The Migrant As Pawn

For decades city mayors and state governors, mostly Democrat, have chosen to ignore federal immigration laws by defiantly declaring themselves  a"sanctuary" in the name of compassion. However, all isn't so well in the liberal world of "Bolshevia'. The problem is that they're running out of taxpayer money. 

I suppose all is well so long as the "gravy train" continues to run.  But for that to happen, ordinary working men and women must work longer and harder to stoke the economic engine with more of their hard earned money while leaving ever less money to pay their own bills, put food on the table and put a roof over their heads. Data shows a virtually non-existent middle class compared to just as few generations ago while poverty and homelessness (especially among veterans) grows to unsustainable levels.

To make matters worse for these mayors and governors of Utopia is that other elected representatives and their constituents in other states and towns don't want to play the "kick-the-can-down-the-road" game any longer. Someone, after all, has to be the grown up.

As a result, they've started sending these migrants to all those sanctuary locations with one way bus tickets and a meal card. It's certainly cheaper than forcing their citizens to pay millions just to support the grand ideals of others. If sanctuary cities and states want them, then they can have them along with the responsibility that comes with their words.

But now sanctuary cities and states are rapidly  running out of money. They've already had to cut back on public programs which were available for and paid by their citizens. They've started allowing the homeless to live in public parks, doorways, or wherever else they want. They can use public sidewalks as their personal toilets. Local businesses can't keep them out of their stores or from using their restrooms to clean up in. Businesses are even prohibited from detaining shoplifters, thus crime and everything associated with it becomes rampant.

The result is that tax generating businesses are leaving and taking revenue generating jobs with them. So, local mayors and state governors are demanding that the federal government in Washington turn up the money faucet in order to help them continue to defy federal immigration laws and reinstate public programs. How's that for having chutzpah? 

No one is quite sure about how many illegal immigrants have been shipped around the country, but it's  at least around 100,000 if not more. Of course, you have to feel sorry for these individuals---the men, women, and children---for being moved here and there like some pawn on a chess board, to be used and discarded. After all, most are simply coming here for work and hopefully a better life.

But nevertheless, it's fair to assume that they are aware of the risk and what they were attempting to do was illegal. Breaking U.S. immigration laws was little different from breaking immigration law in their native homeland, except that the repercussions were almost always far more severe.

We can only assume that these individuals have been convinced themselves that they were different. That they could evade authorities and slip across the border undetected. Perhaps long the way one of those church organizations who help individuals break the law could help them. Maybe too they could help shield from the border patrol, ICE, and others. All they need to do was make their way undetected to one of those sanctuary states or cities.  

Hopefully someday, down the road, they can stop looking over their shoulder, stop running and hiding, and just settle down. Perhaps, if they're lucky, some U.S. President, while trying to curry support from certain voters, will grant them amnesty like President Reagan or President Obama did.  Until then, they remain political pawns and will continue to live their life like anyone else on the run. But until then, that's a lot of hoping, wishing, and stress to go along with those "maybes" and "perhaps".

We've all seen those signs which read "No Human is illegal". It seems they're always at every pro-amnesty or pro-migration protest. While it's true that "no person is illegal", on occasion their actions are. That's why we have laws and a judicial system to enforce those laws.

The countries from where many of these migrants embark from, be they in Latin America, Asia, Africa, Europe, or the Middle East, all have similar immigration laws. just like the United States does. The main difference is that the punishment for breaking their migration laws often far more severe than ours, and yet why does no one complains or speaks out against those?

Nations have defined borders and the right to regulate who crosses those borders. It's one of the cornerstones to national sovereignty which have existed for over five millennia, but today there are those who would deny us that right.  Why should we not have that same right of national sovereignty as any other country? Why should other nations be allow to have borders and laws to enforce those borders but America's be porous?

Europe is prime example of what happens when countries fail to secure their border. The EU has a "open border" policy which allows anyone from anywhere in enter their country regardless of any other factor. As a result, they are being overwhelmed by migrants from the Middle East and Africa. Most are young, male, poorly educated, and Muslim. The result has been a serious clash of cultures.

Many of these individuals are under the false impression that they are "entitled" to practically everything; that the state has to provide them with whatever they want. As a result many have become a serious drain on the nation's safety net. There have been numerous clashes over culture traditions, and values which has its basis in Christianity and the Enlightenment. Crime has also become as serious matter with assaults, rapes, and robberies leading the way.

Meanwhile, oil rich nations like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, or Kuwait  have seen virtually none of these migrants despite sharing similar traditions, values, culture, and language as many of these migrants. They even share the same faith--- Islam.

Saudi Arabia alone has enough tents with air condition to house and support three million migrants, and yet they remain empty. So, why aren't these millions of migrants from Syria, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, or Africa not going there?

For one, these Arab nations have strong border security. Anyone illegally crossing their borders are dealt with severely. They also have very restrictive immigration laws. While they do allow individuals to apply to come and work there, long term settlement is very rare.

In addition, these countries are highly selective in who they award temporary work permits to, preferring individuals with good educations and no criminal records, and while they have a very liberal social safety net, they actually expect people to follow the law and work. Imagine that!  As a result, Europe is getting the dregs I suppose.

The U.S. may be facing a similar situation. Very few of those seeking to come illegally aren't well education. The overwhelming majority have a minimum education. Many have little about a basic level. In addition, most of these individuals are low skilled or unskilled. They're coming for any low level job they can find, which is unfortunate since it perpetuates the poverty they're trying to get away from.

In today's high tech world where companies (and employees) compete on a global basis, what the United States desperately needs are doctors and nurses, engineers, data scientists, software developers, and AI specialists. There is, however, a demand for skilled and licensed electricians, plumbers, welders, HVAC specialists, data systems service technicians, and carpenters thanks to the closure of trade and technical schools several years ago.  

So, what does that mean for us? While most of the illegal immigration is coming from Latin America, there are strong indications that we're beginning to see more coming from Asia (especially China and North Korea), India and Ski Lanka, the poorest of the African nations such as Somalia, the Ivory Coast, and Sierra Leone, as well as the Middle East, particularly Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Syria.

Among this latter group, there has been several arrest by Mexican authorities of individuals with connections to terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, and ISIS. These individuals were caught while trying to blend in with the migrant caravans. While there's no doubt that there are likely terrorist cells already here, what we don't need are more.

Presidents, Congress, and others of both parties have been promising the American taxpayer for decades that they will "do something" to secure our borders, especially our southern border which is a porous as Swiss cheese.  Thus far, whether you like him or not, only one--- Donald Trump----actually made a serious effort, and he meet with unbridled resistance from both political parties, the media, and financed special interest groups with a vested interest in keeping the border open.

We cannot continue to allow our borders to remain open. Not only are these serious national security issues, they represent a serious threat in the form of diseases we're no longer vaccinated again and viruses like COVID, while the influx also puts as serious strain on our national safety net just as in Europe. And while we need to fill low level jobs, what we seriously need are engineers, doctors, and high tech specialists. Anything less, will only continue hasten America's decline as a world leader.  

Finally, no more "anchor babies". To many women have used their pregnancies and the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment as a way to circumvent immigration laws to remain in the United States. The 14th Amendment, which was adopted in 1868, was never intended to be use in that way. It was intended to confer citizenship on all former slaves. Currently, any child born on U.S. soil automatically gains birthright citizenship. That right extends to the child's parents as well.  

In the interim, the United States needs to accept responsibility for its part in creating the situation in the first place.  We need to stop trying to remake other nations over in our own image. Not everybody wants to be America when it grows up. Hell, given our broken political system, even we don't even want to be America anymore!

 We need to stop throwing our political, economic, and military weight around and intervening in other countries elections. That also includes imposing sanctions and embargoes. If they want to freely elect a socialist, republican, or whatever form of government, that's their business not ours (as an aside, let's stop installing Far Right wing military juntas too okay?). Why don't we act like a world leader and come to a civil solution?

If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps beat the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!

 

A few countries take responsibility for most of the world's refugees

US to reopen border crossings as illegal immigration drops

 

Migrant crisis explained: What's behind the border surge

CFR: Ten Graphics That Explain the U.S. Struggle WithMigrant Flows in 2022

Anchor Babies

What Are Sanctuary Cities and Why do they Exist?

Saudi Arabia Has Enough Tents With AC To House 3 MillionPeople, And Yet Has Taken In ZERO Refugees

Where Do We Stack Up on Taxes? A Comparison of Tax Rates Between Countries, States and Cities

"I don't have a dollar to my name. Hey brother can you spare a dime?". That was a common refrain during the Great Depression. With the rate of tax increases across the country, it may become a common refrain once again. Just how much off are Americans when it comes to taxes than their international counterpart? How does America stack up when it come to taxes? To hear it from Corporate America and the super wealthy, the US is the most heavily taxed country on the planet. Why, they can hardly earn a decent profit on their investments! But how true is that? According to the Tax Policy Institute, which is part of the world famous Brookings Institute, Americans are taxed on average 26% of the Gross Domestic Product. This compares to an average of 33% among the world's developed countries---the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (aka the OECD).

By comparison, Denmark is the highest taxed country in the world with a tax rate of 48%, followed by France which has a tax rate of 45% and Belgium, which has a tax rate of 44%. Germany has a tax rate of around 36%, and Norway, which is the lowest taxed nation among the Scandinavian countries, has a tax rate of about 38%. Israel has around a 33% tax rate while Japan's is right at 31%. The US, as we said, is 26%, and just below Switzerland and just ahead of South Korea with 25%. Of all of the 35 OCED countries, the least taxed country is Mexico. It's tax rate is around 16%.

Where does this tax come from? After all, someone has to pay for government services. Nothing is free. According to the same article, 48% of America's tax revenue comes from income and profits. 24% comes from Social Security while 17% comes from taxes on goods and services. The least taxed sector is property, which accounts for just 10% of the tax source. Meanwhile, Australia gets about 55% of its taxes from income and profits with about 25% from goods and services. Roughly 9% comes from property tax . However, there is no tax on social safety net type programs. New Zealand is pretty much the same way.

If we look at Denmark, which is the heaviest taxed of all the 35 OCED countries, we find that about 55% comes from income and profit. About 33% is from goods and services and least than 1% comes from social safety net programs. Turkey taxes income and profit at about 25% but about 48% on goods and services. Property tax is about 5% while it taxes social programs at 30% The average among OCED countries is 34% on income and profits, 32% on goods and services, 26% on social safety net programs and 6% on property tax.

So, what does this mean for the US when compared to the other developed nations? It means that we're in the top 25% when it comes to tax on income and profits while we tax less on goods and services, collecting just 17% compared to the OCED average of 32%. In terms of property tax, the US taxes an extra 4% over the OCED average (the majority of this and taxes on goods and services are collected at the state and local levels). In terms of Social Security or social safety net programs, the US collects slightly less tax---24%---compared to the OCED average of 26%. An interesting aside, several countries on the list collect over 40% in taxes on social safety net programs!

Therefore, in answer to our original question, America is actually among the least most taxed countries among the OCED nations, coming in 30th out of 35. However, we are tax heavy on incomes and profits and slightly higher on property taxes, which affects middle class Americans the most (property ownership is typically the largest investment among the middle class). Meanwhile, goods and services, which pertains primarily to businesses get off pretty light compared to other countries by almost half.

This brings us to the second half of our look at taxes, namely how do the states compare with each other? This is perhaps particularly important as Tax Day---April 15th---quickly approaches. As of 2015, most Americans paid almost 1/3 of their income in taxes. In 2015, the IRS assessed taxes of $1.454 trillion dollars on Americans. Based on 150.6 million returns processed and an average income of $71,258, that means on average Americans paid approximately $9,655 in taxes just to the federal government (which equates to a tax rate of 13.5%).

In addition, most Americans pay state and local taxes, Social Security tax, property tax, sales tax, plus so-called "hidden taxes" such as on water, drainage, electricity, toll, usage, garbage, and gas. Meanwhile, corporations levy their own taxes in the form of access fees, late fees, processing fees, convenience fees and a whole range of other fees and add-ons which often doubles a bill. Often times, corporations will claim that these are merely fees actually charged by local or state governments which they are "obligated" to pass on. Some claim that this or that charge is "voluntary" but added on without our consent. As many of you know, trying to obtain details about these various fees is often so difficult most of us simply give up, which I suspect is their intent.

In terms of personal taxes, which states have the lowest and highest? Let's start with the highest personal tax rates by state first. Coming in tenth is Wisconsin which has a state tax rate of 7.65%. In ninth place is New York at 8.82%. The eighth spot goes is the nation's capital, the District of Columbia. It's tax rate is 8.95%. This ties with Vermont. New Jersey is next with a 8.97% state tax. The fifth highest taxed state is Iowa at 8.89%. Coming in at fourth is Minnesota with 9.85%. Third place belongs to Oregon. Its tax rate is 9.9%. Second place goes Hawaii with 11%. Finally, the most taxed state is California whose tax rate is a staggering 13.3%. No wonder so many people are leaving.

So, now let's find out who has the lowest state taxes. Here there is a bit of a surprise since we have ten way tie! That's right. We have ten states with no state tax. They are Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington State, and Wyoming. While Tennessee and New Hampshire have no state income tax, they make up for it taxes on dividends and interest. Many of these states also use a consumption tax in lieu of a income tax. Among the states which do have an income tax, the state with the lowest is Pennsylvania which has a tax rate of 3.07%.

If we look just at property tax, the top three highest spots belong to three counties in New Jersey (Union County with 8.13%, Essex County at 8.27% and 8.79% in Passaic County). The bottom three in terms of least highest property tax all belong to Louisiana. In Vernon Parish it's 0.25%. For Assumption and Grant Parishes the tax rate on property is 0.26%. However, all isn't gumbo and crawdads in Louisiana. Louisiana has the nation's highest sales tax at 9.98%, followed by Tennessee with 9.46%. Arkansas comes in third place with a 9.30% sales tax. As for the lowest, that technically belongs to Alaska which has a 1.78% sales tax. I say "technically" because Oregon, Delaware, New Hampshire and Montana have no sales tax.

In terms of which cities have the highest local taxes, Louisville Kentucky is ranked 21st in terms of worst cites to live when it comes to taxes with an average tax bill of $11,517 despite an average income of only $49,439 coming in just ahead of Atlanta and just behind Los Angeles. I expect Louisville with move up on the list even higher very shortly. The mayor is proposing a 300% tax increase on insurance to make up for a "surprise" pension shortage which the city has known about for just over two years. As an aside, the mayor, who just ran for reelection, publicly stated on several occasions that the city actually had a surplus. What wasn't disclosed was the wasted millions of dollars on numerous pet projects such as bike lanes, paying gang members and criminals to monitor other gang members and criminals (which was hidden from the public), floating private non-profit organizations which are not self-supporting, and buying property or putting up bonds on behalf of corporations. This doesn't include top heavy agencies or executive "make jobs".

If that isn't bad enough, the residents of Louisville will be facing a new gas tax, an increase in gas and electricity rates, sewer rate, water rate, and property rate increases for 2019, which is one reason many people and businesses are moving out of Jefferson County. Meanwhile, public outrage is palpable. A number of groups have come together to fight these tax and rates increases. However, it's expect that despite public outrage, the local Metro Council will likely rubber stamps the increases while the Kentucky State Legislature does likewise.

In tenth spot of the worse taxed cities is Boston Massachusetts where the average tax bill is $14,623, not to mention being one of the worse taxed states in the country. Ninth place belongs to Oakland California. The average tax bill for residents there is $14,916. In the eighth spot is New York City, where the average resident can expect to pay $14,987. Unlucky number seven belongs to Portland Oregon with a average total tax of $16,034, followed by Seattle with $16,891 in taxes shelled out. The fifth place loser is Virginia Beach Virginia, a big military supported city. Residents there can expect to pay on average $17,763. fourth place belongs to San Diego California, another big military city. It has an average tax bill of $18,143.

In the third spot of worse taxed cities, we have Washington DC. Residents there have a average tax bill of $20,686! That's almost inconceivable for the average American. Coming in second is San Francisco, which is represented by Senator Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) in Congress. Bay City residents pay, on average $27,810 in taxes. Lastly, the worse city to live in when it comes to taxes is San Jose California which is represented in the US Senate by Ellen "Zoe" Lofgren (D-CA). San Jose is on the southern edge of the Bay Area outside San Francisco. Its residents pay an average of $27,973 in taxes! That's simply outrageous. However, we should bear in mind that while the cost of living...and taxes...are much higher, so is the overall income level.

The best spots to live in to avoid these municipal leeches include Houston, Dallas, El Paso, and San Antonio Texas, Tampa Florida, Milwaukee Wisconsin, and Tucson Arizona. However, the top three in reverse order is New Orleans Louisiana. It's residents have an average tax bill of $6,928. In the number two position is Memphis Tennessee. While residents pay approximately $5,882, Memphis is known to have a high crime problem. Next on the list is Detroit Michigan. Detroit has long been known for having its share of problems, especially with crime and corruption as well as a population flight creating a "hollowed out" or "donut" city, it's residents pay on average $5,505 in taxes. Perhaps if they paid a bit more, they could hire more cops Now, for the best place to live in terms of lowest taxes, is Miami Florida. You wouldn't think a city as large as Miami would have the lowest average total tax---approximately $5,050---but apparently it does.

So, there you have it, how America stacks up to other countries in terms of taxes, along with the best and worse states and cities to live in when it comes to taxes. Overall, America does well when compared to other industrialized nations, yet it puts too much emphasis on individuals to meet its tax obligations. In terms of states, there are a surprisingly large number of states with no or a very low tax rate. The majority of these state use consumption tax to collect revenue, which is really the most practical way to collect taxes. Others make up for having no state sales taxes by going after interest and dividend payments; essentially taxing those with the most money the most.

As for cities, it goes to show that there are a lot of places to live where the average tax rate is reasonably affordable. However, in several cases, we find instances of low tax rates and high crime rates, high unemployment, poor social services and crumbling infrastructures. In the case of a few, such as Louisville Kentucky, we see incompetence (and many would add corruption) in government to the point of committing economic suicide while a small elite profits. Sounds familiar doesn't it?

The city has tried numerous public funded ventures, only to see them fail. Nowadays it's putting all its eggs into revitalizing the "Bourbon Trail" downtown which had last prospered there over 100 years ago. Instead, the city should focus on basics. While will likely happen at its current rate is creating a Southern version of "Detroit". Other cities manage to survive thanks to a large corporate base which underwrite its services. If they go, so goes the city. Detroit is a classic example. Cities like this often fail to listen to their residents. It's politicians become arrogant and out of touch. When that happens, it's just a matter of time. Taxes are also the price we pay for convenience. Some would say it's the price we pay for civilization. However, taxes should be thought of as a limited resource, especially for ordinary people. If it's managed properly, we all prosper. If not, cities, like civilizations, crumble and fade away.



How Do US Taxes Compare Internationally?

States With the Highest and Lowest Taxes

The Average American's Tax Bill In the 50 Biggest Cities

'Tis the Holiday Season: The Safest Charities to Donate To

Well, it's that time of year...again...when people's attention turns to thoughts of turkey, stuffing, cranberry sauce, pumpkin or maybe pecan pie, and of course, Macy's Parade along with the usual football games. It's also a time where we start seeing Christmas commercials (ad nauseam) not to mention Christmas trees and decorations damn near everywhere! Kids methodically compiling their Christmas list ("Naughty List" be damned). But, it's also when we start thinking in terms of family and the gathering of our little group.

People, on average, are a little more friendlier (except when shopping in which case it's everyone for themselves). Maybe it's the lights. Maybe it's the snow on the ground or crispness of the air. Maybe it's the message this season brings for those of you who are Jewish or Christian. Whatever it is, we also tend to think a bit more about those who are less fortunate than we are. Sure, we see the individual standing on the street corner with the mandatory "will work for food" or "homeless veteran" signs year around. The more cynical among us of course wonder if they really would work for food or if they're actually a veteran or simply looking for a handout in order to score some drugs or booze. Nevertheless, this time of years seems to make us want to drop our guard, albeit just a little.

However, given human nature, it's also the favorite time of the year for crooks and thieves too, but for very different reasons. It's when they finding stealing packages from front porches,shopping carts and the backseats of cars the easiest. It's when we are so pre-occupied with other matters that we fail to notice our pocketbooks or who is around us in the parking lot. It's also when stores experience the most shoplifting and robberies. Stores are typically packed with high end seasonal goodies like jewelry, perfumes, clothes (especially coats), not to mention in demand toys, video games and equipment.

Stores are often stocked with part time temporary employees just trying to earn some additional pocket pockets to fill out their own special day. The majority don't make much more than minimum wage, but even if they did, they're not going to risk life and limb for a temp job. They don't have a vested interest in whether that particular store gets robbed or not. Besides, that's what store and mall security are for. Of course, with few exceptions, neither are going to risk a brawl or worse, getting shot over a pair of sneakers or jeans. In addition, in most cases, they really can't do much more than "detain" the individual until the cops get there (in the case of mall security, many of them are retirees. They couldn't do anything even if they wanted to).

Nevertheless, there is another kind of criminal I want to talk about. In my opinion, these are perhaps the worse of the lot since they prey on our sympathies. They tug on our heart strings with all sorts of "tales of woe" and the promise that your dollar or quarter or whatever was just the one they needed to make things all better, be it cure some cancer, house a disabled veteran or feed a single woman with children, when in truth they do little or none of this. As an aside, 40% of all donations to charities come during this time of year.

Now while some of these so-called "charities" do extend a hand (albeit a weak one) to the group they're purporting to help, the percentage is criminally small. Meanwhile, their senior officers and solicitors are raking in the big money. Their biggest concerns are how to keep the public from finding out (don't want to kill the golden goose) and where to park the money so that they can avoid paying the most taxes. Maybe it's just me, but I have a serious issue with these types of crooks. I can't stand to see people taken advantage of, especially seniors, children, the mentally and physically handicapped, and "my" veterans. If you brought it on yourself, that's one thing, but these individuals are often the most vulnerable. So, I did a little checking around and compiled my own "Good" and "Naughty" lists.

I've listed the percentage of money which actually reaches their targeted group where possible. So, without further ado, let's start with the "Naughty" list. We'll begin with the list published in May 2018 by SmartAsset, a financial advisement company.

1. Kids Wish Network
2. Cancer Fund of America
3. Children's Wish Foundation International
4. American Breast Cancer Foundation
5. Firefighters Charitable Fund.

In addition, SmartAssets mentions some others which seem to be popular for our area in the Ohio Valley such as American Association of State Troopers, United States Deputy Sheriffs' Association, The Veteran Fund, the Firefighters Burn Fund, and the Children’s Leukemia Research Association. SmartAssets reports that of the 50 charities they list, $1.35 billion in donations was raised, with $970 million going to folks collecting the money. They also said that the percentage of money which actually reached the individuals in need ranged from zero dollars to a high of just 11% (the average was around 8%).

A Daily KOS report from December 2016 stated that Kids Wish Network spends only 2.5% on its targeted group (which is presumably children). The Children's Wish Foundation International spends 10.6%. The American Breast Cancer Foundation spends a pathetic 2.2% while the Firefighters Charitable Fund returns 7.4% to firefighters. The Cancer Fund of American directed just 1% to cancer patients (I'm pleased to add that the fund is now dissolved). Nevertheless, I should mention a couple of others which appears on their list simply for their audacity.

Woman to Woman Cancer Foundation, which supposedly helps women with various types of cancer, directs only .03% to these women in need. The International Union of Police Associations (AFL-CIO) give a criminally ridiculous 0.5% to law enforcement. Next is the Children's Cancer Recovery Foundation, which raised $38.5 million dollars in 2016 but gave these kids just 0.7% of the money. Lastly is Project Cure. They raised $53.8 million dollars (2016), but 0.0% reached their intended group.

Consumer Reports, a highly respected consumer oriented product ratings and review magazine, published their own list of "questionable" charities in December 2017. Since they break theirs down into eleven categories, I'll list just a few from some random areas.

1. SPCA International, New York (Animal Welfare)
2. Noah's Lost Ark, Ohio (Animal Welfare)
3. Cousteau Association, New Hampshire (Environment)
4. Military Order of the Purple Heart Service Foundation, Virginia (Veterans)
5. World Villages of Children Foundation, Maryland (Int'l Relief and Development).

In addition to publishing their own "low rated" charities as they call them, Consumer Reports also list comparative "high rated" charities in the same category next to them to make it easier to compare. By the way, the majority of these same charities appear on different sites, though with a different ranking.

On the "Good" list, we turn to Charity Navigator, which is a highly reputable evaluator of charities of all types. They rank and score each charity according efficiency, accountability, financial performance, and transparency. Here's who ranked the highest on their list:

1. Direct Relief (100%)
2. Map International (100%)
3. Matthew 23: Ministries (100%)

Three others, Samaritan's Purse, The Conservation Fund, and the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation each earned a score of 98.23. You can find more highly rated charities on their site, which is linked below.

Charity Watch, another high caliber charity evaluator known for in-depth investigation of charities also publish their list of the best charities. Since they list theirs by individual categories, I pulled a few from various topic. As before, I've included a link to their site so you can check any specific charity you're interested in.

1. PetSmart Charities (A+)
2. Fisher House Foundation (A+)
3. Wounded Warriors Family Support (A)
4. National Council on Aging (A+)
5. Center for Constitutional Rights (A-)

Some other important charities which deserve mentioning are the American Indian College Fund (B+), Guide Dog Foundation for the Blind (A), the National Rifle Association (A+), the Government Accountability Project ---GAP (A), Habitat for Humanity International (B+), Coalition for the Homeless (A-), and the Starlight Children's Foundation (A-).

As a community activist for close to 40 years, I've always felt the need to give back to my community, especially when it came to my fellow disabled veterans. I've always been willing to donate. In fact, I've been lucky enough to have the means to give. The problem has always been to whom? It seems that everyone has their hand out. My biggest concern was ensuring that the money or whatever I donated actually went to those I intended it for. Hucksters, Scammers, and old fashioned "Shysters" do more than just steal from us, they steal from those who need help the most. They are literally taking the coat off of someone's back and food out of the mouth of some senior or child. Hope this article will help you ensure that your hard earned dollars go where you want to too and keeps it out of the hands of the lowlifes.


The 50 Worst Charities in America---How to Keep from Being Scammed

Best and Worse Charities for Your Donations

25 of America's worst charities, how to find the good ones and where Trump's charity stands

Charity Watch: Top Rated Charities

Charity Navigator: Top Ten Lists

Immigration and Outcomes

Everyone knows that the US has an illegal immigration problem. We've had one since at least the Ronald Reagan Presidency. Estimates range from 12 million all the way up to 20 million individuals living in this country illegally. However, no one in Washington seems to care, We used to get empty promises of a border fence; of more border patrol and ICE presence; of more severe penalties for businesses, churches and the like who willfully broke the law. Now, politicians in Washington don't even have the decency to look into the camera and openly lie to us. They simply don't care what you and I think or want. The simple matter is that their corporate masters want cheaper labor. That means that they need more workers willing to accepting low paying jobs with little or no benefits. The more potential workers, the lower wages (and benefits) go. It's basic economics 101: supply and demand.

Many labor unions support illegal immigration too, not because they necessarily care about the welfare of these individuals but because they hope these largely low or no skill workers will accept the menial low paying jobs which is mostly all the private sector unions have left to offer since many of the good paying jobs have been outsourced overseas where companies can pay employees less...much less. Nevertheless, these low skilled and often poorly educated employees with still have to pay union dues out of their meager salaries, which will bolster the faltering union treasuries. Again, basic economics.

Many low wage service jobs like those found in the fast food industry, have been demanding dramatic pay increase; from current wages just over minimum wage to new $15 dollar an hour wages. That's all well and good. I hope they get them. I really do, however, what most people tend to forget is that these jobs were created to be primarily part-time and never as jobs to solely support households, but with the exporting of the majority of manufacturing jobs overseas, these have become the "go to" jobs for the low skilled and/or low educated individual, especially for single parents.

Corporations have, of course, attempted to justify the exporting of jobs overseas as a means to compete in global markets. Corporations have long maintained that they're unable to compete against other businesses that pay employees a few dollars or even cents on the hour, and usually with no benefits (including vacations). Often employees are required to work in unsafe or unhealthy work conditions over long hours, few if any breaks, and with machinery that's unsafe. Thus it's not uncommon for employees to be injured at work due to the equipment failure and/or exhaustion. However, since many countries lack anything similar to an OSHEA and with few (if any) employee rights, they have little recourse. A few companies have even exported jobs to countries actually employ prison or child labor (which is not uncommon in the garment or shoe industries for instance).

Nevertheless, US corporations are able to ship foreign products goods back into the United States while paying little if any tariffs since they maintain a presence here in the States. As a result, not only are American companies able to reduce employee costs, as well as avoiding expenditures on proper equipment requirements or meeting proper health or safety guidelines, they can also avoid any importation penalties. As a result, many US corporations are reaping a financial windfall. Is it any wonder CEOs making on average up to 400% percent more than their average employee? The result is, as alluded to above, those seeking employment, especially those without a college or technical education, are forced to accept whatever job they can find. In addition, there are the tax breaks and taxpayer based incentives commonly known as "corporate welfare". Frankly, who can blame them for attempting to force employers to pay out more in wages? After all, it's not like you can export service jobs right? Well, perhaps.

What many haven't counted on is that low wage employers do have a few recourses available. They can cut back on the number of employees they hire and require existing employees to pick up the slack, including mandatory work on the holidays, longer hours and fewer benefits (especially healthcare). Another recourse is automation. Some fast food restaurants for instance have begun experimenting with automated ordering devises that eliminates order takers (purchases are made with debit or credit cards, so there's no cash transactions). So, instead of four or five employees working the counter, maybe only one or two will be needed. In addition, owners can and most likely will raise the costs of their products a few cents. Thus while they may pay their employees more, they will be paying fewer of them while the public will have to pay more for the same items.

As a result of all this, there will be an increase in competition for the decreasing availability of jobs, and with more demand than supply, wages and/or benefits will decrease. What happens to those unable to find jobs? Many will fall through the cracks into a economic netherworld. Some will eke out a living somewhere between the murky recesses of part time jobs, the black or gray marketplace of cash only transactions or barter, a loose public safety net or maybe low level crime, while for others, especially the young, they can be sure there will always be a war or conflict somewhere for the control of resources or markets to help eliminate any "excess" population.

So what can be done? Fortunately there are options available if we have enough political will. One solution would be to impose tariffs on any imports, be it foreign or domestic. We could also eliminate any types of "corporate welfare" or taxpayer based assistance available to companies with manufacturing centers overseas who use those to ship back completed products to the US. We could also reform our labor laws to permit employees in foreign nations hired overseas by US based companies to be eligible to join US labor unions. Thus, for instances, employees of Ford in, let's say, Mexico or China, would be allowed to join the UAW. This would put them on the same footing as their domestic counterparts and create a more balanced playing field when it comes time for negotiating labor contracts (wages would, of course, be adjusted based the local economy). In addition, US companies who relocate US facilities overseas would be barred for obtaining government contracts, including their subsidiaries.

There is also the matter of illegal immigration. It's obviously going to be difficult at best to remove 12 million illegal immigrants. Building a wall, while a good (and expensive) symbolic statement will, in fact, dissuade very few individuals from crossing illegally into America. Most will simply bypass the wall and enter through other means, including tunnels or boats or find other entry points. Yes, we need to increase the ICE and border patrols agents along with giving them full authority to stop the flow using whatever means at their disposal up to and including direct confrontation. However, the only real solution will be by eliminating demand and that means strict and severe enforcement of penalties for anyone---individual, business, or religious institution---who aid or hire illegal immigrants without exception. Penalties should not be limited to just significant financial fines but also include suspending business licenses or loss of tax exempt status as well as possible imprisonment of key officers or officials for repeated offenses. Only by eliminating demand will we encourage illegal immigrants to return home. Lastly, we need to refuse the use of taxpayer based services to illegals and make English not just the "official" language of America but the only language used on government forms or other legal documents, as well as taught in US classrooms.

We also need to address our current educational standards. For instance, does every job actually require a college education? Personally, I don't think so. In fact, I would say that only a small percentage of jobs should require an applicant having a four or six year degree. In most cases, a solid high school education would be enough while for other jobs, a one or two year technical or trade school degree is more than adequate, and let's face it, not everyone is college material.

Germany, one of the world's top manufactures and known for their outstanding educational system, has a two tier system based on students academic performance, aptitude, and interests. The first track takes applicants toward "real world" jobs such as manufacturing (which also utilizes a two prong approach of academics and apprenticeship programs), the trades, or business (such as accounting, bookkeeping or sales), while the second track encourages qualified students on to higher education where they may pursue careers in law, medicine, engineering, and so forth. I should also point out that there is absolutely no stigma associated with individuals pursing the first approach since the system recognizes that each student is different, with different skills, talents, and abilities. In addition, no student is "locked in" and may pursue whichever track they're most interested in.

Of course, this type of system requires students who are dedicated and disciplined. Something which are lacking in American schools, but is still within the realm of possibility. US schools did, at one time, produce high quality students, especially in the years before the 1970's when a number of ill conceived "reforms" where introduced. If you have any doubts, feel free to check out any school book used in the 1940's, 1950's or even the 1960's for example (and remember, they didn't have computers or calculators) and see for yourself. Also, the US school system made good use of technical and trade schools which provided students with business ready skills to take them from graduation straight into the workforce without any significance additional training (and certainly with no remedial reading, grammar or math courses).

We must understand and accept that the economy is now global. Not only do companies compete on a global scale, but for a significant number of individuals, they too compete with others for jobs on a global scale. Furthermore, the United States is no longer a democratic republic. It's now a oligarchy, controlled in large part by global corporations who view nations as mere marketplaces to be exploited for their bottom line. Some see employees as necessary liabilities instead of the assets they really are. Capitalism, by its very nature, must consume and expand to survive. That's simply the nature of the beast. It has an insatiable appetite. However, if it continues to reduce wages and benefits in its pursuit of market share, it will reach the point where it's unable to sell its products because there will be too few people able to afford them. Therefore, a balance will have to be reached, and soon, which allows economies and wages to grow and expand while satisfying shareholders and consumers alike. At present, only a tiny percentage controls the overwhelming majority of the wealth, both in the United States and abroad. That leaves an underclass which will grow more restless and more desperate. And that is an dangerous combination.


The Pros and Cons of Raising the Minimum Wage
http://wheniwork.com/blog/the-pros-and-cons-of-raising-the-minimum-wage/


Increasing the Minimum Wage: Pros & Cons
http://www.salary.com/increasing-the-minimum-wage-pros-cons/


These CEOs Make A Lot More Money Than Their Workers
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-13/these-ceos-make-the-most-money-compared-with-their-workers


How much more do CEOs make compared to their employees?
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ceo-pay-preview-20150805-story.html

LIHEAP: What Would Jesus Do?

David Hawpe of the Courier Journal, asked in his recent editorial of October 12th regarding the funding of LIHEAP, “what would Jesus do”? I suspect Jesus would do the same thing he did 2000 years ago, which was to chastise us for not doing enough. Indeed, the Bible tells us that the poor will always be with us, but that doesn’t mean we should stop trying to find ways to end poverty. As a good friend of mine recently said, we don't get into Heaven without an letter of recommendation from the poor.

I have had the privilege of being elected twice by the citizens of South Jefferson County to represent them on the Community Action Partnership’s Board of Administrators, which is the agency that administers LIHEAP, among other programs. In fact, I’m the Board Chairman, which comprises representatives from local government, the private sector, and those such as myself who were elected to represent the Poverty Sector. CAP, as it’s called, was envisioned by President Kennedy and became the cornerstone of President Johnson’s “War on Poverty". For years it carried presidential oversight. As time passed, oversight drifted down to the state and local levels. Today, it’s up to us at the grassroots’ level to fight for organizations such a CAP to keep them fully funded.

It’s not easy. Government is looking to cut funding anywhere it can, and seems to be willing to use any excuse, and there's no reason to think the poor are exempt. With the anticipated increase in costs to keep warm this winter, funding for LIHEAP is more important than ever. In 2002, according to the US Census Bureau, Jefferson County alone had an overall poverty rate of 12%. Of those between the ages of 0 and 17, the rate jumped to 19%. The rate of poverty among the elderly and minorities was even higher. In a related article on poverty in Jefferson County, Mayor Jerry Abramson said local city leaders weren’t to blame for the high levels of concentrated poverty, which places Louisville third nationally, and cited the federal housing policy as the main culprit. I disagree with the mayor.

By decades of concentrating poverty in certain sections, local government has in effect created many of the blighted and high crime areas that taxpayers now have to pay for. It placed people who needed opportunities into areas where there were few. Local leaders cut mass transit routes in low-income areas, such as around Fairdale, leaving some with no means to seek or retain employment, or have access to various services needed to get off the public dole. Today, some local leaders are learning to take a pro-active approach to “mix-housing” developments, and they're taking another look at mass transit issues such as a light rail or reinstating some bus routes to low-income areas.

But, we must be ever vigilant and speak out to keep programs such a CAP and LIHEAP properly funded. We must insure adequate and affordable housing. We must insure children have a nutritious meal at school. We must look after our elderly. Government must not be allowed to put on blinders to poverty. Hungry children don't learn. They don't usually go on to graduate high school and get decent jobs so that they can contribute back to community as a whole. They are more likely to find their way into gangs, drugs, and ulitmately crime. Without affordable housing, families don't put down roots. Neighorhoods stagnate and decline. We loss our sense of community, and commitment. What would Jesus do? He’d roll up his sleeves and fight for the rights and dignity of least among us. Won’t you?