Tuesday, September 26, 2017

Don's Tuesday Column

                   THE WAY I SEE IT   by Don Polson  Red Bluff Daily News   9/26/2014

    Trump rocks and socks shameful jocks

It is refreshing, even instructive, to have President Trump criticize and condemn, in his Alabama rally speech, the despicable trend of NFL players disrespecting America, our flag and anthem by “taking a knee” or sitting down when it is played before a game. See: “Get that son of a b***h off the field: Trump calls for BOYOTTS of NFL teams whose players refuse to stand for the National Anthem” (dailymail.co.uk). They should be fired, or at least sit the game out and lose pay. I quit watching the NFL long ago after finding it tedious and distracting to watch end-zone celebrating, intentional committing of penalties, and to listen to commentary from the broadcast booth on players’ “extracurricular,” controversial and often criminal activities.
From the first time the 49ers’ Colin Kaepernick began the troubling practice, I have been yearning for someone to call out the players for engaging in, and owners and coaches for tolerating, such anti-American and anti-law enforcement protests. The pretext for the pre-game protests—police abuse of black citizens and supposed endemic American racism by privileged white society—is founded on a pack of myths, lies and crackpot theories emanating from the left wing bastions of academia. America is more color-blind than ever in our history; M.L. King’s “content of character, not color of skin” standard is virtually universal. Blacks are less likely to be shot by police than whites (FBI stats), but bad actors of any race reap what their actions deserve.
Indeed, a Seattle Seahawks player, Michael Bennett, who sits or kneels during the anthem and raised a “black power” fist after a play, fabricated his own story of “police abuse” over being confronted by officers in Las Vegas during a reported armed robbery in a casino. Cameras and witnesses proved that police had cause to follow him out of the casino after finding him hiding behind a slot machine and running out the door, leaping over a barricade and into the street.  He was not singled out for his race; he acted suspiciously while police were politely evacuating other casino patrons, including other black men, out for their safety while searching for the gunman.
We now have a players’ group, including Bennett, demanding that the NFL devote an entire month to the phony issue of white racism and police brutality towards African-Americans. I take the same attitude as I and many others did when entertainers had to turn performances into (President George) Bush-bashing platforms: “Shut up and sing;” in this case, “Shut up, stand for the national anthem, and play.”
Honest polling will show most Americans don’t approve of the players’ anti-anthem protest; most people have respect for the accomplishments of those in any sport that eschew drug abuse, gangster activities, criminal violence and disrespect for our nation’s flag. Trump’s message is resonating with the vast swath of Americans that supported him last November. To his critics: If you want more Trump, that’s how you get it, meaning you will re-elect Trump in 2020.
Returning to exhaustive, almost exhausting, coverage of the issues and controversies of the political world, I find two topics to be so loaded with outrageous long-term implications and import that it won’t be possible to do them justice here today. First, there are the revelations over the “unmasking” of hundreds of Americans by several Obama officials—including (then-National Security Advisor) Susan Rice and Obama’s U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power. The other is the exposure by CNN and other outlets of “wire tapping” of (then-Trump campaign head) Paul Manafort, (NSA appointee) Michael Flynn, Carter Page and likely others.
The “unmasking” of Americans—meaning revealing names incidentally captured during legitimate electronic surveillance of foreigners using phones inside or outside our nation—is, absent a judicial warrant of authorization because of probable cause of criminality, illegal. It can and should result in the prosecution of the persons responsible—Rice, Powers and whoever ordered them—because it smacks of a horrendous abuse of the tools and power of the state from which Americans have inherent and constitutional rights to be protected at all times.
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich nailed it in an interview, saying that all Americans should be “frightened” over the Obama Administration’s staggering amount of “unmasking” requests and demand that Congress open up a federal investigation into the illegal practice. “We have never ever in American history had as many different scandalous behaviors by a President and his team as we are now learning from Barack Obama.
“When I look at what Samantha Power was doing, by itself that’s unbelievable. Why does the UN ambassador have to unmask anybody?...Ultimately, they’re going to have to ask President Obama: How did all of this occur and you didn’t know it?” asked Newt.
The titles alone reveal the essence of the “wiretapping” story: “It looks like Obama did spy on Trump, just as he apparently did to me,” by Sharyl Attkisson; “Why CNN told you Trump’s campaign was wiretapped,” by Don Surber; “Why Obama really spied on Trump; Obama had to spy on Trump to protect himself,” by Daniel Greenfield; and “Obama’s Watergate; Six months later, CNN confirms what was widely reported—and ignored on the left—last March,” by Daniel J. Flynn. Hannity: “Trump Totally Vindicated Over ‘Wiretapping.’”

The first 5 episodes of Ken Burns’ “The Vietnam War” aired last week; this week’s parts are summarized online. I had hoped that a fair telling of the war in Vietnam would necessarily give proper credit to the history documented in Lewis Sorley’s “A Better War; The unexamined victories and final tragedy of America’s last years in Vietnam.” Unfortunately, it treads the same ground as the bulk of retrospectives: the strategic and tactical mistakes, South Vietnam’s political and military shortcomings, the anti-war movement, the seeming futility of our efforts. Nothing about what went right. Sad but predictable.

Obama spreads untruths about the Graham-Cassidy health bill

Obama spreads untruths about the Graham-Cassidy health bill

by  Speaking at a Gates foundation event, former President Barack Obama targeted the Republican Senate healthcare bill. (AP Photo/Julio Cortez)

Former president Barack Obama is back in the news, offering a familiar dose of self-righteousness.
Speaking at a Gates foundation event on Wednesday, Obama targeted the Republican Senate bill, Graham-Cassidy. That bill would repeal and replace Obamacare, thus "aggravating" Obama.
As the community organizer turned $400,000-per-speech giver put it, "It may be frustrating that we have to mobilize every couple of months to keep our leaders from inflicting real human suffering on their constituents, but typically that's how progress is won." Obama also claimed that the bill will "Raise costs, reduce coverage and roll back protections for older Americans and people with pre-existing conditions."
This is vintage self-righteousness from the former commander in chief, he cannot see how Republican legislation might be better than his own. But it would be better.
First off, the Graham-Cassidy bill restores some semblance of fiscal sanity to Medicaid. That entitlement program exploded under the Obama administration, as the government shifted millions of Americans onto its rolls, but failed to address its grevious inefficiencies. By transferring federal Medicaid grants to state governors, and allowing them to use that money as they see fit, Graham-Cassidy will promote Medicaid innovation and reform. It will also help to address the growing debt crisis that threatens, as Obama might say, to inflict real human suffering.
But let's expand on that rightful concern of human suffering for a second.
After all, Obama's words proffer a great deal of arrogance in the context of what Obamacare already means for hundreds of millions of Americans. Obama's beneficent law has sent premiums soaring while reducing access to quality care. But it has had anespecially pernicious impact on young Americans by forcing them to unduly subsidize older Americans and buy coverage they don't want or need. Even though it is itself a lie, when Obama claims that Graham-Cassidy would "roll back protections for older Americans," he implicitly admits that young Americans have been pummeled by his landmark law.
Yet the most tedious of Obama's claims yesterday was his assertion that Graham-Cassidy will "raise costs." That assertion does not comport with any objective assessment of the legislation. The math just doesn't work. Consider that one of Graham-Cassidy's central elements is its provision of waivers that would allow states to provide spartan health plans with fewer benefits in return for lower premiums. If you want a more generous plan, you'll simply have to pay more. Regardless, by offering greater flexibility to insurers and consumers, Graham-Cassidy should reduce costs by rebalancing the individual mandate into a personalized supply and demand equation.
Obama might know all this, but as when he used falsehoods to promote Obamacare itself, he doesn't care. Unlike his predecessor, George W. Bush, the former president cannot handle his loss of power. And he cannot fathom that those still in government might be able to do things better.

Monday, September 25, 2017

Jimmy Kimmel: The Left in a Nutshell

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton talks with Jimmy Kimmel during a break in the taping of "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" Monday, Aug. 22, 2016. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
First, he cried. In May, Jimmy Kimmel came on his late night network show and spoke movingly about his newborn son's open heart surgery. He then used the genuinely touching emotional moment to attack President Trump's proposed budget cuts and to push Obamacare. A few nights ago, instead of delivering anything that looked anything like comedy, he doubled down by humorlessly hectoring Senate Republicans for their latest attempt to reform the collapsing O-Care system. The next day, Fox and Friends' Brian Kilmeade criticized Kimmel for the tirade:
"Sunday's politically charged Emmys may have been the lowest rated in history, but that's not stopping Hollywood elites like comedian Jimmy Kimmel from pushing their politics on the rest of the country."
Not exactly fighting words. In fact, sort of a typical slap against a man like Kimmel who makes ten million dollars a year presumably to be funny on the public's airwaves, but instead, like every other late night comedian, uses the network's time to insult and deride the over sixty million potential audience members who voted for Donald Trump. Sure, those voters might like to watch some comedy at the end of the day too, but sorry, Hollywood has sent them a message loud and clear: "We hate you; we despise you; we don't want you watching our movies, our comedy shows or our award shows; get stuffed." That a guy like Kilmeade on a channel like Fox might occasionally think to fight back might seem only fair to you.

But that's because you're not an overpaid, arrogant, entitled multi-millionaire like Kimmel. Kimmel responded to the criticism with a personal attack that ended with a threat of violence.
"The only reason he's not a member of the Hollywood elite is because no one will hire him to be one. And you know, the reason I'm talking about this is because my son had an open-heart surgery and is gonna have to have two more... I don't get anything out of this, Brian, you phony little creep. Oh, I'll pound you when I see you!"
I don't bring this up because Kimmel's important. I bring it up because Kimmel's behavior represents the left perfectly. To push a big government agenda — an agenda that weakens the freedoms enshrined in the Constitution — a document meant to limit government's size and power — they always begin with emotion. Oh, the poor uninsured! Oh, the poor women! Oh our poor Mother Earth, how she is dying!
And hey, I feel for people who are left out or left back or treated unfairly. I think most of us do. And I want the environment to be clean. But I can't help noticing that all this emotion masks some inconvenient truths. Like, say, the lives of black Americans were actually improving faster before the leftist programs of the Great Society went into effect. I notice women report being less happy now that feminism is in full swing. And I notice the climate isn't changing anywhere near as fast as the hysterics tell me it is. So, in the name of freedom, I resist the government programs that have made life worse. I resist having power-mad incompetents run my health care or dictate my personal life or my hiring policies. I resist having them lay their heavy hands on our energy production.
And that's when the hectoring starts. Kimmel Step Number Two. You're racist. You're sexist. You're a climate denier. And when that doesn't work? Step Three. Violence and violent rhetoric in response to speech.
Because of leftist communicators like Kimmel — like much of Hollywood and the news media too — some 51 percent of college students now think it's fine to shout down those you disagree with. A whopping 19 percent think violence is a moral response to speech. And more than 40 percent believe the First Amendment doesn't protect speech they deem hateful.
Kimmel doesn't matter. He's just another half-smart big mouth Hollywood multi-millionaire. But they're all Kimmel, all the left. They're all doing the Kimmel Three-Step: 1. Emotion. 2. Hectoring. 3. Violence. Trying to get you to give them and their government your money and your freedom.
Well, screw em.

WashPost Objects to Spicer Saying Media's 'Largely a Liberal Group' Going Soft on Dems

WashPost Objects to Spicer Saying Media's 'Largely a Liberal Group' Going Soft on Dems

Former Trump press secretary Sean Spicer granted an interview to Washington Post media blogger Erik Wemple, which naturally focused on Wemple’s loathing of Team Trump’s media-bashing – which usually ignores Team Media’s relentless Trump-bashing.
Wemple began with how Spicer's apparently too radioactive for a cable-news pundit gig, as Obama's spokesmen Jay Carney and Josh Earnest (not to mention "bimbo-erupting" Clinton aide George Stephanopoulos) did immediately: "Spicer spent months berating White House correspondents, sticking up for a president who’d called certain media outlets 'the enemy of the American people' and spreading misinformation with very little contrition. Any major network that hired Spicer as a contributor may well have faced a revolt among its White House correspondents, as well as other journalists outraged by the press secretary’s conduct."
But that doesn't mean the media's liberal.....no! It isn't spun the other way: "Jim Acosta has credibility issues after he spent months berating the president as 'eroding our freedoms' and causing the violence in Charlottesvillle...." Spicer lamented the "one-way street" on which the media somehow are never "spreading misinformation with very little contrition." 
Spicer doesn’t have many regrets over the media-bashing that occurred during his tenure as press secretary. It’s an “unbelievably one-way street that these guys can go out there and be wrong” about various issues and proceed to the next story with “zero consequences.” As an example, he argues that the “same press corps” that slams the Trump administration for every little thing allowed then-White House press secretary Jay Carney and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to talk about how Benghazi was “caused by a video.”
Like those folks, says Spicer, the media is “largely a liberal group of people willing to overlook” the missteps of a Democratic administration. Okay, but then why would the media go overboard on a story about how emails showed that the White House was orchestrating Benghazi talking points?
What? Wemple linked to a 2013 Huffington Post story where ABC’s Jonathan Karl apologized for overstating something out of the e-mails of top Obama national-security aide Ben Rhodes -- the guy who boasted how he could bend the media to his will like a ventriloquist. He didn't mention Obama skipping reporter questions in the Rose Garden and flying off to Las Vegas for a fundraiser (as a complicit media yawned). He didn't mention Susan Rice lying about the attack being caused by a YouTube video on five Sunday interview shows.
What did the media do in 2012, before the election, when the Benghazi terrorist attack could cause real peril to Obama? As Spicer suggested, they rolled with the Obama talking points about it being caused by a video....until the facts made that impossible. Speaking of softballs, 60 Minutes (and the CBS Evening News)aired an interview clip letting Obama sneer that "Romney seems to have a tendency to shoot first and aim later" on Benghazi when the story was hot in September, and then on the last weekend before the election, posted on their website some video where Obama refused to call it a terrorist attack, because "I don't want to jump the gun on this." Imagine if they'd aired that right after it was taped. The Candy Crowley debacle would have been avoided.
For how the networks really behaved in 2013 in aiding Obama on Benghazi, see our review by Geoffrey Dickens. 
Spicer complained about Washington Post reporter Jenna Johnson's cheap shot claiming Spicer was "in the bushes" on the night of the James Comey firing, which had to be corrected -- but not before that became a boiling-hot meme on left-wing social media. At that point, does the correction matter? Or is the damage already done? "Jenna Johnson made up a lie about me being in the bushes,” Spicer said, and Wemple doesn't write that she'll never get a gig on cable news.
Wemple also lamented the idea that Spicer thinks the White House Correspondents Association can be asked to rebut reporters on media-access claims...as if White House reporters know anything about media access to the president. Wemple’s right: You can’t ask people who invite Trump-trashing comedians to headline the White House Correspondents Dinner to do anything but make Trump miserable. Reporters aren't going to come to a president's defense like that....if the president's Republican.
PS: Don’t miss Spicer's CNN diss at the end:
Though Spicer is critical, he doesn’t sound bitter. When we asked him to name White House reporters who did good work, he was generous: Jennifer Jacobs (Bloomberg), Margaret Talev (Bloomberg), Steve Holland (Reuters), John Roberts (Fox News), Kayla Tausche (CNBC), Eamon Javers (CNBC), Carol Lee (NBC News, “very solid reporter”), Hunter Walker (Yahoo). “I’m missing a bunch, for sure,” says Spicer.When we asked whether he’s failing to include anyone from CNN, he responds, “Oh, no.”
 https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tim-graham/2017/09/21/washpost-objects-spicer-saying-medias-largely-liberal-group-going

The Liberal Media Hated the NFL – Until Yesterday

HOWIE CARR: The Liberal Media Hated the NFL – Until Yesterday.
“Get that son of a bitch off the field right now!” the president imagined one of his fellow billionaires bellowing. “Out! He’s fired! He’s fired!”
Which would be the owner’s right, obviously. And surely a huge percentage of what used to be the NFL fan base is fed up with the endless PC posturing, both on the field and in the ESPN studios and on the sports pages.
The NFL’s appeal has faded, but not just among the deplor­ables. There’s a reason they are called “soccer moms,” after all. They wouldn’t dream of letting Junior put on shoulder pads. A football field is the furthest thing from a snowflake’s safe space.
But now the lemmings of the left feel compelled to defend something they loathed a mere 48 hours ago, because if Trump likes something, it must be bad. And vice versa.
It’s different now because shut up.

WHY OBAMA REALLY SPIED ON TRUMP

WHY OBAMA REALLY SPIED ON TRUMP


Obama had to spy on Trump to protect himself.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical left and Islamic terrorism.
Last week, CNN revealed (and excused) one phase of the Obama spying operation on Trump. After lying about it on MSNBC, Susan Rice admitted unmasking the identities of Trump officials to Congress.
Rice was unmasking the names of Trump officials a month before leaving office. The targets may have included her own successor, General Flynn, who was forced out of office using leaked surveillance.
While Rice’s targets weren’t named, the CNN story listed a meeting with Flynn, Bannon and Kushner.
Bannon was Trump’s former campaign chief executive and a senior adviser. Kushner is a senior adviser. Those are exactly the people you spy on to get an insight into what your political opponents plan to do.
Now the latest CNN spin piece informs us that secret FISA orders were used to spy on the conversations of Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort.  The surveillance was discontinued for lack of evidence and then renewed under a new warrant. This is part of a pattern of FISA abuses by Obama Inc. which never allowed minor matters like lack of evidence to dissuade them from new FISA requests.
Desperate Obama cronies had figured out that they could bypass many of the limitations on the conventional investigations of their political opponents by ‘laundering’ them through national security.
If any of Trump’s people were talking to non-Americans, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) could be used to spy on them. And then the redacted names of the Americans could be unmasked by Susan Rice, Samantha Power and other Obama allies. It was a technically legal Watergate. 
If both CNN stories hold up, then Obama Inc. had spied on two Trump campaign leaders.
Furthermore the Obama espionage operation closely tracked Trump’s political progress. The first FISA request targeting Trump happened the month after he received the GOP nomination.  The second one came through in October: the traditional month of political surprises meant to upend an election.
The spying ramped up after Trump’s win when the results could no longer be used to engineer a Hillary victory, but would instead have to be used to cripple and bring down President Trump. Headed out the door, Rice was still unmasking the names of Trump’s people while Obama was making it easier to pass around raw eavesdropped data to other agencies.
Obama had switched from spying on a political opponent to win an election, to spying on his successor to undo the results of the election. Abuse of power by a sitting government had become subversion of the government by an outgoing administration. Domestic spying on opponents had become a coup.
The Democrat scandals of the past few administrations have hinged on gross violations of political norms, elementary ethics and the rule of law that, out of context, were not technically illegal.
But it’s the pattern that makes the crime. It’s the context that shows the motive.
Obama Inc. compartmentalized its espionage operation in individual acts of surveillance and unmasking, and general policies implemented to aid both, that may have been individually legal, in the purely technical sense, in order to commit the major crime of eavesdropping on the political opposition.
When the individual acts of surveillance are described as legal, that’s irrelevant. It’s the collective pattern of surveillance of the political opposition that exposes the criminal motive for them.
If Obama spied on two of Trump’s campaign leaders, that’s not a coincidence. It’s a pattern.
A criminal motive can be spotted by a consistent pattern of actions disguised by different pretexts. A dirty cop may lose two pieces of evidence from the same defendant while giving two different excuses. A shady accountant may explain two otherwise identical losses in two different ways. Both excuses are technically plausible. But it’s the pattern that makes the crime.
Manafort was spied on under the Russia pretext. Bannon may have been spied on over the UAE. That’s two different countries, two different people and two different pretexts. 
But one single target. President Trump.
It’s the pattern that exposes the motive.
When we learn the whole truth (if we ever do), we will likely discover that Obama Inc. assembled a motley collection of different technically legal pretexts to spy on Trump’s team.
Each individual pretext might be technically defensible. But together they add up to the crime of the century.
Obama’s gamble was that the illegal surveillance would justify itself. If you spy on a bunch of people long enough, especially people in politics and business, some sort of illegality, actual or technical, is bound to turn up. That’s the same gamble anyone engaged in illegal surveillance makes.
Businessmen illegally tape conversations with former partners hoping that they’ll say something damning enough to justify the risk. That was what Obama and his allies were doing with Trump.
It’s a crime. And you can’t justify committing a crime by discovering a crime. 
If everyone were being spied on all the time, many crimes could be exposed every second. But that’s not how our system works. That’s why we have a Fourth Amendment.
Nor was Obama Inc. trying to expose crimes for their own sake, but to bring down the opposition.
That’s why it doesn’t matter what results the Obama surveillance turned up. The surveillance was a crime. Anything turned up by it is the fruit of a poisonous tree. It’s inherently illegitimate....

Sunday, September 24, 2017

WHY TRUMP IS SO MUCH FUN

WHY TRUMP IS SO MUCH FUN

I’ll probably never be able to make up my mind fully about President Trump, and I am sure a number of our commenters will pounce on this opening. But just about every time I think he’s blundered or shown himself not up to the job, something changes my mind as the dust settles.
First, as Scott and Paul noted, his speech to the UN this week was terrific. Geez—you’d think from the reaction Trump called the Soviet Union an evil empire or something. Even more satisfying is how Trump continually confounds the efforts of the DC Swamp Monsters to make him conform to the “normal” rules and procedures of Washington. These two front page headlines from the Washington Post this week tell the story:
“Pragmatic” is DC codespeak for “moved to the left.” But apparently Trump and his speechwriters didn’t read the Post, because:
“Defiant” is DC codespeak for “you didn’t listen to us!”
And about his two recent semi-deals with Chuck and Nancy that I dumped all over a few days ago. Today those deals look rather different in their impact going forward. First, on the debt ceiling, it appears that this postponement of a showdown has opened the door to the 11th hour prospect of repealing and replacing Obamacare after all. I can’t explain the arcane details of why (budget process and all that), but it casts the quick deal in a rather different light. And for whatever reason, the repeal/replace drama this time—perhaps because it is a sequel?—is not drawing the sturm und drang of the earlier efforts. (Though never underestimate the vanity of John McCain to stop it again.)
Second, the DACA deal, which seems to threaten Trump’s relations with his base, may portend an odd twist. Being media-savvy, Trump grasped quickly that expelling the “dreamers,” portrayed (sometimes accurately) as people brought here as small children and therefore morally blameless for breaking the law, is not a popular move with a majority of Americans. If nothing else, many of the “dreamers” speak English well and are halfway to assimilation. They’re the kind of immigrants we want.
But as Paul and John noted, moving for a compromise to allow “dreamers” to stay has created a huge rift on the left, as the protest at Nancy Pelosi’s presser on the dreamers demonstrates. The left wants full amnesty and a path to citizenship for all 11 million or more illegals in the country. Trump has offered amnesty to the 800,000 or so dreamers. If this becomes the baseline for an eventual deal (in other words, no amnesty for the other 10 million), watch the left scream with outrage about how they were outmaneuvered. It might even be worth giving up the wall. It is possible that in hindsight, Obama made a huge blunder in using the dreamers as his wedge for executive overreach on immigration. In which case, when it comes to who the dumb guy is, Trump will smile all the more.

THE CAUSES OF INCOME INEQUALITY, REVEALED

THE CAUSES OF INCOME INEQUALITY, REVEALED

In 1995, Scott and I wrote a paper titled The Truth About Income Inequality, which was published by Center of the American Experiment, the organization I now lead. It got quite a bit of national attention, and I subsequently debated Congressman Martin Sabo, who then represented Minneapolis, on the subject at a Center-sponsored event that was televised by C-SPAN.
That paper looked at the issue of income inequality from a variety of perspectives. The data obviously would need to be updated, but conceptually the paper holds up very well. Starting with the fact that income inequality is good, not bad. In fact–if you think about it–a society without income inequality would scarcely be worth living in.
At Townhall, Terry Jeffrey looks at income inequality through the lens of Census Bureau data and identifies the “culprit”: “Married Couples With Children and Jobs Cause Income Inequality.”
Liberals talk about “income inequality” as if it is caused by insufficient government action — including insufficient taxation of those they call the “rich.”
***
But what really causes income disparity in the United States? Who makes more than whom?
The Census Bureau’s annual report on American incomes…presents data that answers these questions.
It turns out that income has a lot more to do with culture and behavior than anything else.
Of the seven types of households listed in Table HINC-01, the wealthiest were married-couple families, which had a median income of $87,057.
It was a steep drop from there to second place: Family households with a male householder — but no spouse present — had a median income of $58,051.
That was $29,006 — or 33.3 percent — less than married couple households.
The next wealthiest households were nonfamily households with male householders, which had a median income of $41,749.
Then followed families with female householders but no spouse present ($41,027); male householders living alone ($35,265); nonfamily households with female householders ($30,572); and female householders living alone ($26,877).
So marriage is the first great driver of income inequality. But what happens if you have children?
Married couples with no children had a median income of $81,529 in 2016. Married couples with one child between 6 and 17 years of age had median incomes of $95,965. Married couples that had two or more children between 6 and 17 had median incomes of $102,657.
In America, moms and dads with at least two young kids have a median income ($102,657) approximately three times that of men who live alone ($35,265).
Funny how that works. Of course, having children in the home correlates positively with prime earning years, which I assume is reflected in these numbers. More on that later.
Education is another culprit. Shockingly, those who obtain training and education generally earn more money than those who don’t. (I look forward to the day when social scientists, at great trouble and expense, will demonstrate something important that my grandmother didn’t already know.)
The other thing that correlates highly with earnings (as opposed to income, which includes welfare and other government payments) is work. I know, how many surprises can you take in a single day?
Of the 126,224,000 households in the United States in 2016, according to Table HINC-01, 29,750,000 — or 23.6 percent — had “no earners” at all. These households had a median income of $22,272.
They were surpassed by households with one earner ($48,550), two earners ($94,679), three earners ($115,357), and four earners or more ($143,000).
American households where two people worked ($94,679) had more than four times the median income of households where no one worked ($22,272).
I should hope so! If you think it is “unfair” that people who work have higher incomes than people who don’t, we can say with confidence that you are a liberal.
As Jeffrey points out, age also plays a major role. Shakespeare said that one man in his time plays many parts, and that is certainly true economically. Pretty much everyone starts out with a relatively low income, earns more as he gains experience, training and useful relationships, and then earns less as he transitions into retirement. If there were no income inequality, we would all be stuck at our 18-year-old wage forever.
Jeffrey concludes:
There is not a class war in America. There is a cultural war. It is between those who pursue the traditional life of the American dream and those who want to reduce more Americans to a broken life of government dependency.
Someone should explain this to the ignorant leftists who are attacking Professors Amy Wax and Larry Alexander.