Where Do People Want To Live?

The United States takes in more immigrants per year than any other country in the world. Legal immigration law is established to admit approximately 1.1 million immigrants each year.

Even taking account of the percentage that immigrants are represented in the total population, the United States has higher percentages of migrants than countries in Europe such as the U.K, Germany, France, Italy and Spain.

I would say it is no contest when you look at which country has taken the bulk of the immigrants in the world over the last 30 years.

Credit: ImmigrationLawyersLosAngeles.com

The United States numbers also don't take into account all the illegal immigrants in the country. The official number is 11 million but recent estimates by MIT and Harvard economists have placed that number at more than 22 million.

Consider the fact that in the last 11 months, U.S. Customs and Border Protection has apprehended over 800,000 people in the Southwest Sector alone. If this number of illegal immigrants were apprehended trying to sneak into the country, how many actually got in?

All of this data would seem to be a pretty good indicator that most people around the world think the United States is a pretty good place to live. Why else are so many people trying to get into the country from all corners of the earth?

The trend has accelerated the last few years even thought we are supposed to have a President who does not like immigrants. Never mind the fact that he has married two immigrants in his lifetime.

The one group of foreigners who appear to not think too highly of the United States are expatriate workers for foreign corporations.

The most recent survey of expatriates by Expat Insider states that the United States is now ranked 47th as an expat destination in its annual ranking for 2019.

According to the survey, expats would rather live in Mexico (4th), Columbia (16th) Qatar (18th), Philippines (27th), Kenya (36th) and Cyprus (45th) before the United States.

Really?

Taiwan and Vietnam are the favorite destinations for ex-pats.

Kuwait and Italy are at the bottom of the list.

You wonder how reliable this survey is.

There are over 11 million people born in Mexico now living in the United States according to the Migration Policy Institute.

There are 1.4 million people born in Vietnam and 400,000 from Taiwan living in the States.

Why did they journey to the United States if life is so great in those countries? Why do they stay?

It is interesting that in the ex-pat survey of 2015 the United States was listed as the 13th best place for ex-pats.

The U.S. fell from 13th to 47th in four years?

How could that be?

I am not sure  of the total reason but I would not discount the reach and influence of CNN as a news source for people outside of the United States.

If all I did was watch CNN for "news" I might want to move to Kuwait, Kenya or Kazakhstan myself.

Raising Successful Children

I recently came across a book at my local library on the secrets to raising highly successful children.

Mrs. BeeLine and I have raised our children so it is a little late for me to get a few tips. That being said, we must have done a few things right as we have three responsible, productive and successful adult children.

However, success is a topic I am interested in and I have written about from time to time in these pages. I decided to check out a copy of the book and see if there was something worthwhile therein I could pass on to my readers who still have the responsibility to make something of the next generation.

A large part of "the formula" that the authors outline in the book is based on interviews and research that was done involving the experiences of Harvard students in a "How I Was Parented Project" involving 120 student interviews. This work was supplemented with interviews and research on how other successful people were parented who did not attend Harvard.

Out of this work the authors found some common themes in the parenting practices that were employed to develop successful children.

The authors identified 8 key roles that what they call "Master Parents" used in their parenting. I am going to touch on only three that I think are particularly important.

The Early-Learning Partner

The first role that is critical in raising a successful child is being an early-learning partner. Successful children generally have had a parent (or another loved one) who spends a lot of quality time with the child in teaching them in one-on-one activities before they begin kindergarten. They spend time reading, working with numbers, playing mind games and building things with them.

Many of these children can read or do simple math problems before they enter kindergarten. As a result, they are ahead of other children when they go to kindergarten and this feeds their self-esteem and confidence. They like the attention they receive for their knowledge and they are inspired to learn more. This generally feeds a life long love of learning in these children. Once that base is established the parents do not need to spend much time pushing their child to learn---it is a natural result.

The first five years of a child's life is the most critical period for learning. Human infants have basic instincts but they don't learn without a parent's help. Those first five years are a period of immense "developmental plasticity". Children are especially sensitive to stimuli during this time and learn most easily.

The reason for this is that this is the time that the you have the most myelin in your body. Myelin is the substance in your body that surrounds neural pathways. When you learn a task or skill myelin is released and insulates those pathways. When you learn something or practice a skill the myelin is what allows you to retain what you learned and recall it when you need it. Because young people have so much to learn between birth and age 5 (walking, talking, etc) there is an enormous amount of myelin available to them. In fact, it is estimated that someone in this age group has 10 times the myelin that a 60 year old will have. There is a reason why it has been said "that you can't teach an old dog new tricks."

It is critically important to imprint the right lessons, habit and values in a child in those first five years. A child needs a dedicated early learning partner to do that. The role of the parent as the early-learning partner is probably the most important on the eight key roles identified in the book.

The Flight Engineer

Once the child enters school the small social system that centered around the home and parents gives way to an expanded universe. The parents no longer exert the control that they once did over the child. 

This new social system can introduce problems. Teachers that don't understand the child or peer groups that are bad influences. The hope is that the values and habits the child has learned at home can carry them a long way outside the home. However, at times these external forces get in the way of your child's success.

That is why the "master parent" is prepared to collaborate with the adults in the child's social sphere to make sure he or she does not get off the flight path that has been developed. If necessary this may require the parent to make demands and assert their authority as a parent to manage and correct the situation.

Notice that there is a big difference between the role of a flight engineer and what is popularly known today as the "helicopter parent" that is always hovering around the child.

The flight engineer sets the navigation path for the child and monitors whether the child is adhering to the path. The master parent is not hovering over every detail. They are not making sure that the child is up and dressed for school. They set the expectation and stand back. They spend their time in instilling the right lessons habits and values early. They get actively involved only when a course correction is necessary.

The Negotiator  

I have written previously in these pages of the parenting style of so-called "Tiger Moms" referring to the parenting styles of Asians in comparison to Americans.

One of the first blog posts I wrote was about Amy Chua the book "The Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mom".

Asian parents tend to have a much more authoritarian view when dealing with their children than American parents. Put simply, they believe they know what is best for their child and there is no room for debate.

Chua put it this way in a Wall Street Journal essay "Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior" back in 2011.

A lot of people wonder how Chinese parents raise such stereotypically successful kids. They wonder what these parents do to produce so many math whizzes and music prodigies, what it's like inside the family, and whether they could do it too. Well, I can tell them, because I've done it. Here are some things my daughters, Sophia and Louisa, were never allowed to do:

• attend a sleepover
• have a playdate
• be in a school play
• complain about not being in a school play
• watch TV or play computer games
• choose their own extracurricular activities
• get any grade less than an A
• not be the No. 1 student in every subject except gym and drama
• play any instrument other than the piano or violin
• not play the piano or violin.

Chua cites three main differences between Asian and Western parenting styles.

Western parents are too concerned about their children's self esteem.  Chinese are not. Asians assume strength in their children, not fragility.  Therefore, they push hard on them and hold them accountable for results.

Chinese parents believe their children owe them something.  Many Americans seem to believe that since they were responsible for bringing the child into the world that they owe the child in some way.


Asians believe they know what is best for their children and override their children's own preferences and desires. Chinese parents understand that nothing is fun until you're good at it. To get good at anything you have to work, and children on their own never want to work, which is why it is crucial to override their preferences.

The book acknowledges the success that many Asians have had with this parenting style. However, the authors believe that a master parent will have more success being a negotiator than an authoritarian with their child.

They argue that it can get you to the same place by inspiring your child rather than by more aggressively requiring it.

As an example, the book cites the example of a family which was deeply committed to music. All of the children played musical instruments and the family expected them to be excellent at it. Rather than requiring them to play the piano or violin they gave their children a choice of string instruments.

They also were put on a routine of rising every morning at 515am so they could practice for an hour beginning at 6am. As they got older they wanted to sleep in and asked if they could practice later in the day. The mother explained that she did not think they would like to practice after school but she gave them the choice so they could sleep in. However, she made clear the amount of work would not change, just the time of day. It did not take long for the children to realize that their mother was right. It was worse having to practice later in the day than early in the morning. This would be a parent as negotiator rather than authoritarian. A Tiger Mom would have not even allowed the child the option to practice after school.

Conclusion

These are all of the Master Parent roles outlined in the book that make up "The Formula" for raising highly successful children.

Credit: The Formula

One thing we need more of in the world are better parents.

Pass this along to anyone who might benefit and have them check out the entire book.

Sitting Longer In That Tree

Most people in the world are getting married later in life than they used to.

It is generally true that marriage ages are later in more economically advanced countries and earlier in developing countries. Part of the reason for this is that women have greater career opportunities in more advanced economies today.

The chart below shows the median ages for marriages in the United States since the late 1880's. Note that people married the youngest in the 1950's and 1960's. I would have thought that people were marrying even younger at the turn of the century. That was not the case.

In 1880, men typically married at age 26. By 1960 that had fallen to age 23. Today it is 29.5.

Women married at age 22 in 1880, 20 in 1960 and 27.4 today.

Of course, later marriages also affect the fertility rate in a country as the older a woman is the less likely she will bear children.

As I wrote in a blog post earlier this year, there is a direct correlation between maternal age and fertility. There is a downward rate of fertility beginning at age 30. It takes a very sharp dive after age 35 as this chart from The Women's Eye website shows.

I recently came across an interesting chart that compares marriage ages around the world.

As you can see, it varies considerably.

Men are not marrying in Italy until age 35.

Women in Ireland don't get hitched until 32.4. Ireland also has the smallest age gap between men and women getting married---only one year. A smaller gaps in ages between men and women getting married is also indicative of advanced economies.

The largest age gap between men and women is in Guyana---almost 12 years. 32 year old men are marrying 20 year old girls.

The youngest brides are in Malawi---not quite 20 years old.

Look how those marriage ages also affect fertility rates in some of these countries.

Malawi     4.492   (median women marriage age 19.9)

Guyana     2.473   (20.0)

Nigeria      5.471  (21.2)

Germany   1.470  (31.5)

Ireland       1.98   (32.4)

Italy           1.491 (31.8)

USA          1.886  (27.4)


Of course, trying to draw a correlation between the later marriage age of women and the fertility rate in the world we live in today is a little foolish .

Who said you have to be married to have a child?

There are not many people left in the world who seem to believe it other than in South Korea, Japan, Turkey, Israel and Greece.

Credit : OECD

The United States is much better than many other countries but the percentage of out-of-wedlock groups varies quite a bit by ethnic and racial group.

Does anyone remember the old schoolyard taunt that kids sung out on the playground if it appeared any boy liked a girl or vice versa?

Yes, it is probably banned today because it only speaks to heterosexual relationships.

However, if it does survive it no longer requires the fourth verse.

Marriage seems to be further and further in the future for many of those in school today.

A Heavy Hand

The problem with government intervening in the economy is that you often don't get what you expect.

Government inserts its hand into the proceedings and the end result is not what we were told would occur.

This often happens when the government decides that it needs to put more taxes on the "rich".

It targets the rich but the impact often falls on everyone else.

I am old enough to remember when President George H.W. Bush (breaking his "no new taxes" pledge) and the Democrats put a luxury tax into effect as part of a deficit reduction compromise package in 1991.

This tax was levied on material goods such as watches, expensive furs, boats, yachts, private jet planes, jewelry and expensive cars. Congress enacted a 10 percent luxury surcharge tax on boats over $100,000, cars over $30,000, aircraft over $250,000, and furs and jewelry over $10,000. The federal government estimated that it would raise $9 billion in excess revenues over the following five-year period.

The law was repealed less than two years later as thousands of workers lost their jobs in these industries. What happened? Instead of paying the tax the rich just stopped buying expensive cars, boats, aircraft, furs and jewelry. The tax did not hurt the rich. It did result in thousands of workers losing their jobs who made and sold these things to the rich.

The little revenue that was raised was more than offset by the taxes that disappeared as a result of the lost wages and the unemployment benefits that had to be paid to the workers who paid the price with their jobs.

The great economist Walter E. Williams explains why unintended consequences are so common when the "rich" are targeted in these tax raising schemes.

Congress repealed the luxury tax in 1993 after realizing it was a job killer and raised little net revenue. Why did congressional dreams of greater revenues turn into a nightmare? Kennedy, Mitchell and their congressional colleagues simply assumed that the rich would act the same after the imposition of the luxury tax as they did before and that the only difference would be more money in the government's coffers. Like most politicians then and now, they had what economists call a zero-elasticity vision of the world, a fancy way of saying they believed that people do not respond to price changes. People always respond to price changes. The only debatable issue is how much and over what period.

There is no better example of this right now than what is occurring in the New York City real estate market.

The New York Post recently reported that house prices in Manhattan are in a "near free fall" amid the imposition of new taxes on high end properties.

The implementation of an increased "mansion tax" on city homes that sell for $1 million or more became effective July 1. A previous 1% transfer tax on these homes has been increased to a progressive tax based on value that ranges to a high of 4.15%. A state transfer tax on homes that sell for $3 million or more was also increased from .4% to .65%.

The median price for homes across Manhattan has declined 17% compared to this time last year.

All of this comes on top of the fact that 25% of all the condos built in Manhattan over the last six years are unsold.

Many of the condos that are selling are being purchased by investors who are then putting the condos on the rental market. It is estimated that 30% of newly built condos that have been sold are being used as rentals.

Of course, the limitation of the deduction for state and local property and income taxes has clearly also had a major impact on the New York real estate market. Many just do not want to pay the taxes and put up with hassles that liberal policies are doing to New York City and its environs.

For example, New York City has recently updated its legal guidelines to make it discriminatory to use the terms "illegal alien" or "illegals" to refer to someone in the country illegally. Offenders can be fined up to $250,000 for each violation if they discriminate in employment, housing or other public facilities.

How would you like to be an employer in New York City? You are violating federal law if you hire an illegal alien but you can be fined $250,000 by the city if you refuse to hire one? Is it any wonder good, law abiding citizens want to leave.

Bloomberg reports that almost 300 people are leaving the New York City area every day. This is the most of any metro area in the country. It is more than double what it was a year ago.

Forbes reports that 1 million people have fled New York City's metro area in the last nine years.

Where are they going? Places with lower taxes, more jobs, lower housing prices, less government regulation and fewer hassles. Florida, Texas, North Carolina, Arizona, Tennessee are all popular destinations. What do they have in common? These states all went to Trump and the GOP in the last election. Florida, Texas and Tennessee also have no individual income tax

Of course, we now are hearing from the Democrats that a wealth tax is the answer to our problems. We will make the rich pay their "fair share" and all will be well.

When government inserts its hand into something you can be sure the effects will be felt far and wide with impacts much beyond what is promised.

The government has a heavy hand when they do anything.

CO2 Math

Every day we hear some politician tell us that carbon emissions have to be eliminated to save the planet. Some days we even hear 16 year olds telling it to the United Nations.

We need to ban coal, oil, gas and anything powered by these carbon sources.

We need to ban nuclear as well even though it is the one energy source that actually can replace carbon fuels cost effectively.

We need to stop eating meat.

Some are even arguing that we need to stop having children to help solve the problem.

We hear all of these things but we never hear some simple facts to assess whether any of these claims make any sense at all.

Let's look at a few facts to put this issue in context for you.

How much CO2 is actually in the atmosphere? Since we hear about it all the time you would think that it must be a large and growing amount.

CO2 is actually less than .04% of our atmosphere.

Of that amount of CO2, how much do scientists state is coming from man-made causes? After all, there is a tremendous amount of CO2 in the atmosphere occurring naturally since it is the essential building block for plant life on the planet.

Only 3% of CO2 is attributed to human activity.

In other words, everything we hear about climate change, the Green New Deal and the arguments that we need to fundamentally transform our society and economy is about something that represents just 3% of .04% of the atmosphere.

Let me do the math for you.

We are talking about something that is just .0012% of the entire atmosphere.

Take a step back and think about this logically.

You don't have to be a scientist to wonder how it is that something so small can overwhelm everything else that is going on in nature.

Does it make any sense at all that this infinitesimal amount of human-related carbon emissions in the atmosphere could have any discernible effect on the climate?

These facts are contained in an excellent SkyNewsAustralia report by Alan Jones that you can view on this YouTube video. Jones also has an interview in the video with Dr. Nils-Axel Morner who is the former head of the Paleo-Geophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University.

Morner is one of the world's leading experts on sea levels and also chaired that group for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change. Morner resigned his position on that panel when the group would not admit that sea levels are not rising and that the politically-backed theories being pushed by the panel are not supported  by science.

Morner argues that the entire climate change carbon dioxide hypothesis is wrong and the vast amount of physicists, geologists and meteorologists in the world know that. He believes that all of this will be revealed within the next decade or two as a sun-driven cooling period proves all of this is a hoax. His concern is that science will be totally discredited by that time which is why he is speaking out so forcefully now. He has  spent a lifetime committed to science. He does not wish to see science discredited because people who say they are scientists actually have a higher allegiance to politics ( and government funding) than they do to science.

Consider further that the United States represents just 13% of the man-made carbon emissions in the world. By comparison, China is responsible for 29% of global carbon emissions.

That means the sum total of the carbon emissions caused by humans in the United States account for 13% of 3% of .04%. That is .000156% of the atmosphere.

Because of that the Democrats want to spend trillions of dollars, destroy our economy and make you live your life as if you are in the 18th century as part of a Green New Deal?

You don't have to be a scientist to understand that the math just does not add up.

Right and Wrong

When writing my blog I try to not make too many predictions.

I prefer to lay out facts. Put those facts in the context of the issue and let those facts lead to a conclusion.

Casey Stengel, the great baseball philosopher, said it pretty well.

Never make predictions, especially about the future.

If I forget that advice and make a prediction I hope that what Daniel Kahneman, the father of behavioral economics, said is true.

Most successful pundits are selected for being opinionated, because it's interesting, and the penalties for incorrect predictions are negligible. You can make predictions, and a year later people won't remember them.

You may not remember my predictions. The problem is that I remember them.

And I don't like to be wrong.

One of my biggest failed predictions was when I predicted Mitt Romney would defeat Barack Obama in 2012. I said it would be close but I believed that Romney would win in a squeaker.

That error caused me to forego making any prediction in 2016. However, I laid out the facts on how Trump could win. Those facts did work in Trump's favor.  He was able to win an election that most people gave him no chance.

As I have written before, this election will be decided on turnout. Will the traditional Democratic constituencies--African-Americans, Millennials, Single Women---turnout like they did for Barack Obama? If they do, Hillary Clinton will win. If they don't, Donald Trump can close the history books on the Clintons and The White House.

At least, I thought that would be the end of hearing anything about Hillary Clinton. Here is what I also thought would occur if Hillary lost the election.

I also know that if Donald Trump defeats Hillary Clinton we will see unbounded anger and antagonism directed at the Clintons by liberal Democrats. They will be seething that Hillary could have allowed Donald Trump to keep the Democrats from winning The White House and controlling the Supreme Court. Hell hath no fury like a scorned liberal Democrat!

Little did I know how adept the Clintons and the Democrats would be in blaming the Russians for Trump's victory rather than Hillary's own ineptitude and corruption.

I had already figured out before Trump was inaugurated that my prediction was not looking very good. However, I still had hope that the tables would eventually turn on Hillary.

It still baffles me that Democrats are spending all of their time blaming the Russians for Trump's victory and not focusing any of their anger at Hillary and John Podesta. I still think that I might be proven right on this one in time. However, it looks like a very poor prediction right now. I should have considered my own advice in these pages before I wrote that.

Almost three years later, not only is Hillary not taking much blame, but rumors are swirling that she may be getting ready to throw her hat in the ring for 2020. Bernie's health problems and Biden's problems involving his son with Ukraine and China is making another run very tempting for Hillary.

Talk about getting it wrong!

One prediction I was right about is what would we would see from Congress if the Democrats won the House and/or Senate in the 2018 midterm elections.

For anyone who is complaining about the circus we are seeing in Washington right now let it not be forgotten that it was all avoidable.

If the Republicans had retained the House the Congress would actually be working on real issues. We might have some actual work on legislation rather than investigations and impeachment inquiries.

Here is what I wrote on the eve of the 2018 midterms in what I called a "Consequential Election".

We are once again being told that 2018 is the most consequential election of our lifetimes.

Despite the hype, that may actually be the case this year.

If we think we see chaos in Washington now, think for a second what things will look like with a Democrat Congress.

I can assure you that there will be almost nothing of value done legislatively for the next two years with the Democrats in control.

The Kavanaugh confirmation hearing should give you an idea of what to expect. It will be ugly and it will be relentless.

If Democrats make inroads in November with their radical political agenda it will further embolden them. It will undoubtedly make things even worse than they are today. The political war will continue and intensify. The divide will only get larger. You can count on it.

In addition, there seems to be many Democrats who believe that the 2016 election of Donald Trump was an aberration. It was random and not real. They can't believe that the "progress" made with Obama could possibly be undone so quickly. That is why they want to double down on an agenda that is even more progressive and radical. They cannot believe the mainstream is not with them.

Talk about getting it right!

Yes, I was right but I sincerely wish I had been wrong.

The country deserves so much better right now.

Elections really do have consequences.

I just wish the Democrats respected that fact.

FICA Is Foreign To Some

Did you know that a program exists to allow American companies to hire foreign workers at a substantial discount to U.S. citizens?

This program allows the employer to not have to pay and collect FICA taxes on foreign employees.
You know, the taxes that are necessary in order to keep Social Security and Medicare solvent.

The discount is not insignificant either. On a $60,000 salary the tax exemption for hiring the foreign worker potentially saves the employer almost $10,000 compared to the American worker (split evenly between employer FICA taxes and lower wages required to be paid to the foreigner).

How is this possible?

It is part of a program called Optional Practical Training (OPT) and is designed to extend the F-1 visa given to foreign students attending U.S. colleges through a work period. It provides the foreign student  ability to stay in the country after receiving their degree and gain employment experience after graduation. The general rule is that this exemption applies for one year after college. However, during the Bush administration the exemption was expanded to 3 years for STEM graduates.

Students with F-1 visas also are not subject to FICA taxes as long as they do not work more than 20 hours per week. This also allows foreign students the ability to work but not have FICA deducted from their paychecks or require their employers to pay it on their behalf.

Like many government policies, you can argue the original intent behind the exemption was well meaning. If a student came to the United States to go to college, and was going to eventually return to their home country, it did not seem fair to make them contribute to a Social Security and Medicare program they would not benefit from in the future.

However, the reality today is that many of these graduates use the OPT program as a gateway to having their employer apply for an H1-B visa for them which then allows them to stay in the United States for up to an additional six years. Of course, that then leads to the immigrant eventually trying to get their green card for permanent status in the United States and possibly citizenship.

Who is the loser in all of this?

First, the U.S. college graduate who is competing for the same job but would cost the employer more money to hire. Furthermore, once the foreign college graduate gets the job and gets the work experience over the U.S. graduate, it is hard for him or her to catch up. If they do get a job it will undoubtedly be at reduced pay compared to what they otherwise should receive. The OPT necessarily will depress overall wages.

Second, Social Security and Medicare recipients are also losers. After all, the reality is that the FICA taxes being collected today are paying Social Security benefits and Medicare payments right now. Those taxes are not being saved for the future retirement needs of these young workers even if they remained in the United States. Therefore, not collecting FICA taxes from these foreign workers is shortchanging Social Security and Medicare when it needs more revenue to remain solvent.

We are not talking about small numbers here.

There are more than 1 million students in U.S. colleges with F-1 visas.

As you can see, there was a gigantic increase in international students during the Obama administration. This has leveled off under President Trump but we are still talking about large numbers of students.

A significant part of the increase in international students over the last decade have come from China and India. Those two countries today account for half of all international students.

China accounts for one-third of all international students in colleges today. It was lower than 10% in 2006.

That is a large potential revenue drain not to mention the negative effects it has on the job prospects of U.S. students.

Let's not forget that it is reported that 45% of all graduates in Millennial and Gen Z generations are underemployed. At the same time, they are burdened with enormous amounts of student loan debt( at last count $1.6 trillion).

Who is reaping the benefits beyond the foreign students?

Let's look at the largest employers of those in the OPT program. I am showing the top 10 below. You can see the top 200 employers at the ICE.gov website.

These are not small numbers either.

Amazon with almost 2,400? Google and Intel with more than 1,000 OPT employees each?

Credit: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

OPT has gotten so big that there are now more immigrants working under this program than under the more popularly known H1-B program for specialized immigrant workers. The use of OPT has actually grown by 400% over the last several years. A big reason is that there is no limit to those under OPT. There is for H1-B visas.

This is how one commentator describes what is really going on with the OPT program to the benefit of the foreign students and large U.S. companies and to the detriment of young American graduates.


Since they get that on-the-job training, their employers are likely to offer them full-time jobs (by applying for their H-1B visas), once again leaving American graduates out of the training-to-jobs process.

Critics contend that businesses use OPT for the cheap labor, just as they use the better-known H-1B guest worker program.

Companies start out grooming low-wage workers while they’re on F-1 visas. Then, the same companies turn around and say they need foreign workers because Americans don’t have the skills they need – when those companies are responsible for excluding Americans from the training and the jobs.

OPTs are foreign workers getting tax-free training, while still on F-1 “student” visas.

In this “try-before-you-buy” arrangement, American businesses then apply for the workers’ H-1B visas, with an understanding that the workers will continue working at a lower wage in exchange for the H-1B, then the hope of a future Green Card and then citizenship. So much for the “nonimmigrant” part.


Don't get me wrong. I am all for retaining the best and the brightest who are educated at our colleges and universities for jobs in the United States. I would much rather see our immigration policy skewed towards these talented immigrants compared to a flood of unskilled and uneducated people illegally crossing our border.

However, it should not be done at the expense of U.S. students and U.S. senior citizens.

Furthermore, the OPT program as it exists today was never even the subject of a vote in Congress. It is in place solely because of  administrative rule.

If you needed one more example of how broken our immigration policy you now have it.

What exactly is Congress doing about it?

They are trying to drive the one guy out of office who is really interested in fixing the immigration problem.

Such is the way that Washington works.

Presidents, Hospitals and Vinyl

One of the things I like best about writing BeeLine is when I can share an unexpected fact.

When I lived in Atlanta in the 1970's there was a weekly show on the radio that was devoted to trivia. I listening to that show I learned that the key principle to great trivia is that is must have a hook that makes it interesting.

Trivia that is some obscure fact or figure is boring. Great trivia is something that is unexpected or has a twist to it that puts something into a different context. It makes it interesting.

For example, knowing that former President Jimmy Carter was born in 1924 is an interesting fact but there is nothing really special about that fact other than Carter recently turned (October 1) 95 years old.

Better trivia is that Jimmy Carter is the longest living President. George H.W. Bush made it to 94 years of age.

Great trivia is knowing that Jimmy Carter was the first President of the United States to be born in a hospital.

Think about that. Carter was elected in 1976. It was 200 years from the founding of the nation until we had a President who was born in a hospital. Even John F. Kennedy, who came from one of the richest families in the United States, was not born in a hospital.

Interestingly, the next two Presidents who succeeded Carter, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, were also not born in hospitals.

It has only been since Bill Clinton became President that hospitals have been the venues where our future leaders drew their first breaths. In other words, we are talking about Baby Boomers like Clinton, George W. Bush, Obama and Trump.

I came across another factoid recently that seems worthy of being deemed great trivia.

Vinyl record sales last year were the highest they have been in 30 years.

Vinyl record LP/EP sales were $419 million in 2018. That is starting to approach the $698 million in CD sales. Vinyl records only accounted for $14 million in sales in 2005.

Who would have predicted 14 years ago that vinyl record sales would be making a comeback ?

Credit: Recording Industry Association of America

Another interesting fact is that while recorded music revenue has declined due to the increased use of downloaded content, unit volume for recorded music actually rose substantially in the 2005-2013 period only to crater in recent years as paid subscription and streaming content took hold with music listeners.

Credit: Recording Industry Association of America

The resurgence of vinyl record sales has also given rise to a significant increase in vinyl record sales on Discogs, the world’s largest music community, database, and marketplace.

They recently reported that sales of vinyl records in their marketplace was larger than CD sales last year. That is the first time that has occurred since 1986.

As part of Discogs most recent report, it listed the 50 most valuable vinyl records in the world.

There may be Baby Boomers out there that are worried about their retirement savings.

Never fear!

One mint condition Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band album in the basement may be all that you need.

However, it appears that there are people on eBay that have not been keeping up with Discogs. I can buy this album for $14.99 while the same album is valued at $123,900 on Discogs?

Perhaps this isn't the retirement bail-out plan I thought it might be at first glance.

One final note.

The basic raw material in vinyl records is polyvinyl chloride. It is more popularly known at PVC. Pipes, flooring and a range of consumer products are made from polyvinyl chloride.

PVC is made from petroleum. Many Democrats want to outlaw petroleum.

Perhaps those vinyl records may get even more valuable in the future.

Vinyl records might not survive the Democrats and the Green New Deal.

Striking Out Trump?

Turn on the news and what do you hear?

Impeachment. Impeachment. Impeachment.

It is incessant.

I am often asked what will come of all of this.

Do you know what was similarly incessant three years ago?

The Access Hollywood tapes that were meant to take down Trump.

Those tapes were released exactly three years ago today (October 7, 2016).

Every political pundit and media mouthpiece said it was the end of Trump.

The RNC Chairman, Reince Prebus, urged Trump to drop out of the race.

However, one month later Trump was elected President of the United States.

Despite the fact that many high profile people in the Republican party walked away, Trump withstood the storm and was standing higher on the other side at the end of the day.

How was that possible?

There are lessons from three years ago on how to analyze where all of the impeachment talk is likely to go.

To be successful in taking out a politician you need three things to occur.

They must lose the popular support of the people.

They must lose the support of their political party.

They must fail to zealously defend themselves against the attack.

How did Trump survive the Access Hollywood tapes when so many wrote him off?

He lost a fair number of establishment political figures. People like Mitt Romney, John McCain and Paul Ryan cut and ran after the tapes surfaced. However, he did not lose grassroots support in the party. He maintained the popular support of the people.

As mentioned above, the RNC wanted Trump to drop out right after the tapes came out. They pulled their institutional support in the immediate aftermath of the disclosure. Were it not for the steadfast popular support of the people, the RNC likely would have totally walked away from Trump. The popular support prevented that from happening and the RNC brought its resources back in for Trump for the final push to the election. In the end, Trump maintained the support of the Republican party.

It goes without saying that Trump never plays traditional defense. Trump only plays offense. Therefore, when the allegations were made what did Trump do? He did not sit back and take it.  He did not even attempt to defend it. He went out and got all the women who had accused Bill Clinton of sexual misdeeds and held a press conference with them right before his second debate with Hillary. This was a mere three days after the tapes had been disclosed. He then seated them in the debate audience as his guests.

Contrast all of that with what caused Richard Nixon to resign as President in 1974 when faced with an impending impeachment vote in the House of Representatives.

Nixon had lost the popular support of the people by the summer of 1974. His overall approval rating was lower than 30%. He was starting to drop below 50% approval with Republicans.

Nixon ultimately decided to resign when he was told by GOP leaders in the House and Senate that his support by Republicans in both Houses of Congress had evaporated. He was certain to be impeached in the House and it was likely that a majority of Republican Senators would not vote to acquit him in the impeachment trial.

Nixon resigned when faced with those formidable strikes against him. He did not even attempt to defend himself. Three strikes and Nixon was out.

Compare that to the Impeachment of Bill Clinton in 1998.

Clinton was impeached in the House of Representatives on two articles---lying under oath and obstruction of justice. Two other articles of impeachment failed to get majority votes in the House.

Only five members of Clinton's Democrat party voted for one of the impeachment charges.

Not one of the 45 Democrats in the Senate voted to convict Clinton. 10 GOP members voted Clinton 'not guilty' on the perjury charge and 5 on the obstruction charge. Those voting 'guilty' were far short of the 67 needed to convict.

Clinton had the support of almost everyone in the Democrat party throughout the process.

Clinton also maintained popular support with the public. Clinton's approval ratings never faltered during the entire impeachment process. His support among Democrat voters was particularly strong. This should have been a clue to Republicans that they were on a fool's errand. If the voting public is not behind you, you have nothing.

Of course, Clinton and his advocates also put up a strong defense. This was nothing except sex. In effect, they were saying that everybody lied about it. Why impeach Clinton for lying about the sex?

Looking at the polls, it worked.

Where will all of this go with Trump?

Keep your eyes on Trump's approval rating. Pay particular attention to his approval rating with GOP voters. We have known since the beginning that most Democrats don't like him. It means next to nothing if Democrats think he should be impeached. Keep your eyes on Republicans. He needs his base to stay with him.

If the GOP base stays with him it will be difficult for many GOP officeholders to also not support Trump.

One thing we don't have to wonder about is how zealously Trump will defend himself. You can be sure that he will leave no stone unturned. If the Democrats have any skeletons in their closets they better make sure they are locked very tightly. As I stated above, Trump believes that the best defense is a good offense.

There is one other thing to consider in all of this that should make Democrats nervous in trying to take on Trump.

I am currently reading the book, "Team of Vipers" which was written by Cliff Sims, who was formerly a Special Assistant to the President under Trump in the first two years of his term. Sims largely was involved in messaging initiatives for the Trump campaign and administration.

I think it is a pretty fair and balanced look at the Trump White House from one person's perspective. The title comes from the infighting Sims saw while there, most particularly between the Trump loyalists and the RNC and GOP political operatives who held many White House jobs.

Sims was not a Trump supporter from the beginning. However, he signed on in late August, 2016 to assist in messaging for the general election campaign. He left his home and his political communications company in Alabama to work for Trump. As a result, he was much more a Trump loyalist than a D.C. swamp creature. However, he is not a Trump apologist in the book. That may be one reason that Trump is suing Sims for violating a non-disclosure agreement he signed. He has good and bad things to say about a number of people--including himself.

In the book he recounts the day during the campaign that the Access Hollywood tapes were released. Sims, like everyone else, could not see a way out. Conventional political wisdom said that Trump was finished. You can imagine what Sims felt like. He had left his wife in Alabama to move to New York City to work in Trump Tower. Most of his friends thought he was crazy to do so. He now saw his career gamble coming up ZERO.

To escape the doom, depression and despair in the Trump campaign war room, Sims went to the mostly empty 5th floor of Trump Tower which was used in filming The Apprentice. It was there that he ran into Trump who was there to use a set on that floor to tape a response to the escalating negative press.

Sims remarked that he could not believe how cool, calm and collected Trump was despite the storm around him. Sims remarked in the book that Trump is often portrayed as erratic, unpredictable and impulsive. There is no doubt there is some of that in him. However, Sims says that Trump "is the most methodical, patient person I have ever seen in the midst of a crisis---the eye of the storm."  

He also says that Trump is also indefatigable (that is my word to describe Trump). Sims says that Trump is remarkable for his consistency. He just doesn't quit.

"There is something to be said for someone who just keeps going, no matter what. When its a good day he gets up and grinds it out. When its a bad day, he gets up and grinds it out. Then he does it again. Then he does it again. And again."

Sims makes one other point about Trump that I thought was interesting in evaluating how he might stand up to the continuing talk of impeachment. Sims says that he has never seen anyone better in operating in conditions of chaos than Trump. Trump also understands that about himself. Therefore, Trump sees that he is at an advantage compared to adversaries or those he is negotiating with when chaos ensues "because he's more comfortable in the mayhem than anyone else."

Where does all of this talk of impeachment go from here?

I don't know.

However, this much I do know. Trump has already proven he is not easy to strike out. He also will keep swinging to the end whatever may come.

Keep these thoughts in mind as the news plays out.

Where The Money Lives

In my last blog post I wrote about the wealth tax that Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders want to enact to fund their socialist agenda.

Sanders wants to tax married couples with net worths of at least $32 million ($16 million) single. Warren would tax households with at least $50 million. Bear in mind this is a wealth tax in addition to an income tax on these people.

Some tax experts have suggested that since Warren's tax would be assessed per household that it might be advantageous for some couples to divorce and avoid the tax. For example, a couple with $90 million could split and each would only have $45 million and not be subject to the tax. At the tax rate of 2%, divorcing would save the couple $1.8 million per year. Love and marriage would be more expensive than ever under Warren.

This is just another example, as I wrote in my last blog, of why a wealth tax is subject to manipulation and gaming of the system and would prove to be unworkable.

I recently came across an interesting infographic that shows where the so-called ultra high net worth ($30+ million) individuals (UHNWIs) in the United States and the world live.

It provides some useful perspective on the entire subject of wealth in the world.

For starters, there are just 198,342 high net worth individuals out of 7.7 billion people in the entire world.

That is a pretty small group of people. Sanders and Warren argue that it is not fair that so few have so much. It needs to be redistributed. However, why do they have so much? They produced. They created. They innovated. How many jobs are they responsible for? How many others are already living well because of these people? What happens if they decide it is not worth doing what they do any more? What happens if Atlas Shrugs?

There are 3,378 UHNWIs in New York City and 1,075 in Los Angeles.

I was surprised that there are more UHNWIs in Mexico City (1,256) than in LA.

London has more UHNWIs than New York City, LA and Miami combined.

Mumbai has more than Montreal, Madrid or Milan. It is also the city that is forecast to have the most growth in UNHWIs over the next five years (+38%)

Tiny Taipei has more than Shanghai, Zurich or Munich.

Click on to enlarge

The Virtual Capitalist also had another infographic of the universities in the world with the most Ultra High Net Worth graduates.

Click on to enlarge

20 of the top 25 universities are in the United States, led by Harvard and Stanford.

Harvard has 13,650 UHNW graduates. Combined they are worth $4.7 trillion. That means that Warren is planning to take in excess of $100 billion in wealth taxes per year from the graduates of the school she taught at. Do you think contributions to Harvard might come under some pressure because of that?

Stanford has 5,580 UHNW graduates. Penn has 5,575 (including President Trump).

Click on to enlarge

If you do the math based on the numbers above, Harvard and Stanford graduates account for 10% of all the UHNWIs in the world.

Why isn't this unfair or unjust if you follow the logic of Warren and Sanders?

To solve this injustice it seems they should be trying to breakup these two schools and redistribute the students to other schools.

Why don't we require some of those Stanford students to go to Chico State or Sonoma State?

How about a few Harvard students being redistributed to Framingham State or Fitchburg State?

It used to be called injustice if someone who did nothing took something away from the person who worked for and earned it.

Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren want you to believe that this should now be the other way around?

Wealth Tax--Unworkable and Unconstitutional

The centerpiece of Elizabeth Warren's plan to remake America is a wealth tax that she says would help fund her proposals for free child care, elimination of student debt, the Green New Deal and Medicare for All. Mind you, the $2.75 trillion she estimates it would generate in a decade would fund only a fraction of what her spending proposals would cost.

Warren is proposing a 2% annual wealth tax on households with a net worth of over $50 million. The tax would increase to 3% for households with net worths over $1 billion.

Not to be outdone, Bernie Sanders recently proposed his own wealth tax that is even more extreme. His tax would start taxing wealthy couples at $32 million (singles at $16 million) at 1% annually and would top out with an 8% tax on fortunes over $8 billion. He estimates it would raise more than $4 trillion over 10 years.

Both candidates defend the proposals as a way in which income inequality can be reduced.

Sanders claims that his plan would cut the wealth of billionaires in America by half over 15 years.

I don't doubt it. Start applying a 5% (minimum rate on $1 billion) to 8% tax for 10 years and do the math.

CNBC estimates that Jeff Bezos would have to pay $9 billion a year in wealth taxes under the Sanders plan. It kind of makes you wonder whether Bezos should suggest to The Washington Post (which he owns) that they might want to take it a little easier on Donald Trump.

Of course, the people that will pay the tax can also do math. The odds are that they are pretty good at it considering the financial success they have had. That is why it is likely that they will take actions to insure that the government will never collect the amount of revenue that Warren and Sanders estimate it will.

This is not theory. Sanders and Warren like to point to Europe as a model for policy success. Many European countries have tried wealth taxes. Most have abandoned them. They did not raise the money they thought they would. These taxes resulted in capital leaving the country. These taxes have also proven to be very difficult to administer.

Unworkable

In 1990, 12 European countries had some form of wealth tax. Today there are only three--Norway, Spain and Switzerland.

France instituted a wealth tax in 2000. It eventually led to the exodus of 42,000 millionaires from the country and French President Macron eliminated it last year.

What is ironic is that Warren turned to two French economists to design her proposal. Really?

I can say with some experience, having practiced as both a tax attorney and CPA, that this proposal would be a nightmare to administer and is tailor-made for manipulation and gaming of the system. It would also undoubtedly result in massive unintended consequences. Whenever the rich are targeted the result is that the little guy usually takes the biggest hit.

Net worth is easy to calculate when you are adding up cash and stock and bonds that are publicly traded. However, it is not so easy when you are trying to value real estate, closely-held businesses, yachts and art. The fact is that much of the wealth of the super-rich is held in illiquid assets which are not easily valued. Annual appraisals would be required and those valuations are very subjective. It would be an administrative and bureaucratic nightmare.

A wealth tax would require a massive increase in funding for the Internal Revenue Service. Those subject to the tax would need to hire legions of tax advisors, appraisers and consultants in order to comply with the law. We would undoubtedly quickly find that the tax is as unworkable in the United States as it has been in Europe.

Never mind that all of this wealth would have also already been subject to the income tax. It will ultimately also be subject to the estate tax. The government will literally get these people coming and going.

Unconstitutional

The bigger problem facing a wealth tax in the United States is that it most certainly is unconstitutional with any fair reading of the Constitution.

Sanders and Warren claim that legal scholars see no problem with the constitutionality of a wealth tax.

Let's look at the Constitution and you be the judge.

Congress clearly has the power to tax. This general power is stipulated in Section 8 of the Constitution.

SECTION 8. Clause 1. The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

However, the Constitution establishes separate rules for direct taxes (taxes that are directly assessed on individuals, e.g. income, property, etc) and indirect taxes (taxes levied on transactions, e.g. tariffs, duties, sales, etc.)

Indirect taxes are allowable but the rate must be uniform across the entire country. For example, a national sales tax would be constitutional as an indirect tax but the same rate would have to apply in every state. You could not have one rate in California and another in Delaware.

Direct taxes must be apportioned among the states based on population  to be in accordance with the Constitution. This means that for a direct tax to be allowable any revenue raised has to be equal on a capitation or head count basis on a state by state basis. This clearly is inimical to income, wealth or property taxes at the national level.

SECTION 2. Clause 3. Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers.

What this means is that you can have direct taxes but they have to raise the same amount of money on a per person basis across the union. For example, California has 40 million people. Let's assume that a 5% wealth tax would bring in $40 billion. That works out to $1,000 per person. Delaware has 1 million people. Due to the fact that there are not as many wealthy people in Delaware a 5% tax only works out to $500 per person. The wealth tax would have to be 10% for Delaware residents in order to bring the per capita levy to $1,000.

The so-called Apportionment Clause above (Section 2. Clause 3) is why the 16th Amendment was required in order to allow the federal government to institute the federal income tax in 1913.

Article XVI. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. 

Notice that the 16th Amendment only provides the power to Congress to avoid the Apportionment Clause in order to lay and collect taxes on income. It says nothing about wealth or property.

You might wonder how the estate tax could be constitutional in that it effectively is a tax on the wealth of the decedent. Isn't that a direct tax? The estate tax is not actually considered to be a tax on the property of the estate, but rather an excise tax on the privilege of transferring property at death. The triggering event is the death of the testator. The current statute imposes a tax on the transfer of a decedent's taxable estate. It is therefore considered an indirect tax not a direct tax.

There is no doubt that the strict limitation on direct taxes was exactly what the Founders intended.

They were very worried about the conflicts and factions that would arise between rich and poor and the unequal division of property in a society.

These are direct quotes from Federalist Papers #10.

The most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. 

Where did they see the most danger of a majority in trampling the rights of a minority? Taxation.

The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets. 

That is why the Constitution has the restrictions it has on direct taxes like the proposed wealth tax of Sanders and Warren. The Founders were not fans of the redistribution of wealth or property. They actually called the equal division of property "wicked and improper."

Was their intent clear enough? In my opinion, it could not be much clearer.

Unjust

Here is how Warren summarizes her Ultra Millionaire tax plan on her campaign website.

"... this small tax on roughly 75,000 households will bring in $2.75 trillion in revenue over a ten-year period."

Small tax? It might be a small percent but it raises an enormous amount of money.

75,000 households compared to 330 million people in the United States?

Talk about trampling on a small minority and the rules of justice.

Would the Supreme Court rule that a wealth tax is constitutional considering the clear language and unambiguous intent of the Founders?

Anything can happen when all you have to do is get five justices on your side.

We have seen it time and time again.

That is why the Supreme Court is so important to Democrats.

The Democrats know that without the Supreme Court "making law" they have little hope in realizing their progressive ideals. They have generally failed in establishing any of their agenda through Constitutional means. Most everything they care about in the last 50 years did not come from legislation or constitutional amendment but by the opinions of five Supreme Court justices. Look no further than abortion and gay marriage as prime examples. Or the affirmation of the constitutionality of Obamacare.

Similarly, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are ultimately looking to the Supreme Court to give them a wealth tax.

That is why liberals live and die with each breath that Ruth Bader Ginsburg takes.

Our Founders would simply be aghast with what the Democrats are proposing.

It is tempting to think that 75,000 households are going to pay the freight for the rest of us.

Don't be deceived or deluded.

It is unworkable. It is unconstitutional. It is unjust. It is unAmerican

In fact, it might ultimately result in the undoing of the Unites States of America.

Think about your vote in 2020 very, very carefully.

When Beliefs and Facts Collide

Article II. Clause 4 of the United States Constitution states...

The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

The Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power to impeach an official (by majority vote), and it makes the Senate the sole court for impeachment trials (2/3 vote needed to remove someone from office).

Impeachment was intended by the Founders to be an extraordinary measure when there was some abuse of office or violation of public trust.

How extraordinary and rare is it that the House or Senate might consider impeachment?

Since 1787, there have been less than 20 instances in which articles of impeachment have actually been approved by the House. Just eight times---all involving federal judges---have the officials been convicted and removed from office by the Senate. Notice these were all federal appointees. None were elected.

I provide this as context to evaluate the actions of the Democrats as it relates to Donald Trump.

NewsList.co has compiled a chronological list of 89 things that Democrats have said that Donald Trump should be impeached for since he became President.

The first was within two weeks of Trump assuming office.

Below is the list just since the Mueller report was released and the hopes the Democrats had for it to be the ticket for Trump's impeachment were dashed. There are 36 instances alone in the last five months in which a Democrat suggested Trump should be impeached for something or other.

Go here for the complete list of 89.

Forget all of this nonsense.

The reality is, insofar as Democrats are concerned, the primary "high crimes and misdemeanor" that Trump has been involved with was getting elected. That is the reality. There is nothing else driving this.

The fervor in which the Democrats are now beating the drum for impeachment seems to suggest that they must not be very confident that they can defeat him next year.

Why else put the country through the circus of impeachment, the chaos it creates and the conflicts it will inflame, when we are just one year away from a national election anyway?

It makes absolutely no sense for our nation when there are so many other things that we need to be working on.

Of course, there is not much sense in anything the Democrats have done since Trump was elected.

Why it that?

The book "When Prophecy Fails" helps explain it.

The book is the real life story of a small religious cult in the 1950's who believed they had received a prophetic message that the world was going to end just before dawn on December 21, 1954.

The group believed that they were going to be spared by aliens in a UFO which would come to take them away the night before.

The core group was so committed to their belief that they had quit their jobs and had given away all of their possessions to prepare for their departure on the UFO. Some had even left their spouses.

They all gathered in a room the night all of this was to occur, and as midnight came and went, the group sat in stunned silence as the clock ticked away toward dawn and there was no apocalypse and no aliens with flying saucers showing up to spirit them away.

You can only imagine how they felt. They were "all in" and their beliefs had been proven 100% false. Their world was literally turned upside down.

You would think they would admit they were wrong and move on with reality.

However, many of the members doubled down. They refused to admit they were wrong. Instead, they rationalized that their efforts had actually saved the earth from destruction.

This is a classic example of what behavioral psychologists call cognitive dissonance.

This is the state a person finds themselves in when a strongly held belief is contradicted by newly discovered facts. This conflict of beliefs and facts puts the person in a state of extreme discomfort. To reduce the discomfort the person has to reduce the dissonance or conflict.

The easiest way to do this is to hold to your beliefs irrespective of the facts. Altering your beliefs, after you have invested so much in maintaining them, is very difficult. This usually means we rationalize our beliefs and behaviors, rather than accept reality, as we don't want to admit to others (and most importantly, ourselves) that we were wrong.

When faced with this conflict we usually go into hyperdrive to try to enlist others in social support for out belief. We really do double down on our belief refusing to accept reality.

This was readily apparent with the UFO religious cult who eschewed all publicity requests before the event but reversed their distaste for publicity on the afternoon of December 21, 1954. They started calling newspapers to spread the message far and wide that their actions had saved the world. They desperately wanted to proselytize others to their beliefs for social support and to lessen the pain of disconfirmation.

Does any of this sound familiar?

To me, it sounds exactly how Democrats have acted since Donald Trump was elected.

They strongly believed that Hillary Clinton would win the 2016 election.

They could not conceive that the American people could elect Donald Trump.

The fact of Trump's victory rocked their world and shocked their systems to the core.

Rather than accept the facts, they set about to rationalize that Trump's victory was fraudulent. It was due to Russian collusion. It was the result of ignorant deplorables. It was because of voter suppression. It could not have occurred without the antiquated electoral college. How many rationalizations have we heard from Democrats as to why Trump won and Hillary lost?

Trump was illegitimate and he had to be removed from office by any means possible. Calls for an investigation into his impeachment have been incessant almost from the day he took office.

The Democrats have spent nearly three years trying to convince people of their beliefs. They have been joined by the mainstream media which shares the same beliefs. It is a never ending echo chamber. They simply cannot accept reality as it is so far removed from what they believe to be true. They are incapable of rational thinking.

This is the only way I know how to explain what the Democrats and media are doing.

It makes no sense to any rational thinker who looks at reality and facts.

By the way, the Rasmussen poll had Trump at a 53% approval rate on September 24 right before the most recent Democrat and media impeachment assault on Trump began. On the same day of Obama's first term, his approval rate was just 44%.

These are facts that just don't square with the beliefs of Democrats. How can this be? It is simply not possible for Trump to have a higher approval rating than Obama.

This is not to say that some Trump supporters are not guilty of the same cognitive dissonance. There are those who think that Trump can do no wrong. They think he orchestrates and plans every step he takes as if he is in a 4-D chess game. Of course, he never makes a bad move and he is always three steps ahead of everyone else.

Will the Democrats ever change?

I am not optimistic.

People who have spent this much time and effort defending and rationalizing their beliefs are not likely to suddenly change their minds irrespective of the facts. They just rationalize their beliefs even more.

It usually takes undeniable disconfirmatory evidence to occur and to be recognized by an individual holding the belief to finally give in and admit they were wrong. However, this is unlikely to occur as long as others in their social circle continue to believe. Isolated believers eventually give in. Those with social support stick with their beliefs over facts.

With the mainstream media fully anti-Trump, and millions of people on Twitter and social media willing to provide social support, it is difficult to conceive of the Democrats becoming rational human beings.

A Trump re-election may be the disconfirmatory evidence that is necessary for Democrats to admit they were wrong. Then again, it might just initiate a new cycle of cognitive dissonance and another four year similar to the last three.

The worst thing that could happen would be to see Trump defeated. This would suggest to Democrats that they were right all along and would undoubtedly result in aggressive action to implement an overreaching socialist progressive agenda fueled by arrogance. I can almost guarantee that would be a grave misjudgment about the mood of the public. The end result would be a disaster for the nation dwarfing anything we are seeing now.

The bottom line is this.

When beliefs and facts collide, it is the beliefs that almost always survive.

I write this blog to give you the facts. I know many of you pass it on to others who may have conflicting beliefs. My hope is that the facts might make a difference to some people out there. However, I know that for many the facts I write about are irrelevant. They believe what they believe and no amount of facts are going to change their mind.

Guard against being that person.

When facts collide with beliefs, it is time to reassess your beliefs.

It is a lesson the Democrats seem incapable of learning.