haley took clear aim at the GOP front-runner, discussing her family’s immigrant experience while warning against rhetoric that would threaten “the dream that is America” for others:
“During anxious times, it can be tempting to follow the siren call of the angriest voices,” Haley said from the governor’s residence in Columbia. “We must resist that temptation. No one who is willing to work hard, abide by our laws, and love our traditions should ever feel unwelcome in this country.”
Haley never mentioned Trump by name, but the implication was clear. . . Speaking to reporters in South Carolina a day after Trump proposed the ban, Haley dismissed it as “unconstitutional” and “an embarrassment” to the GOP.
“It defies everything that this country was based on,” she said. “It’s just wrong.” (Read more from “Nikki Haley to Donald Trump: Turn Down the Volume” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-01-13 23:12:022016-04-11 10:53:53Trump Hits Back at Gov. Haley’s Slam on His Muslim Immigration Position
Despite the White House billing Tuesday night’s State of the Union address as President Obama’s last, conservative radio talk show host Glenn Beck has his doubts.
“Mark my words,” Beck said on The Glenn Beck Radio Program Tuesday morning. “Next year, he will deliver another State of the Union.”
In a tradition dating back to Ronald Reagan, outgoing presidents have deferred to the incoming Chief Executive to set the agenda for Congress, which is primarily what the address seeks to achieve . . .
“The last president to deliver an end-of-term State of the Union address was President Jimmy Carter on Jan. 16, 1981, days before President-elect Ronald Reagan was sworn into office,” TheBlaze reports. “However, it is important to note, Carter’s final address was not delivered verbally but sent to the U.S. Congress via a written report, which was the standard for all State of the Union addresses until President Woodrow Wilson in 1913.”
Beck believes that Obama will not be able to resist offering a final State of the Union before he leaves office, though it will likely be in writing like Carter’s. The talk show host argues the reason the date was moved up to January 12 this year, from its usual time window later in the month, is because Obama wants to deliver another in early January of next year, before he leaves office. (Read more from “Glenn Beck Just Made a HUGE Prediction About Obama’s ‘Final’ SOTU Speech – ‘Mark My Words…'” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-01-13 00:26:102016-04-11 10:53:54Glenn Beck Just Made a HUGE Prediction About Obama’s ‘Final’ SOTU Speech – ‘Mark My Words…’
President Obama, with an eye on cementing his legacy and countering the narrative on the Republican campaign trail, used his final State of the Union address Tuesday night to defend his economic record – and, in stark language, downplay the threat from the Islamic State.
“Over-the-top claims that this is World War III just play into their hands,” the president said, arguing that ISIS fighters “do not threaten our national existence.”
The remarks on ISIS are sure to rile Republican critics who say the president’s strategy for confronting the group is inadequate – particularly just hours after ISIS was blamed for another deadly attack, this time in Istanbul.
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, one of the leading candidates for the GOP presidential nomination, tweeted afterward that the address was “less a State of the Union and more a state of denial.”
The backdrop of the address undeniably was election-year politics, though Obama is not on the ballot. Throughout the speech, the president took several implicit jabs at the GOP candidates competing for his job, and in doing so sought to shore up his own legacy. (Read more from “Address of Defiance: Obama Downplays ISIS Threat, Defends Economic Record” HERE)
Nearly one in five Democrats — almost 20 percent — said they would switch sides and vote for Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump, according to a new poll.
And even though the poll shows 14 percent of Republicans say they would vote for Hillary Clinton, a much greater percentage of Democratic voters say they’re “100 percent sure” of going for Trump than their Republican counterparts.
U.S. News & World Report outlined the survey by Washington-based Mercury Analytics, which was partly an online questionnaire and partly a first-blush response to Trump’s first big campaign ad — and it was administered to 916 self-proclaimed “likely voters” mostly on Wednesday and Thursday with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percent. (Read more from “How Many Democrats Do You Suppose Would Switch Sides and Vote for Donald Trump? Poll Reveals the Numbers” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-01-12 02:00:092016-04-11 10:53:56How Many Democrats Do You Suppose Would Switch Sides and Vote for Donald Trump? Poll Reveals the Startling Numbers
By Ethan Epstein. When political candidates play Bruce Springsteen’s “Born in the U.S.A.” at their campaign rallies, you can usually assume they’ve never listened to the lyrics. But Donald Trump’s apparent decision to add the 1984 tune his warm-up music bespeaks a certain political savvy.
For one, Trump’s vision of America, like “Born in the U.S.A.”‘s, is a downcast one: an America that, as Trump has repeatedly said, “doesn’t win anymore.”
(Read more from “Trump Plays This Song at the Beginning of His Rallies Now… Is This a Blow to Cruz?” HERE)
__________________________
McCain: Cruz’s Eligibility Needs ‘to Be Looked At’
By Jordain Carney. Sen. John McCain on Monday defended his previous comments raising questions about Sen. Ted Cruz’s eligibility to run for president, saying it needs to be examined.
“I assume he’s eligible but all of these things need to be looked at,” the Arizona Republican told reporters, adding that the Texas Republican wouldn’t necessarily need to go to court but “could consult some respected constitutional scholars.”
McCain caught attention earlier this month after telling the Chris Merrill Show that he didn’t think it was “illegitimate to look into” Cruz’s eligibility. He then added that during a separate interview with the Michael Medved Show that he “would assume” Cruz, who was born in Canada, was eligible.
The Arizona Republican suggested on Monday that his previous comments had been blown out of proportion, telling reporters that “all I said was it ought to be looked at, and then all the sudden kaboom.”
McCain’s comments have earned him pushback from Cruz. The Texas Republican suggested that he’s trying to help Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who is also running for president and who Cruz predicted McCain will endorse. (Read more from “McCain: Cruz’s Eligibility Needs ‘to Be Looked At'” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-01-12 00:09:412016-04-11 10:53:56Trump Plays This Song at the Beginning of His Rallies Now… Is This a Blow to Cruz?
By Fox News. Fox Business Network on Monday announced the candidate lineup for the Jan. 14 Republican presidential debates – and already one candidate has said he will not participate after not qualifying for the prime-time event.
The participants qualifying for the prime-time, 9 p.m. ET debate are:
Billionaire businessman Donald Trump; Texas Sen. Ted Cruz; Florida Sen. Marco Rubio; retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson; New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie; former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush; and Ohio Gov. John Kasich.
The participants qualifying for the earlier, 6 p.m. ET debate are:
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul; former HP CEO Carly Fiorina; former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee; and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum. (Read more from “GOP Candidate Lineup Announced for Prime-Time Fox Business Network Debate – You’ll Never Guess Who’s Bumped out” HERE)
___________________________________
Paul, Fiorina Bumped From Next Prime-Time GOP Debate
By David Jackson. The Fox Business Network announced on Monday it was inviting only seven Republican candidates to its prime-time debate later this week, relegating Rand Paul and Carly Fiorina to a preliminary session.
The main debate in North Charleston, S.C., on Thursday night will feature businessman Donald Trump, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, former Florida governor Jeb Bush, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Ohio Gov. John Kasich.
Paul, a Kentucky senator who has been on the main stage in five previous debates, told CNN he will likely skip the 6 p.m. ET preliminary debate Thursday: “I won’t participate in anything that’s not first tier because we have a first-tier campaign.”
Paul and Fiorina were invited to the “undercard” debate along with former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee and former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum.
Earlier in the day, the Paul campaign said in a statement that he placed fifth in a recent Iowa poll and has finished ahead of Bush, Christie, Kasich and Fiorina in other surveys. (Read more from “Paul, Fiorina Bumped From Next Prime-Time GOP Debate” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-01-12 00:06:062016-04-11 10:53:56GOP Candidate Lineup Announced for Prime-Time Fox Business Network Debate – You’ll Never Guess Who’s Bumped out
Indiana may crack down soon on employers who hire illegal immigrants, under a new bill that would prohibit those convicted of doing so from practicing business in the state.
The legislation, announced in the Indiana General Assembly last week, would enable judges to revoke business licenses from employers who repeatedly and “knowingly” hire illegal immigrants.
State Sen. Mike Delph, R-Carmel, told IndyStar that he introduced the bill to strip financial incentives from employers “who profit off of illegal immigration.”
Jon Feere, a legal policy analyst at the Center for Immigration Studies, said the legislation imposes “high stakes” on employers. He said it likely would spur more businesses to use E-Verify—the government database that matches an employee’s I-9 form to federal records for confirm legal eligibility to work.
To that end, Feere told The Daily Signal, the bill effectively would discourage illegal hiring practices because employers who use the federal registration system would be immune from prosecution. He said:
Ultimately, that’s a good thing for employers who are law-abiding since they will no longer have to compete with unscrupulous businesses that get work and sales by undercutting wages. It’s also a good thing for legal workers and taxpayers, who will likely see illegal immigration deterred from Indiana.
Indiana law currently requires that state agencies and public contractors use E-Verify. Private employers only need to enroll if they would like to qualify for specific tax credits on state income taxes.
Although the bill could be effective in encouraging businesses to use E-Verify, Feere said, it may be more effective for state legislators to simply mandate that all employers use the system.
A study from the Pew Research Center found that Indiana’s population of illegal immigrants sharply dropped off in recent years, falling from 100,000 in 2009 to 85,000 in 2012.
At least three states—Alabama, Arizona, and Missouri—already have laws in place that strip business licenses from employers who hire illegal immigrants.
Kevin Brinegar, president of the Indiana Chamber of Commerce, said Delph’s legislation threatens economic development in the state and hinders the chamber’s efforts to spur job growth.
“We absolutely do not condone employers knowingly hiring undocumented workers, but sometime it’s hard to distinguish what’s knowingly and what’s unknowingly,” he told The Daily Signal. “The punishment just doesn’t fit the crime.”
Brinegar said because immigration is a federal issue, it should be dealt with at the federal level, not at the state level.
“It could certainly be argued that Congress has done an abysmal job dealing with that issue, but that doesn’t mean that states should start taking things into their own hands,” he said.
Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, said the constitutionality of revoking business licenses from employers who hire illegal immigrants was settled in 2011.
The Supreme Court ruled on an identical Arizona law when it took up Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, von Spakovsky told The Daily Signal. Noting the high court decided that federal law didn’t prevent states from imposing penalties on businesses that hire illegal immigrants, he said of the Indiana measure:
This is a great piece of legislation that can be a very effective tool in preventing employers from hiring illegal aliens, particularly in the face of the unwillingness of the Obama administration to enforce federal prohibitions on such hiring.
(For more from the author of “Indiana Ponders Revoking Business Licenses From Employers Who Hire Illegal Aliens” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-01-12 00:03:402016-04-11 10:53:56Indiana Ponders Revoking Business Licenses From Employers Who Hire Illegal Aliens
The Supreme Court sounded ready Monday to deal a severe blow to public employee unions by striking down laws that require all workers to help pay for collective bargaining.
In its tone and questioning, the argument resembled more of a congressional hearing at which Republicans took one position, Democrats argued the opposite, and there appeared little chance to sway either side.
The court’s five Republican appointees strongly suggested they believe it is unconstitutional to force an objecting teacher from Orange County and millions like her to pay for union activities they do not support. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy described the mandatory fees as “coerced speech” that violates the 1st Amendment.
Under a 1977 Supreme Court ruling that may now be reversed, public employees can be required to pay a “fair share” fee to reflect the benefits all workers receive from collective bargaining. But at the same time, employees who object cannot be forced to pay for a union’s political activities.
In California, for example, that means teachers are required to pay $650 a year for collective bargaining, but not the roughly $350 more that goes toward the union’s political spending and lobbying. (Read more from “Supreme Court Appears Skeptical of Union Fees — a Potentially Major Loss for Labor Groups” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-01-11 23:56:452016-04-11 10:53:57Supreme Court Appears Skeptical of Union Fees — a Potentially Major Loss for Labor Groups
