Bombshell: Senator Joe Manchin Won't Vote for 'Build Back Better' (VIDEO)

He made the announcement on Fox News this morning, of all places.

At the New York Times, "Manchin Pulls Support From Biden’s Social Policy Bill, Imperiling Its Passage":

WASHINGTON — Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, said on Sunday that he could not support President Biden’s signature $2.2 trillion social safety net, climate and tax bill, dooming his party’s drive to pass its marquee domestic policy legislation as written.

The comments from Mr. Manchin, a longtime centrist holdout, dealt the latest and perhaps a fatal blow to the centerpiece of Mr. Biden’s domestic agenda, barely a day after senators left Washington for the year after Democrats conceded they could not yet push through any of their top legislative priorities, from the social policy bill to a voting rights overhaul.

“I cannot vote to continue with this piece of legislation,” Mr. Manchin said on “Fox News Sunday,” citing concerns about adding to the national debt, rising inflation and the spread of the latest coronavirus variant. “I’ve tried everything humanly possible. I can’t get there. This is a no.”

In a statement released shortly afterward, he was scathing toward his own party, declaring that “my Democratic colleagues in Washington are determined to dramatically reshape our society in a way that leaves our country even more vulnerable to the threats we face.”

“I cannot take that risk with a staggering debt of more than $29 trillion and inflation taxes that are real and harmful,” he said.

It amounted to Mr. Manchin’s most definitive rejection of the sprawling measure, which party leaders muscled through the House in November, after maintaining a drumbeat of concern about its cost and ambitious scope. With Republicans united in opposing the legislation, Democrats needed the votes of all 50 senators who caucus with their party for the measure to pass an evenly divided Senate, effectively handing each of them veto power.

Mr. Manchin’s comments provoked an unusually blistering broadside from Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, who accused Mr. Manchin in a lengthy statement of reneging on his promises. As recently as Tuesday, Ms. Psaki said, Mr. Manchin had pledged to work with administration officials to finalize a compromise agreement and had even shared his own outline for legislation that mirrored the size of Mr. Biden’s initial $1.85 trillion framework.

“If his comments on Fox and written statement indicate an end to that effort,” she said, “they represent a sudden and inexplicable reversal in his position, and a breach of his commitments to the president and the senator’s colleagues in the House and Senate.”

Mr. Manchin outlined what he would support in a July 28 memo signed with Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader, which became public in late September. As of Sunday, it remained unclear whether an overhaul of the legislation could both salvage Mr. Manchin’s support and retain enough liberal votes in both chambers.

The impasse jeopardizes Mr. Biden’s reputation as a dealmaker — he had campaigned on his ability to capitalize on nearly four decades of Senate experience to helm negotiations and unite his party’s narrow majorities in both chambers. Mr. Biden had poured weeks of work into talks with Mr. Manchin, inviting the senator for breakfast at his Delaware home in October and insisting that the West Virginian could ultimately be swayed.

At stake is what Mr. Biden has hailed as transformative, New Deal-style legislation that would touch virtually every American life from birth to death, from subsidies for child care to price controls for prescription drugs to funding for the construction and maintenance of public housing.

Failure to pass the measure also would deal a setback to vulnerable Democratic lawmakers bracing for what is expected to be a challenging midterm campaign in the coming months. They had hoped that passage of the bill would help their political standing, given that Republicans are widely expected to reclaim control of the House...

Still more.

 

Biden Administration to Begin Monthly Family Subsidy Payments This Week

Hey, three-hundred a month to families with kids under 6, and $250 who are older. 

That's no chump change. In fact, the one-year cost for the first year is $105,000,000 ---- and extremist Dems want to add the program as a permanent feature of the U.S. social welfare safety-net. 

At NYT, "Monthly Payments to Families With Children to Begin":

The Biden administration will send up to $300 per child a month to most American families thanks to a temporary increase in the child tax credit that advocates hope to extend.

WASHINGTON — If all goes as planned, the Treasury Department will begin making a series of monthly payments in coming days to families with children, setting a milestone in social policy and intensifying a debate over whether to make the subsidies a permanent part of the American safety net.

With all but the most affluent families eligible to receive up to $300 a month per child, the United States will join many other rich countries that provide a guaranteed income for children, a goal that has long animated progressives. Experts estimate the payments will cut child poverty by nearly half, an achievement with no precedent.

But the program, created as part of the stimulus bill that Democrats passed over unified Republican opposition in March, expires in a year, and the rollout could help or hinder President Biden’s pledge to extend it.

Immediate challenges loom. The government is uncertain how to get the payments to millions of hard-to-reach families, a problem that could undermine its poverty-fighting goals. Opponents of the effort will be watching for delivery glitches, examples of waste or signs that the money erodes the desire of some parents to work.

While the government has increased many aid programs during the coronavirus pandemic, supporters say the payments from an expanded Child Tax Credit, at a one-year cost of about $105 billion, are unique in their potential to stabilize both poor and middle-class families.

“It’s the most transformative policy coming out of Washington since the days of F.D.R.,” said Senator Cory Booker, Democrat of New Jersey. “America is dramatically behind its industrial peers in investing in our children. We have some of the highest child poverty rates, but even families that are not poor are struggling, as the cost of raising children goes higher and higher.”

Among America’s 74 million children, nearly nine in 10 will qualify for the new monthly payments — up to $250 a child, or $300 for those under six — which are scheduled to start on Thursday. Those payments, most of which will be sent to bank accounts through direct deposit, will total half of the year’s subsidy, with the rest to come as a tax refund next year.

Mr. Biden has proposed a four-year extension in a broader package he hopes to pass this fall, and congressional Democrats have vowed to make the program permanent. Like much of Mr. Biden’s agenda, the program’s fate may depend on whether Democrats can unite around the bigger package and advance it through the evenly divided Senate.

The unconditional payments — what critics call “welfare” — break with a quarter century of policy. Since President Bill Clinton signed a 1996 bill to “end welfare,” aid has gone almost entirely to parents who work. Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, recently wrote that the new payments, with “no work required,” would resurrect a “failed welfare system,” and provide “free money” for criminals and addicts.

But compared to past aid debates, opposition has so far been muted. A few conservatives support children’s subsidies, which might boost falling birthrates and allow more parents to raise children full-time. Senator Mitt Romney, Republican of Utah, has proposed a larger child benefit, though he would finance it by cutting other programs.

With Congress requiring payments to start just four months after the bill’s passage, the administration has scrambled to spread the word and assemble payment rosters.

Families that filed recent tax returns or received stimulus checks should get paid automatically. (Single parents with incomes up to $112,500 and married couples with incomes up to $150,000 are eligible for the full benefit.) But analysts say four to eight million low-income children may be missing from the lists, and drives are underway to get their parents to register online.

“Wherever you run into people — perfect strangers — just go on up and introduce yourself and tell them about the Child Tax Credit,” Vice President Kamala Harris said last month on what the White House called “Child Tax Credit Awareness Day.”

Among the needy, the program is eliciting a mixture of excitement, confusion and disbelief...

More at that top link.

 

The Democratic Party No Longer Believes in Hard Work

From Betsy McCaughey, at the Post:

The Democratic Party no longer believes in hard work https://t.co/VslYyWvCdY via @nypost #tcot #MAGA

— Betsy McCaughey, PhD (@Betsy_McCaughey) July 26, 2018

Would you rather show up at work on time or stretch out on the sofa and watch TV? Stupid question. Most people punch a clock out of necessity. But progressive Democrats want to make work optional, and to guarantee a slew of benefits to everyone, whether they get off the couch or not. It's a slap in the face to America's workforce.

Some 70 Democrats in the House of Representatives -- more than one-third of the party's representatives -- endorsed a plan on Thursday to outlaw private health insurance and force all Americans into a government-run system. Let's be clear. This plan is not about helping the needy. The plan would rip away medical coverage from half of all Americans, including the 157 million who get their insurance the old-fashioned way -- earning it through a job. The plan, dubbed "Medicare for All," would prohibit employers -- even giant companies that self-insure -- from covering workers, retirees or their families.

Union workers with gold-plated health benefits would have to give them up and settle for the same coverage as people who refuse to work at all. Why work?

Apparently, the Democratic Party no longer believes in work.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration is taking the opposite route -- beefing up work incentives. Last Thursday, the president's Council of Economic Advisers revealed that about half of able-bodied adults who collect benefits, such as food stamps, housing aid or Medicaid, work zero hours, while the nation's working stiffs pay the tab.

Why should people toil if they can get take it easy and get freebies instead? No wonder nearly 1 out of every 5 working-age adults collects these benefits. Dependence soared during the Obama administration, while workforce participation plummeted.

John F. Cogan, The High Cost of Good Intentions

At Amazon, John F. Cogan, The High Cost of Good Intentions: A History of U.S. Federal Entitlement Programs.

Laura Ingraham Warns Trump: You Promised a Border Wall, Not an 'Opaque Electric Fence' (VIDEO)

The problem for me is that even if Trump gets his wall, a DACA deal with the Democrats won't pay off at the ballot box. I doubt many leftist voters will switch over and vote GOP just because Trump caved to political correctness. Leftists won't see Trump as compassionate. They hate him with the heat of a million suns. That's just fact. Playing to the base has been the key to winning for this president, and he risks alienating those voters. I don't know if independents will give him credit. We'll see. Some conservatives like Lori Hendry and Linda Suhler will stick with Trump no matter what, but movement media conservatives like Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, and Michelle Malkin won't be pleased. They'll excoriate the president on this issue, and rightly so.

In any case, here's Ms. Laura, from her show last night:

Universal Basic Income in Finland

Well, I'm not sold.

The idea is that current welfare rules prohibit part-time workers from receiving benefits, but if you lift the rules and provide a basic income, that'll free up people to get out and work.

Okay, as long as the monthly checks aren't too big. If you give people too much money, they won't want to work. It's human nature.

Interesting, in any case, especially in how leftists just love it. There's a failure of capitalism, and all that.

At NYT:

Free Cash in Finland. Must Be Jobless. (Universal basic income, a bad idea.) https://t.co/tWXRPbLcTr

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) December 19, 2016

Public Opinion on Poverty, Social Welfare, and Personal Responsibility

Opinions have changed very little since 1985, the last time thus survey was conducted.

And social welfare programs have failed to lift millions out of poverty. The number of Americans living below the poverty line is about 15 percent, and it's been stuck there since about 1970, five years after the start of the Great Society.

How much have we spent? It's in the trillions. And leftists still think we aren't doing enough. And if you look at the headline at the piece, the Times used the results to take a jab a Donald Trump's white working-class supporters. It's too predictable.

See, "How do Americans view poverty? Many blue-collar whites, key to Trump, criticize poor people as lazy and content to stay on welfare."

Must read: @latimes and @AEI revisit a landmark 1985 survey. How much as changed? https://t.co/H6VIwPzSP1 pic.twitter.com/mmL0OrxmER

— Megan Garvey (@garveylatimes) August 14, 2016

Majority of Canadians Think 'Universal Basic Income' Too Expensive, Makes People Lazy

They like the idea, actually.

It's just going to cost too much and create dependency.

But other than that!

At Toronto's National Post, "Canadians think guaranteed income good, but too expensive and it makes people lazy: survey":

Canadians may support a guaranteed minimum income in principle, but they don’t want to pay for it and they suspect it may turn people into shiftless louts, according to a new survey by the Angus Reid Institute.

As many as 67 per cent of respondents backed a guaranteed income set at $30,000, provided that the payment would “replace most or all other forms of government assistance.”

However, nearly as many (66 per cent) said they would not be willing to pay more taxes to support such a program, and 59 per cent said it would be too expensive to implement.

A further 63 per cent said it would “discourage people from working.” Among Conservative voters, this sentiment jumped to 74 per cent of respondents. But even in the NDP camp respondents were split 50-50.

“It’s not as though you see people on the left of the spectrum incredibly supportive of this,” said Shachi Kurl with the Angus Reid Institute.

At various times in the last 100 years, the concept of a guaranteed minimum income has been embraced by everyone from hardline conservatives to hardline progressives.

Conservatives, including U.S. president Richard Nixon, have touted it as a way to dismantle the welfare state by merely cutting the poor a cheque each month.

Progressives, meanwhile, counter that it’s a necessary way to support workers idled by outsourcing and automation.

Indeed, the Angus Reid survey even hinted that this issue could rise in prominence as more and more jobs are taken by robots...

Well, dismantling the welfare state would be good, but then if everyone's getting a basic income, you'd dismantle the workforce as well, heh.

But keep reading.

Bombshell Report! Majority of Immigrants on Welfare, Including 73 Percent of Mexicans and Central Americans

It's from Steven Camarota, at the Center for Immigration Studies, "Welfare Use by Immigrant and Native Households: An Analysis of Medicaid, Cash, Food, and Housing Programs."

And a write-up at USA Today, "Report: More than half of immigrants on welfare":

More than half of the nation's immigrants receive some kind of government welfare, a figure that's far higher than the native-born population's, according to a report to be released Wednesday.

About 51% of immigrant-led households receive at least one kind of welfare benefit, including Medicaid, food stamps, school lunches and housing assistance, compared to 30% for native-led households, according to the report from the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that advocates for lower levels of immigration.

Those numbers increase for households with children, with 76% of immigrant-led households receiving welfare, compared to 52% for the native-born.

The findings are sure to fuel debate on the presidential campaign trail as Republican candidates focus on changing the nation's immigration laws, from calls for mass deportations to ending birthright citizenship.

Steven Camarota, director of research at the center and author of the report, said that's a much-needed conversation to make the country's immigration system more "selective."

"This should not be understood as some kind of defect or moral failing on the part of immigrants," Camarota said about the findings. "Rather, what it represents is a system that allows a lot of less-educated immigrants to settle in the country, who then earn modest wages and are eligible for a very generous welfare system."

Linda Chavez agrees with Camarota that the country's welfare system is too large and too costly. But Chavez, a self-professed conservative who worked in President Reagan's administration, said it's irresponsible to say immigrants are taking advantage of the country's welfare system any more than native-born Americans.

Chavez said today's immigrants, like all other immigrant waves in the country's history, start off poorer and have lower levels of education, making it unfair to compare their welfare use to the long-established native-born population. She said immigrants have larger households, making it more likely that one person in that household will receive some kind of welfare benefit. And she said many benefits counted in the study are going to U.S.-born children of immigrants, skewing the findings even more.

"When you take all of those issues into account, (the report) is less worrisome," she said.

Chavez, president of the Becoming American Institute, a conservative group that advocates for higher levels of legal immigration to reduce illegal immigration, said politicians should be careful about using the data. Rather than focus on the fact that immigrants are initially more dependent on welfare than the U.S.-born, she said they should focus on studies that show what happens to the children of those immigrants.

"These kids who get subsidized school lunches today will go on to graduate high school ... will go on to college and move up to the middle class of America," Chavez said. "Every time we have a nativist backlash in our history, we forget that we see immigrants change very rapidly in the second generation."

Yeah. Sure. And all these immigrants are about to start voting Republican, right Linda Chavez?

The system is out of control, frankly. What happened to the rugged individualist, pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps ethic that immigrants to America used to have? Well, for one thing, we've got Obama, and the welfare system has just gotten more generous and much larger with the hard-left Democrats in office.

It's a national disgrace.

California Considers Establishing State-Level Earned Income Tax Credit

Interesting.

At WSJ, "Working Poor Bank On Tax Break in Costly California":

LOS ANGELES—For 30 years, Modesto Alejandro Vasquez has supported his family of four by working as a janitor in a downtown office building here. In 2014, he made about $30,000.

Earning 25% above the federal poverty level in costly Southern California, Mr. Vasquez looks forward to this time of year, when a tax refund puts extra cash in his pocket. He said he used the money—$6,000 this year—to pay off debts and repair a computer for his daughter.

A large portion of the refund came via the federal Earned Income Tax Credit. The EITC is intended to aid the working poor by reducing the amount of taxes owed, or in many cases, like Mr. Vasquez’s, by providing a refund, based on a taxpayer’s income and number of dependents.

California lawmakers, responding to the state’s nation-leading poverty level, are considering the creation of a state EITC program. Already, half of the states and the District of Columbia offer such refunds and credits. Montana legislators are also considering a state EITC this year, and a several states are evaluating expansions of their state credits. Some of the state credits currently add as much as 50% to the federal benefit.

EITC programs aren’t popular in all quarters. Critics, including many fiscal conservatives, say the federal program is expensive, amounts to a handout to the poor and is subject to errors. They cite a report published last year by the Internal Revenue Service that found 24% of federal EITC payments made in fiscal 2013 were incorrect, including both overpayments and underpayments.

While California has a relatively high minimum wage, with the state’s level set to rise to $10 next year from $9 now, many families struggle. The state is among the five most expensive to live in, according to the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis. The U.S. Census Bureau’s Supplemental Poverty Measure, which takes government-assistance programs into account in calculating poverty rates, places California at the top of the list among the 50 states and D.C., with a poverty rate of 23.4%.

In 2013, an estimated 9.8 million Californians—more than a quarter of the population—qualified for the federal EITC. California residents accounted for $7.3 billion of the more than $66 billion federal EITC claims in 2013.

Eight previous EITC proposals have been unsuccessful in California, but some legislative leaders say the state’s economic recovery and budget surplus could make the program more affordable this time around. “Politically, it seems more viable than it has in the last decade,” said Chris Hoene, executive director of the California Budget Project, a think tank focused on the state’s low- and middle-income residents...

More.

#ObamaCare's Future? Medi-Cal Problems Get Worse (and Worse) as Dependency Continues to Grow

The situation never improves as these dependency programs expand. They always get worse, but the Democrats then lock-in the dependency coalition, so the problems not only never get fixed, there's no political incentive for them to be fixed in any case.

It's statist corruption at its worst, right here in the once Golden State.

At the Los Angeles Times, "Medi-Cal struggles to provide services to ever-growing clientele":

Alisha Gutierrez, whose email address refers to her as the "tooth fairy," has spent years connecting developmentally disabled patients with specialized dental care.

But when a Santa Rosa man needed a root canal on a troubled molar earlier this year, the closest dentist she could find willing to perform the procedure was in Bakersfield — a 10-hour round trip by car.

"I felt terrible," Gutierrez said. "They would have to choose to travel that far, or choose to extract the tooth."

The tooth was pulled, and the choice was a reminder for Gutierrez that many needy Californians are struggling to receive care through Medi-Cal, the state's version of Medicaid. Concerns about access to care have taken on a new urgency since Medi-Cal enrollment began to swell in the wake of President Obama's federal healthcare overhaul.

The program, the state's second-largest expense after schools, is expected to cover one in three Californians by next year.

But the current state budget continues a 10% cut in reimbursements to some healthcare providers, a lingering sore point for advocates, lobbyists and lawmakers who have pushed to reverse the reduction. Doctors say the reimbursements are too low, forcing them to limit the number of Medi-Cal patients they treat...

More.

Monthly Credit: California Assemblywoman Introduces Bill to Provide Diaper Stipend to Low-Income Women

Makes sense for dependency state leftists, especially in California. They have a "welfare stipend" for just about everything nowadays.

At KGTV-ABC10 News San Diego, "A welfare program for diapers? Diaper stipend proposed for low-income families."

More Than Half of British Households Take More in Government Benefits Than They Pay in Taxes

It's unsustainable.

At Telegraph UK, "More than half of homes take more than they contribute: Official figures reveal record numbers of people who receive more in benefits and public services than they pay in tax":

In March the Institute for Fiscal Studies warned forcing Britain’s highest earners to foot a greater share of the tax bill is putting the long term finances at risk.

“Lumping more taxes on the rich” is not a sustainable strategy because the ability and willingness of high earners to pay more could eventually run out, the IFS suggested.

Just 300,000 high earners now pay 30 per cent of all income tax and 7.5 per cent of all tax, official figures show. Households with an average income of £104,000 paid £30,000 more in tax than they received from the state last year, ONS figures show.

The top ten per cent of earners contributed £26,984 in income and council tax, plus £10,303 in indirect taxes such as alcohol duty and VAT – a contribution to the public purse of £37,287. They received £2,284 in state cash benefits, which include child benefit, maternity pay and pensions.

The cost of educating their children came to £1,274, while they used NHS treatment worth £3,410 – meaning their total cost to the Exchequer was £7,264.

By contrast, a family with the national median income of £23,069 received £3,798 more in benefits and services than they paid in taxes last year.

They paid £4,620 in direct tax and £5,029 in indirect taxes, but received £6622 in cash benefits. They received schooling worth £2623 and NHS services worth £4,202. In total, they paid in £9,649 and received £13,477. It means for every £1 they paid in, they got £1.40 back.

The poorest ten per cent of families, with wages of £3,875 a year, paid £4,611 in direct and indirect taxes and received £13,559 in cash benefits and services. It means they received £2.94 in state support for every £1 they paid in tax.

The figures also show middle class families have seen the steepest fall in living standards since the financial crisis.

Also at the Daily Express UK, "Most households in Britain get more in benefits than they pay out in tax, new figures show," and London's Daily Mail, "Half of families receive more from the state than they pay in taxes but income equality widens as rich get richer."

Mass Islamic Immigration Has Turned #Sweden Into the Rape Capital of Europe

Well, here's more on the Utopian Scandinavian welfare states, this time Sweden.

From Pat Condell:



Remember, in Sweden, "Freedom Equals Racism." Where have I heard that before?

Oh, and don't forget this:

Leftism is a disease. Racist, imperialist, and fundamentally evil. As much as I admire the Scandinavian countries, stories like this remind us always --- always --- that nothing impedes human improvement like the statist abomination of far-left leftist regressivism.

Socially 'Progressive' Norway Brings Back Racist 'Human Zoos'

Norway is the model country for social progressivism, which of course explains why folks there are bringing back the racist Kongoslandsbyen ("Congo Village"), apparently to widespread enthusiasm.

At Global Post, "Norway reopens racist 'human zoo' to remind people about racism":

Two artists have recreated a “human zoo” in Oslo, just in time for the 200th anniversary of Norway’s constitution. The project is modeled after an actual historical event — a really, really racist one — and not surprisingly, it’s generated a lot of controversy.

The “Congo Village,” or Kongoslandsbyen, was a fake tribal village built in Frogner Park for the 1914 Oslo World Fair. Visitors could pay to gawk at 80 African men, women and children — apparently Congolese — living in thatched huts, wearing traditional garments and doing “indigenous” things.

In just five months it attracted 1.4 million visitors, or roughly half the population of Norway. A newspaper at the time described it as “exceedingly funny” while another enthused, “it’s wonderful that we are white!”

Today a “human zoo” is nearly unthinkable. Which is exactly why Norwegian-Sudanese artist Mohamed Ali Fadlabi and Swedish-Canadian artist Lars Cuznor decided to rebuild one. To their surprise, very few Norwegians seemed to know about this aspect of Norway’s history.

Cuznor and Fadlabi felt that rebuilding the Congo Village was a way to spark discussion about colonialism, racism and equality in Norway. They secured co-funding from the Norwegian government and recruited international volunteers (of all races) to perform in the fake village.

The resulting display, called “European Attraction Limited,” is meant to challenge Nordic beliefs of moral superiority by confronting visitors with evidence of Norway’s racist past.

“Norwegians have been propagating this self-image of a post-racial society and it's been internalized that it's a good, tolerant society,” Cuznor told Reuters. “It's great branding and it’s self-perpetuating but it's a false image.”

But not everyone’s a fan. As Ugandan academic Bwesigye bwa Mwesigire wrote for The Guardian, “human zoos” were common in Belgium, Germany, France and the United States and depicted Africans (and other non-western peoples) as “uncivilised, primitive and animistic.” This helped justify colonial policies while providing Europeans with crude entertainment.

Bwa Mwesigire adds, “We are not in a post-racial world. Fadlabi and Cuzner can’t exonerate themselves because they mean well. Indeed, if they are serious about creating discussions of racism they ought to think deeper about the likelihood that their project may entrench the same prejudices they claim to fight.”

And Muauke B. Munfocol, a DRC-born Norwegian, questions the decision of the Norwegian government to sponsor a human zoo, rather than put its money toward more constructive forms of dialogue...

Right.

Human zoos were common 100 years ago, but for some reason the socialist paradise Norway decides to bring them back? So hateful. So typically regressive.

Leftism is a disease. Racist, imperialist, and fundamentally evil. As much as I admire the Scandinavian countries, stories like this remind us always --- always --- that nothing impedes human improvement like the statist abomination of far-left leftist regressivism.

#Mexico Divided: Stark Photos Show Urban Wealth and Poverty Side-by-Side

Recall my son's country project on Denmark?

Well, whereas the Danes have the greatest economic equality in the world, as measured by the Gini coefficient, Mexico is plagued by some of the world's worst economic inequality.

London's Daily Mail chronicles some of that, "Mexico divided: Stark unaltered photographs capture middle class affluence side-by-side with extreme urban poverty."

More, at Distractify, "These Images Of Poor And Rich Neighborhoods Side By Side Are NOT Photoshopped. How Can This Be?!"

My Son's 6th Grade Country Report

My boy picked Denmark. And of course I spent time with him researching the country and helping with the written paragraphs.

I'm impressed. Denmark boasts the world's highest level of income equality, as measured by the Gini coefficient (financed the world's highest tax rates). And Danes have the highest rate of meat consumption per capita in the world. It's basically your Scandinavian dream country. Modern, cultured and environmentally correct. I'm not planning a trip to Europe anytime soon, but after helping with this project, I'm way more inclined to consider a Copenhagen stopover.

My kid's 6th grade class project. #Denmark pic.twitter.com/84ebIAL09r

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) May 17, 2014

In any case, here's the copy on the country's background:

Denmark is located in Scandinavia, in the northernmost part of Europe. The geography of Denmark is mostly flatland. The country's highest point being roughly 173 meter above sea level. There are over 400 islands. Some of its best-known landmarks include the Tivoli Gardens amusement park in Copenhagen and the Little Mermaid Statue, at the Langelinie promenade in Copenhagen. Denmark's natural resources include oil, natural gas, gravel, sand, limestone, chalk, and clay. Denmark is self-sufficient in oil. Denmark has a temperate climate with mild winters and cool summers. The country averages about 28 inches of rainfall per year. Denmark is a predominantly Protestant nation and Easter and Christmas are the country's biggest holidays. Danes celebrate three days of Christmas. Other religious holidays are also important throughout the year. The capital city of Copenhagen, population of over 1 million people, is a popular visitors' attraction. The city is rich in historical sites and palaces, as well as arts and culture, like museums and the opera. The Copenhagen zoo is popular as well. The original Legoland park is located in the city of Billund, to the west in Jutland. Danes are the world's greatest meateaters! Denmark boasts the highest consumption of meat per person in the world. Meat and fish are the main foods. Danes like to eat open sandwiches, called smørrebrød, with lots of toppings, as well as meatballs with all kinds of trimmings. Sports Illustrated swimsuit model Nina Agdal is probably the world's most famous Dane at the moment, although Prince Hamlet, from Shakespeare's play, remains as popular as ever. Because it is cool in Denmark most of the time, Danes wear a lot of layers in the clothing, as well as denim jeans, sweaters and scarves.

And you gotta love Denmark's immigration policy, via Der Spiegel, "Putting a Price on Foreigners: Strict Immigration Laws 'Save Denmark Billions'":

Denmark's strict immigration laws have saved the country billions in benefits, a government report has claimed. The Integration Ministry report has now led to calls among right-wing populists to clamp down further on immigrants to increase the savings...

The report has led to jubilation among right-wing politicians: "We now have it in black and white that restrictions (on immigrants) pay off," said DPP finance spokesman Kristian Thulesen Dahl. The DPP will almost certainly exploit the figures in future negotiations over the Danish economy.

But the report has sparked outrage from opposition parties like the centrist Social Liberal Party, which dismissed it as undignified and discriminatory. The party's integration spokeswoman, Marianne Jelved, said: "A certain group of people is being denounced and being blamed for our deficit, being made into whipping boys." She added: "We cannot classify people depending on their value to the economy. That is degrading in a democracy that has a basic value of equality."

Still, the announcement has not come as surprise. The right-wing populist DPP, which has been working with the ruling center-right coalition government of Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen since 2001, has in the past made its aims very clear: a complete halt to immigration into Denmark from non-Western countries. "A Somali who is no good for anything, that is simply not acceptable," said DPP leader Pia Kjærsgaard. Similarly, center-right liberal Prime Minister Rasmussen has also said anyone who would be a burden on Denmark is not welcome in the country.

Right-wing populists have even demanded a ban on satellite dishes so that TV stations like al-Jazeera and Al Arabiya cannot be beamed into Danish living rooms. There have also been suggestions to exempt migrants from the minimum wage -- supposedly to make it easier for foreigners to gain access to the labor market.

The small Scandinavian country already has the strictest immigration and asylum laws in Europe. For example, foreign couples are only allowed to marry if both partners are at least 24 years old. The number of asylum seekers and relatives of immigrants seeking entry into Denmark dropped by more than two-thirds within nine years as a result of the tough laws....

In November, the government agreed to stricter laws and made the entry of immigrants' spouses more difficult. Only those who collect enough "points" may come to Denmark in the future -- with points being determined by factors such as academic qualifications and proof of language proficiency. In addition, the equivalent of €13,000 must be deposited with the state in the form of a bank guarantee to cover any future public assistance. Socially deprived areas with a disproportionately high number of immigrants will be subject in future to a so-called "ghetto strategy" designed to prevent high concentrations of foreigners in public housing areas. Migrants will be assigned housing, and three-year-old children who do not speak Danish well enough will be required to attend state child care.

Some immigrants have already turned their back on Denmark voluntarily. Increasing numbers of Somalis are moving away, especially to the UK, the Jyllands Posten reported on Thursday, because of discrimination.

Hmm, racism as state strategy. And leftists say we're the world's most evil country, lol!

Veterans' Benefits Live On Long After Bullets Stop

A great piece, at WSJ, "Still Paying for the Civil War":

WILKESBORO, N.C. — Each month, Irene Triplett collects $73.13 from the Department of Veterans Affairs, a pension payment for her father's military service—in the Civil War.

More than 3 million men fought and 530,000 men died in the conflict between North and South. Pvt. Mose Triplett joined the rebels, deserted on the road to Gettysburg, defected to the Union and married so late in life to a woman so young that their daughter Irene is today 84 years old—and the last child of any Civil War veteran still on the VA benefits rolls.

Ms. Triplett's pension, small as it is, stands as a reminder that war's bills don't stop coming when the guns fall silent. The VA is still paying benefits to 16 widows and children of veterans from the 1898 Spanish-American War.

The last U.S. World War I veteran died in 2011. But 4,038 widows, sons and daughters get monthly VA pension or other payments. The government's annual tab for surviving family from those long-ago wars comes to $16.5 million.

Spouses, parents and children of deceased veterans from World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan received $6.7 billion in the 2013 fiscal year that ended Sept. 30. Payments are based on financial need, any disabilities, and whether the veteran's death was tied to military service.

Those payments don't include the costs of fighting or caring for the veterans themselves. A Harvard University study last year projected the final bill for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars would hit $4 trillion to $6 trillion in the coming decades.

Eric Shinseki, the secretary of Veterans Affairs, often cites President Abraham Lincoln's call, in his second inaugural address, for Americans "to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan."

"The promises of President Abraham Lincoln are being delivered, 150 years later, by President Barack Obama, " Secretary Shinseki said in a speech last fall. "And the same will be true 100 years from now—the promises of this president will be delivered by a future president, as yet unborn."

A declaration of war sets in motion expenditures that can span centuries, whether the veterans themselves were heroes, cowards or something in between...

RTWT.

Mose Triplett switched sides, joining the Union Army so he'd qualify for veterans' bennies after the war. And boy did he ever, lol.