Socialism Is Perfered to Capitalism : 51% of Millennials Believe it.

When ignorance is a way of life, what else can we expect 

from the ignorant? Chaos, conflict and failure.

In a way turning to a socialsit way of government would solve one problem, and that is a major issue for everyone, how to pay from Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security.

Under socialism these programs will go away and be replace with a ''Demand Care'' program that will be over-seen by an Washington elite committee who will decide who is eligible for care and how much care and by whom. The individual will have no say in their own care.

It's just the nature of socialism. The individual will no longer be in charge. Others will tell everyone how the system works and if you don't like it, so what. If you or a member of your family dies in bed or on the street is of no concern for a bureaucrat a thousand miles away. The system doesn't care.

And your death will be of no concern to the neighbors as well because they are concerned only about their own survival. Welcome to the real world of liberal socialism. democrats understand control of options.

Remember the New York Times economic reporter Paul Krugman saying he thought the communist Chinese system would work well for us as our own system of individual freedom didn't? Progressive socialist liberal democrats really believe this! It's who they are. Vote for them at your own risk.

Our Ignorance of Socialism Is Dangerous

Walter E. Williams / @WE_Williams / December 05, 2018

A recent Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation survey found that 51 percent of American millennials would rather live in a socialist or communist country than in a capitalist country. Only 42 percent prefer the latter.

Twenty-five percent of millennials who know who Vladimir Lenin was view him favorably. Lenin was the first premier of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Half of millennials have never heard of communist Mao Zedong, who ruled China from 1949 to 1959 and was responsible for the deaths of 45 million Chinese people.

The number of people who died at the hands of Josef Stalin may be as high as 62 million. However, almost one-third of millennials think former President George W. Bush is responsible for more killings than Stalin.

By the way, Adolf Hitler, head of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, was responsible for the deaths of about 20 million people. The Nazis come in as a poor third in terms of history’s most prolific mass murderers. According to professor Rudolph Rummel’s research, the 20th century, mankind’s most brutal century, saw 262 million people’s lives destroyed at the hands of their own governments.

Young people who weren’t alive during World War II and its Cold War aftermath might be forgiven for not knowing the horrors of socialism. Some of their beliefs represent their having been indoctrinated by their K-12 teachers and college professors.

There was such leftist hate for Bush that it’s not out of the question that those 32 percent of millennials were taught by their teachers and professors that Bush murdered more people than Stalin.

America’s communists, socialists, and Marxists have little knowledge of socialist history. Bradley Birzer, a professor of history at Hillsdale College, explains this in an article for The American Conservative titled “Socialists and Fascists Have Always Been Kissing Cousins.”

Joseph Goebbels wrote in 1925, “It would be better for us to end our existence under Bolshevism than to endure slavery under capitalism.” This Nazi sentiment might be shared by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and his comrade Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. Goebbels added, “I think it is terrible that we and the communists are bashing in each other’s heads.”

When the tragedies of socialist regimes—such as those in Venezuela, the USSR, China, Cuba, and many others—are pointed out to America’s leftists, they hold up Sweden as their socialist role model. But they are absolutely wrong about Sweden.

Johan Norberg points this out in his documentary “Sweden: Lessons for America?” Americans might be surprised to learn that Sweden’s experiment with socialism was a relatively brief flirtation, lasting about 20 years and ending in disillusionment and reform.

Reason magazine reports:  Sweden began rolling back government in the early 1990s, recapturing the entrepreneurial spirit that made it a wealthy country to begin with. High taxation and a generous array of government benefits are still around. But now it’s also a nation of school vouchers, free trade, open immigration, light business regulation, and no minimum wage laws.

School vouchers, light business regulation, and no minimum wage laws are practices deeply offensive to America’s leftists.

Our young people are not the first Americans to admire tyrants and cutthroats. W.E.B. Du Bois, writing in the National Guardian in 1953, said, “Stalin was a great man; few other men of the 20th century approach his stature.” Walter Duranty called Stalin “the greatest living statesman” and “a quiet, unobtrusive man.”

There was even leftist admiration for Hitler and fellow fascist Benito Mussolini. When Hitler came to power in January 1933, George Bernard Shaw described him as “a very remarkable man, a very able man.” President Franklin Roosevelt called Mussolini “admirable,” and he was “deeply impressed by what he [had] accomplished.”

In 1972, John Kenneth Galbraith visited communist China and praised Mao and the Chinese economic system. His Harvard University colleague John K. Fairbank believed that America could learn much from the Cultural Revolution, saying, “Americans may find in China’s collective life today an ingredient of personal moral concern for one’s neighbor that has a lesson for us all.”

Are Americans who admire the world’s most brutal regimes miseducated or stupid? Or do they have some kind of devious agenda?

Trump Succeeds On Trade Negotiations : America Leads The Way

Trump Succeeds where liberal democrats failed. democrats

wanted failure of our economy.

The progressive socialists are nervous as the trade negotiations are moving forward, something that the liberal democrats couldn't and wouldn't do and not just with China. Progressive democrats hated America's leadership in the world.

The entire agenda and ideology of Barrrack's administration was to bring down America's ability to succeed, forcing America into decline, forcing America to be subservient rather then showing leadership.

Understand this was the agenda of Barrrack and his religious jihad for transformation. America was the problem in the world, standing in the way of the ''new wave'' global government of which he, Barrrack would be the leader. Or so he thought. Barrrack said the people have to understand American leadership is over. It's past time we take a knee to other world powers.

But thank God Donald Trump understands the socialsit democrats and their personal agenda for destruction of our country's founding. These negotiation successes are just one more nail in the coffin of liberal democrat haters of America. He succeeds where the democrats couldn't.

US and China Make Successful Start on New Trade Negotiations

Riley Walters / December 03, 2018

President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping made progress Saturday night toward resolving the ongoing U.S.-China trade dispute.

After more than a year of conflict and new taxes on billions of cross-border trade, the two presidents came to an agreement at the G20 summit in Buenos Aires, Argentina, that could begin de-escalating U.S.-China trade tensions through new negotiations.

According to Trump, “It’s an incredible deal. It goes down, certainly—if it happens, it goes down as one of the largest deals ever made. It’s a deal between the United States and China made by the president and the president.”

It was a pivotal meeting between the two countries’ leaders that could have gone very differently and allowed bilateral trade issues to worsen in 2019. Instead, the two sides agreed to a process that will begin to address many of the outstanding tariffs, non-tariff barriers, and importantly, intellectual property complaints the U.S. has against China.

For 90 days, starting Jan. 1., representatives from both the U.S. and China will seek changes to trade and investment practices. And while there are few details about the structure of the negotiations themselves, there are some important takeaways already.

First, the Trump administration has applied tariffs on over $250 billion worth of Chinese imports. Of those imports, $200 billion were subject to an additional tariff of 10 percent since late September, and the 10 percent was scheduled to increase to 25 percent on Jan. 1, 2019.

The president has delayed his decision to increase these tariffs to 25 percent until the end of the 90-day negotiations, pending progress on the issues at hand.

Second, China will begin purchasing more American-made products—including agricultural, energy, and industrial goods—as a way to reduce the bilateral trade deficit the U.S. has with China. And it will begin purchasing the agricultural products immediately.

And third, according to Trump, China has already agreed to reduce the tariffs it has on American auto imports—many of which were put in place as retaliation against U.S. tariffs. Chinese tariffs on auto imports are currently 40 percent for the U.S., compared to just 15 percent for other countries.

There are still a number of unanswered questions that remain, such as what else Xi initially offered, how much will China begin purchasing from U.S. businesses, whether Trump offered anything other than a freeze on new tariffs, who will lead the negotiations, how often will they meet, and what a final deal could actually look like. More details will likely emerge throughout the week.

Already, White House trade adviser Peter Navarro mentioned that it will be U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer who will lead the U.S. team, and that the discussions will mostly focus on intellectual property theft, forced technology transfer, and China’s state-directed acquisition of U.S. technology. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin went as far to say even currency will be an issue covered during negotiations.

However, the negotiations going forward won’t be easy. Already there’s been reporting on the differences in statements given by the U.S. and China from the meeting. Chinese statements made no reference to the 90 days for negotiations nor purchasing of U.S. agricultural products.

Liu He, Chinese vice-premier and Xi’s economic adviser, may provide some clarification if he visits Washington, D.C., sometime in December as a part of the negotiations.

Nonetheless, the outcome of this weekend’s summit was a success. Ninety days is not enough time for major reform of the Chinese economic model, but it’s a necessary start in making changes that address specific American concerns and avert more punitive tariffs.

This piece has been changed to reflect the 90 days begins Jan. 1.

Diane Feinstein Corners Murkowski On Kavanaugh Vote : We Can Destroy You!

As the story goes, this discussion was not just partisan issues but it was about hate for any opposition to the agenda of porgressive socialist liberal democrats to stop the Kavanaugh nomination to the Supreme Court.

Just looking at the posture of Diane Feinstein reveals that basic hate for civil society that has driven her for decades to do things that reveal her as destructive to our way of life in America. Individual freedom and liberty is a nonstarter for Ms. Feinstein as it stands in the way of socialist liberals getting and keeping power for control.

There is now no alternative for progressive democrats to move forward as the public is becoming aware of socialsit democrats meaning to do them harm. So now the threat of using hate and violence to gain control used on another Senator is main stream.

If there is one overriding motivation among the progressive socialist liberal democrats it is the absolute power for control. All other issues are subordinated. Having this power centralized in their hands means all othe people must take a knee to them or be destroyed.

Lisa Murkowski is being cornered hre by Diane Feinstein to explain why it is necessary for her to vote against the Kavanaugh nomination. The options are vote our way or we will destory you and your family.

She voted ''present''!

Diane Feinstein explains how hate and destruction works.

Some Republicans And conservatives Back Jeff Flake? : The Hate Is Universal for America?

Just one of many Republicans and ''conservatives'' that

 hate the founding of our country.

First of all, let's be honest, Jeff Flake didn't retire, he was fired by the voters. He didn't run again because he had no issues to run on that the voters agreed with him.

Jeff Flake is  front and center representing  both sides of the aisle. Jeff Flake is the ''Swamp''.

And Now with his stand with porgressive socialist liberal democrats on the Muller partisan ''Witch Hunt'' to destory the president, he is doing the bidding of people that in reality want to ''transform'' the American civil society.

Little wonder then why Jeff Flake will indeed be laying the foundation for his personal legacy with his acquiescence to the socialist demands for changing the Constitution to more reflect the socialsit agenda and ideology of a centralized authority that will be all things for all people. It is all to apparent that he wants to be on that band wagon.

Unfortunately it seems that the hate for our country as founded is universal as many Republicans and conservatives, as well as all porgressive liberal democrats, are on board with Rep, Jeff Flake's demand for a vote on the bill to protect the Muller investigation from transparency.

Flake Continues to Hold Judicial Confirmations Hostage to Vote on Mueller Protection Bill

Rachel del Guidice / @LRacheldG / November 30, 2018

Retiring Sen. Jeff Flake is staying true to his pledge to not advance judicial nominees in the Senate Judiciary Committee, unless a bill that would prevent President Donald Trump from firing special counsel Robert Mueller gets a Senate vote.

“It is not productive,” said Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, per Politico. “One of the greatest substantive victories that we have delivered for the American people the last two years is nominating and confirming strong constitutionalist judges. For a Republican senator to be blocking that is frustrating the promises we made to the voters.”

The Hill reports that Flake, R-Ariz., plans to again push for a vote on the Mueller legislation next week, and that he told CNN he thinks there are enough votes in the Senate to pass the bill.

“Sen. Flake’s display will be over when the Senate adjourns by Dec. 14 and he will have accomplished nothing,” Thomas Jipping, deputy director of The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and senior legal fellow.  “A few weeks later, when the 116th Congress begins, President Trump will send back to the Senate the nominees Flake caused to lapse and they will be confirmed,” he said.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, canceled panel votes Wednesday for 25 judicial and executive nominations following Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., halting an endeavor by Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., and Flake to advance the Mueller bill, the Washington Examiner reported.

Mueller has been investigating Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election.

“I have informed the majority leader that I will not vote to advance any of the 21 judicial nominees pending in the Judiciary Committee, or vote to confirm the 32 judges awaiting confirmation on the Senate floor, until S. 2644 is brought to the full Senate for a vote,” Flake said Wednesday.

“Conservatives are getting more and more frustrated with the damage being done to a process that up until now has been running very smoothly,” Carrie Severino, the Judicial Crisis Network’s chief counsel and policy director, told The Daily Signal Thursday in a phone interview.

“Judicial nominations are the crown jewel of this administration and they have been a really good example of the executive and legislative branches working together to help improve the judiciary branch, and it is frustrating to see that breaking down,” she said.

March for Life Action also decried Flake’s effort to stall the nomination process.

“After delaying Supreme Court nominations and further delaying qualified judicial nominees this year, Sen. Flake seems to have abandoned his reputation of prioritizing principle in favor of fulfilling personal wishes,” Tom McClusky, president of March for Life Action, said in a statement provided to The Daily Signal. “Unfortunate as it may be, this will be Sen. Flake’s legacy upon retiring.”

Letter To Lebron James : Why Trump Isn't A "Bum"

Don't know who wrote this but who cares. It works well to explain how some people that are ignorant find them selves in the spot light and then tell everyone just how uninformed and ill informed they really are.  Worse maybe they are just stupid and don't care who knows it.

This couldn’t have been written more precisely.  LeBron James calls President Trump a "Bum" and thinks that Obama was the best. His fans listen to him because he has a talent for basketball and buying big mansions. The letter writer below, a sports journalist, tells the truth and that truth applies to most celebrities on the left. A GREAT Letter to Lebron James from former Houston news reporter Hal Lundgren. It’s a must read, and definitely should be distributed. Post it, send it. Whatever. People really need to know these things.

August 6, 2018

Mr. Lebron James
The Los Angeles Lakers
2275 E. Mariposa Ave.
El Segundo, CA 90245

Dear Mr. James,

No one in my circles discusses French Modernist artists. That comforts me. Such a conversation would expose me as an illiterate on French Modernism, just as I am an illiterate on how to cook.
When I know nothing of subjects, my mouth stays closed. That's at least one difference in us. You are an economics illiterate. You prove it often. The dishonest "reporters” who cover you want to be your buddy. They won't embarrass you by being honest journalists and treating your words as economics illiteracy.

When you call Trump "a bum," none of them will tell you that statistics rank him as one of our best presidents for black Americans. His tax cuts and freeing us from absurd regulations have resulted in -- after only 18 months -- the lowest unemployment numbers ever for Hispanic and black Americans, and one of the lowest numbers for women.

DURING THOSE 18 MONTHS, TRUMP'S POLICIES CREATED ABOUT FOUR TIMES OF THE MANUFACTURING JOBS CREATED DURING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S LAST 18 MONTHS. Remember when Obama mistakenly told us "Our lost manufacturing jobs are not coming back.” Maybe manufacturing job growth depends on a president who knows what he's doing.

As a professional journalist, I cringe at some of Trump’s buffoonery, like repeating sentences and wearing us out with "great," “fantastic” and other empty adjectives. He is often coarse. He was not my candidate. But there’s no question his policies have helped many more minority Americans than Obama. It's not even close. 

Today, he’s working to free many black and Hispanic prisoners who, in his opinion, have been in prison too long for relatively minor offenses. Are you aware of that effort?

You need to look up Gross Domestic Product, adjusted for inflation, and learn what it means to everyday Americans. Learn what one GDP point means to employment, and see how Trump has kept the number climbing.

Your buddy Obama? In addition to being our worst foreign affairs president and worst military commander-in-chief, his economic numbers all deserved an "F." He is our ONLY eight-year president who failed to give us at least one 3% or higher year of adjusted GDP growth. EVERY other president achieved at least one year of 4.28% or higher growth. Aided by Vietnam spending, Johnson had an 8.48 year. The best peacetime year -- 7.83 -- belonged to Reagan. and Obama couldn't even score a 3!!! Look it up.

You say you would speak to Obama but not Trump? How tragically uninformed you are. Obama had BY FAR the worst debt accumulation record of all our presidents. His economic blunders added about $9 trillion to our debt. NO OTHER PRESIDENT EVEN CAME CLOSE. That indebtedness will fall to you and your children. Poor families suffered most. Obama's awful job numbers forced a record number of people to take food stamps. Black household income under Obama fell steeply as black unemployment rose. Look that up, too.

But the worst part of what Trump inherited is that Obama, like Bush and Clinton before him, thought bribes and sweet talk were the best ways to deal with North Korea. As the North Koreans neared being able to wipe out Los Angeles with a nuclear-tipped missile, Trump became the first president to stand up boldly to the rogue nation. Notice North Korea, because of Trump, has stopped launching missiles over Japan? Notice North Korea has released political prisoners? Notice North Korea has begun to return remains of U.S. Service members? Absent sturdy spines, Clinton, Bush and Obama could not approach those major achievements.

Obama naively bribed the planet’s worst terrorist nation, Iran, with what was supposed to become a $150 billion handout. Did Obama not know many of those U.S. Tax dollars would help fund Hamas and Hezbollah terrorism? Of course he did. He just didn't care.  Remember the $800 billion of your and everyone else's tax dollars in his early stimulus for "shovel-ready jobs." Most of those tax dollars went to political cronies. He handed $500 million to Solyndra, a solar company run by boosters. The company soon went bankrupt. Our half-billion in tax money vanished with it.

Trump is often obnoxious, but people with courage can have that hangup. Obama always talked big, then feebly stood by when Putin infringed on Ukraine and annexed Crimea. But Obama's most cowardly move came when he warned Assad not to cross "the red line" in Syria. When Obama’s warning was ignored, which Assad knew would happen, Obama did nothing. Does that make him a "bum?"

It makes me sad that you, as someone with a national voice would be so ignorant of economics, and also presidential decisions. I encourage you to do more reading and thinking as you watch the nation's GDP numbers rise and minority employment rise.

* Read about "Right To Try," which frees terminally ill people to sign a lawsuit waiver and take an experimental drug that might not be approved for many years. Democrats fought this sensible plan for years because it would cost them donations.

* Read about a Navy Obama left to Trump that struggled with about half its carrier aircraft unsafe to fly.

* Read about Trump's giving the VA the right to fire any employee who neglects or abuses a patient.

* Read about Trump's courage in challenging, actually demanding that, NATO partners to pay their fair share rather than keep mooching off the U.S.

You might also read the wisdom of two of the world’s brightest people, black intellectuals Dr. Thomas Sowell and Dr. Walter Williams. They have written many books. Sowell and Williams’ integrity, remarkable insights and clarity of expression cause their common sense to soar off the page to readers.

Or, you could ignore vital Trump decisions and remain an illiterate on both presidential achievement and economics. If you disdain knowledge and keep calling Trump or any other U.S. president a bum, people will begin to wonder who's the real bum.

Sincerely,

Hal Lundgren

Dogs Give Everything and Expect Nothing In Return.

Love that they give has no limits. They don't expect anything in return.

Elections Are For democrat to Win : Republicans Winning Is Corruption of Demoracy

democrats and worse rallying. Vote for us or die. 

The voters said dying is better then democrat control. 

democrats are not interested in what is right and legal, they are only interested in taking what they know is their birthright, the power for control. And by any means necessary. There are no limits. Anything goes.

Remember the Republicans on the baseball field? It's only the beginning.

Everything and everybody else must be destroyed that stand in their way.

The Left’s Election Day Analysis: If We Lost, They Must’ve Cheated

Jason Snead / @jasonwsnead / November 30, 2018

A disturbing trend is emerging from the political left: When their candidates lose elections, rather than accept lawful defeat, they denounce the election itself.

In 2016, they explained away President Donald Trump’s victory as the product of Russian meddling. Now, they are blaming election losses in Florida and Georgia on “voter suppression” and other sinister acts.

In Florida, Democrat gubernatorial candidate Andrew Gillum walked back his election night concession, claiming “tens of thousands of votes have yet to be counted,” and told supporters that a “vote denied is justice denied.”

Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, described the Georgia gubernatorial race as biased against Democrat Stacey Abrams, claiming that if Abrams “had a fair election, she already would have won.” Sen. Sherrod Brown, an Ohio Democrat, announced that Abrams’ apparent defeat was a sure sign that Republicans “stole” her election.

Sure enough, when the final tally gave the victory to Republican Brian Kemp, Abrams refused to concede, because “concession means to acknowledge an action is right, true or proper.” Instead, Abrams blamed her defeat on Kemp’s supposed “suppression of the people’s democratic right to vote.”

Such pronouncements are creating a dangerous perception within liberal ranks that electoral defeat automatically equals electoral theft. For years, the left has denounced election integrity measures as tantamount to disenfranchisement. Now they are saying the same thing about electoral defeats.

This sort of rhetoric can have profound—and dangerous—consequences. Democracy works only when the people have confidence that the electoral process is free and fair, and the outcome is valid.
Sometimes, to be sure, this is not the case.

The Heritage Foundation election fraud database presently has 1,147 proven instances of fraud. Several of these cases involve elections that were overturned because enough fraudulent ballots had been cast to alter the outcome.  But there is a key distinction between those cases and liberals’ new accusations: proof.

Winning a court case to invalidate an election on the basis of fraud requires gathering significant evidence, and demonstrating, for example, that ballots were tampered with, that voters were bribed or coerced, or that elections officials rigged the results. Convicting someone on criminal election fraud charges requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

It’s a high bar to meet, leagues beyond the reckless and unsubstantiated allegations erupting after the Florida and Georgia elections.

Consider the facts.

After a machine recount, in the Florida gubernatorial race, Ron DeSantis’ 33,683 vote lead over Gillum had hardly moved at all.   And in Georgia, the left’s claims that Kemp was overseeing insidious vote suppression efforts seem nonsensical, given that voter turnout actually skyrocketed.

According to FiveThirtyEight.com, 55 percent of all eligible Georgia voters cast a ballot: “21 points higher than the state’s 1982-2014 average. That was the biggest change from the average of any state.” Exit polls indicate that minority turnout in the state may also have set records.

Still, Abrams declared to supporters that “democracy failed Georgia.”  Not quite. A more apt summation of the election would be that “liberals are failing democracy.”

Telling voters that elections are only fair when their party wins sets up every election to be discounted by one side or the other. It foments distrust and dissension, and it feeds the vitriol that already pervades so many aspects of modern politics.

Some political strategists might hope that de-legitimizing the electoral process will frighten and enrage the liberal base, increase turnout, and pay dividends in 2020. If true, then the left’s cynical gamble on “voter suppression” rhetoric would be a great irony.

But for all the temptations of that approach, we can and should hope that the rhetoric of the last few weeks—overheated, baseless, and reckless as it has been—will fall by the wayside.

Even today, in an age of division and zero-sum politics, there remains something more important than winning elections: keeping our democracy.

Originally published in The Washington Times

Pay Raises for Two Million Federal Workers? : The System IS Out of Control

That the accepted description for federal worker is, 'if you can get in, your worries are over about your future. It's smooth sail until retirement and then it's even gets better do to how generous the benefits are'. 

And it's not just a few workers like the article indicates, though many are dedicated to their jobs, but given that many thousands are covered by federal unions making the statement that most of the federal employees are there to make the government work better is off the mark. The unions couldn't care less about proficiency and responsibility, it's all about getting as many tax dollars as the can squeezed out of the tax payers to secure votes for legislators who back the unions and union bosses.

And that it nearly impossible to fire a federal employee, no matter how bad a performance in their job is a grabber for the mostly unskilled worker that is looking for security without responsibility. The free ride. This is not just folk lore.

And even those that are skilled still have that growing opinion the longer they are employed and understanding just how safe they are in the federal system, the more contempt they have for the system it's self. 

No? Ever wonder why there are more then two million federal workers? The system is blotted and unworkable and out of control. And mostly because the system is so huge, the right hand never knows what the left is doing. No one is really in charge.

Giving a Raise to All Federal Employees Makes No Sense

John York / November 30, 2018

The Senate’s 2019 budget contains an across-the-board salary hike of about 1.9 percent for all federal employees. That is not good news.

Though modest and deficit-neutral—the bill requires agencies to reduce spending elsewhere to offset the hikes—this pay raise is a bad idea. A growing consensus of policy analysts agree that the federal pay system needs a major overhaul.

Today, federal employees earn raises for time served rather than good work. While federal managers can offer high performers cash awards and raises, the latter are rarely used and the former are too paltry and too freely given to be effective motivators.

In a recent survey, only 26 percent of federal employees reported that “pay raises depend on how well employees perform their jobs.”  The Trump administration has called for a pay freeze—the first since 2014—and wants to use the savings to create a $1 billion performance-based pay fund.

This is a promising idea. Since the 1980s, various agencies have experimented with performance-based pay. Some of these programs were plagued by poorly construed metrics for determining who should receive a bonus. Other programs effectively rewarded strong performers and led to better functioning workplaces.

In other cases, public sector unions—reliable opponents of any effort to distinguish good employees from poor performers—scuttled pay-for-performance plans despite initial signs of success.
Performance-based pay is an area where the federal government can learn from the states. Over 20 states have at least partial performance-based pay systems for public employees.

Tennessee—one of the most fiscally responsible states in the country—has a particularly successful pay-for-performance plan that some have praised as a possible model for federal agencies. Since implementing pay-for-performance, student test results have improved, Medicaid-funded health care has gotten better, and newly-motivated state bureaucrats have identified and cut $500 million in waste from the state budget.

State pay-for-performance plans like Tennessee’s and successful federal agency plans have a few things in common.

First, they do not just give managers permission to hand out cash, they also revamp the way employees are appraised. Right now, 99 percent of federal employees are ranked “successful” or better, which means nearly all are eligible to receive performance-based bonuses.

Before experimenting with a new performance rating system, agencies should assure that managers are making meaningful distinctions between employees. Otherwise, managers will have to either hand out performance-based raises and bonuses to everyone or risk the appearance of favoritism.

Successful pay-for-performance systems also rely on properly trained managers. When Tennessee instituted its program, it also implemented online training courses, hired leadership coaches, conducted internal audits, and offered goal-writing clinics.

The lessons stuck. Instead of relatively meaningless ratings, Tennessee’s ratings came to actually reflect employees’ performance. The percent of employees rated either “outstanding” or “advanced” declined from 83 percent in 2010 to 36 percent in 2016.

If the Trump administration succeeds in creating a $1 billion fund to fuel pay-for-performance, agencies should emulate states and other federal agencies that have already made this transition effectively.

Even if Congress does not authorize the administration’s performance-based pay plan, an across-the-board pay increase does not make sense given the skewed compensation premium received by federal workers. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the average federal employee receives 17 percent more in total compensation than their private-sector counterparts, and a Heritage Foundation analysis estimated a 40 percent premium.

This compensation gap is not uniform across federal employees, however. While federal workers with a high school degree or less received 53 percent more total compensation than their private-sector counter parts, the premium was 21 percent for federal employees with a bachelor’s degree, and federal workers with a master’s degree or more actually received 18 percent less total compensation than their private-sector counterparts.

While giving a raise to already-overpaid, low-skill federal laborers does not make sense, the comparatively low compensation of high-skill workers is a major problem that should be addressed. As the Office of Management and Budget rightly observes, “across-the-board pay increases have long-term fixed costs, yet fail to address existing pay disparities, or target mission-critical recruitment and retention goals.”

Many agencies desperately need more cybersecurity personnel, for instance, but the compensation gap prevents them from attracting those workers. While the federal government may never be able to match Silicon Valley salaries, more civically-minded coders may choose the public sector if its compensation was at least within striking distance.

A pay freeze could be seen as an unfair indictment of the federal workforce. Indeed, federal employees are too often castigated for the actions of a few bad apples. The vast majority of federal employees are hardworking professionals who believe in the mission of their agency and are committed to serving their country. And they should be fairly compensated and rewarded for doing so.

The federal employee compensation system fails federal employees and federal taxpayers alike. A pay system that rewards high performance and better attracts talented professionals will benefit both the public and public-sector employees.

The Farm Bill Nigthmare Continues : Greed, Fraud And Corruption!

Want to find the center of corruption in America?

Look no further!

Why not publish who these legislators are and who their benefactors are and how much each agriculture special interest groups gets in the way of tax dollars because of his bill.

Plus what happened to the idea of separating the food stamp program from the overall Farm Bill? Since the Food Stamp program makes up more then 70% of the bill itself, it make good sense to attack each part separately to find the best program for each one.

A Nightmare Farm Bill for Conservatives

Daren Bakst / @darenbakst / December 02, 2018

We’re in the holiday season, but that doesn’t mean conservative legislators should take a holiday from their conservative principles. Unfortunately, the farm bill devised by House and Senate negotiators would require them to do just that.

Farm bills past have repeatedly disappointed those who believe in free markets, reduced dependency on government, and individual freedom. This latest farm bill, according to published reports, would be the worst in recent memory. It doesn’t just ignore these core principles—it flouts them.

Earlier this year, many House legislators fought to strengthen work requirements in the food stamp program. They carried the day in the lower chamber, but the negotiated farm bill would throw out these improvements, which have proven to reduce dependency on government.

It is difficult to understand how those lawmakers could bring themselves to support a negotiated farm bill lacking those provisions.

And there’s much more not to like in the negotiated bill. It doesn’t just fail to reform farm subsidies; it would make the out-of-control subsidy system worse. Indeed, it would expand waste and likely trigger more subsidies, not fewer of them. For example, it would expand the loophole allowing subsidies to go to people who by any reasonable definition are not farmers.

As usual, a small number of legislators developed this bill behind closed doors, pushing policies that will funnel as much money as possible to big agricultural special interests. The rest of Congress, and certainly conservative legislators, need to push back against this cronyism.

It shouldn’t be taboo to want to reduce waste and abuse in farm subsidy programs. That’s not anti-farmer; it’s just sound, commonsense policy.

Lawmakers should bear in mind that the farm bill isn’t just meant to help farmers; it’s also supposed to implement agricultural policy that benefits all Americans.

Lawmakers should be fighting for the taxpayers who currently spend about $15 billion a year just on farm “safety net” programs. They should be fighting for consumers who are forced to pay more for food because of subsidy programs like the sugar program. They should be fighting for those who want to become farmers but can’t because of the subsidies that create insurmountable barriers by driving up land prices.

The rush to get this disaster of a bill passed this year is perplexing. There is another option. Like it did with the last farm bill, Congress could pass a one-year extension of the current law. Food stamps would exist even without an extension, and farmers would still retain their existing subsidy programs.

An extension is precisely what Congress should do. Locking in bad policy for five years is bad enough. Locking in policy that is antithetical to free-market principles is indefensible.