These American states are drowning in ‘irretrievable’ debt

California - 2016 Democratic Win

Illinois - 2016 Democratic Win

New Jersey - 2016 Democratic Win

New York - 2016 Democratic Win

Connecticut - 2016 Democratic Win

Get The Picture ??

Connecticut may be the richest state in the country, on a per capita basis, but it's racked up a sizable debt worth more than $53 billion – and it could be taxpayers who are forced to bail out the Constitution State, according to the former governor of Indiana.

“Someone’s going to the barbershop,” Mitch Daniels, a Republican, said during an interview with FOX Business’ Stuart Varney on Thursday. “The first will be the taxpayers, already beleaguered in some of these states.”

And Connecticut isn’t the only state struggling with a debt crisis: California, Illinois, New Jersey and New York are unable to make pension payments to retired government workers.

In Illinois, for instance, vendors wait months to be paid by a government that’s $30 billion in debt, and one whose bonds are just one notch above junk bond status, according to Daniels. New York’s more than $356 billion in debt; New Jersey more than $104 billion; and California more than $428 billion. “They’re just one of a number of states, including some of the biggest states, that are in deep water,” Daniels said. “I think it is irretrievable. Pensions is the core of it. It’s not the only fiscal recklessness that they have practiced, but in some of those cases, the bill are genuinely unpayable.”

Most likely, he said, the debt will fall on state taxpayers. He warned, however, that some of these states need to be cautious about raising already high taxes that would likely not come close to the debt they’ve already racked up.

“There may be a way in some states to have a reset of the pension obligations, although in some places, they’ve actually been constitutionally protected,” he said.

Muslim Brotherhood Cartoons

President Trump: U.S. is Economic Envy of World

Vice President Mike Pence looks on as President Donald Trump delivers remarks about the economy on the South Lawn of the White House, Friday, July 27, 2018, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

President Trump recently praised the United States as the ‘economic envy of the entire world.’
In a White House briefing Friday, the president touted the fastest U.S. economic growth since 2014.
The president said the GDP reached 4.1-percent in the second quarter, adding, the U.S. is on track to the the highest annual growth rate in 13-years.
He also said 3.7 million new jobs have been added since the election, which is a number that was once “unthinkable.”
Additionally, President Trump said the trade deficit has dropped by more than $50 billion .
Finally, Economic Adviser Larry Kudlow praised the economic boom as long-lasting and sustainable.

US cuts carbon emissions more than foreign nations that criticize Trump environmental policies

In this June 20, 2018 file photo, President Donald Trump listens during a meeting with Republican members of Congress on immigration in the Cabinet Room of the White House in Washington.  (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

When President Trump announced his plan to pull the United States out of the Paris Climate Accords in June 2017, the howling cries from left-wing environmentalists could be heard across the globe.
From Canada to China and throughout Europe, the world denounced the president’s decision as reckless and in contradiction to “settled science.” Without the Paris Climate Accords, they argued, Earth would soon find itself cascading off the global warming cliff.
One year later, Earth is still here, as you may have noticed.
And the U.S. economy – due in large part to the Trump administration’s commitment to deregulation and energy dominance – has continued to grow at breakneck speed. On Friday the federal government announced our nation’s gross domestic product grew at an annualized rate of 4.1 percent in the second quarter of this year – the highest growth rate in four years.
On top of this good news, despite the warnings of gloom and doom from President Trump’s opponents, America is now the world leader in cutting carbon dioxide emissions. Yes, you read that right.
According to a June report by BP – measuring global carbon dioxide emissions from the use of oil, gas and coal – the United States reduced its carbon dioxide emissions by 41.8 million tons from 2016 to 2017, marking the third consecutive year Americans’ carbon dioxide emissions fell.
The United States’ carbon dioxide reduction is more than double the next closest nation included in the study, Ukraine. And the U.S. reductions are part of a larger, decade-long trend. From 2006 to 2016, BP reports the United States slashed its carbon dioxide emissions by about 12 percent.
The recent drop in U.S. carbon dioxide emissions is the result of increased consumption of natural gas relative to other forms of energy production, renewable energy and a more efficient use of electricity.
In the wake of America’s declining carbon dioxide emissions, the dire warnings issued by global warming alarmists have proven to be yet another example of environmentalists’ fear-mongering.
One of those alarmists was Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who called President Trump’s decision to exit the Paris Accords a “devastating failure of historic proportions.”
After world leaders from countries big and small also harshly criticized President Trump for choosing not to make Americans beholden to the United Nations, the leaders spent the rest of 2017 presiding over countries that emitted millions of tons of additional carbon dioxide – illustrating clearly the utter worthlessness of the Paris Accords.
China, for example, increased its carbon dioxide emissions by 119 million tons from 2016 to 2017 – more than any other country in the world – despite its alleged commitment to the Paris Accords. Spain added more than 18.7 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions. France’s carbon dioxide emissions increased by 5.5 million tons.
But it’s the Canadian government that might deserve the award for being the world’s biggest carbon dioxide hypocrite. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was critical of the Trump administration for its decision to leave the Paris Accords, saying in a statement that he was “deeply disappointed” by the “disheartening” decision.
“Canada is unwavering in our commitment to fight climate change and support clean economic growth,” Trudeau said. “Canadians know we need to take decisive and collective action to tackle the many harsh realities of our changing climate.”
So, after those bold words Canada cut its carbon dioxide emissions dramatically, right? Well, not exactly. In 2017 Canada emitted 17 million additional tons of carbon dioxide compared to its emissions in 2016.
Perhaps the reason Canada, China, France, Spain and dozens of other Paris signatories added carbon dioxide emissions – while at the same time chastising America for working toward energy independence – is because the leaders of those countries know what skeptics of global warming alarmism have known for decades: The world is much better off with affordable energy than it is trying to combat a problem many scientists say doesn’t exist.
Of course, Prime Minister Trudeau and the rest of the Paris cabal will never publicly admit it. It’s much easier to spend time in office boasting of their own virtue and lamenting the tragic individualism of the American way.
H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D., is senior fellow for climate and environment issues at The Heartland Institute.
Justin Haskins (@JustinTHaskins) is executive editor and a research fellow at The Heartland Institute.

Impeaching Rosenstein, suing Trump's hotel: More pointless Beltway theater

'MediaBuzz' host Howard Kurtz weighs in on the seemingly pointless Beltway theater behind the resolution to impeach Rod Rosenstein, and a lawsuit involving the Trump hotel a few blocks down from the White House.
One of the things that drives people crazy about Washington is all the pointless theater.
All politics involves a bit of showmanship, especially these days, but when things are done just for show, it's so much hot air.
For all the talk about fiscal responsibility, for instance, no one in this capital much cares that we're about to rack up nearly $1 trillion in additional debt over the next decade, courtesy of the Trump tax cuts for corporations, according to new figures. The Republicans used to be the party of balanced budgets, but that's out the window. The Democrats once bragged of balancing the budget during the Clinton era, but now mainly use it as an argument when the GOP is in power, and vice versa.
Deficits are not a major voting issue, the thinking goes, so both sides just yak about it while busting past limits on the national credit card.
A dozen conservative House members have now introduced a resolution to impeach Rod Rosenstein. He's not going to be impeached, of course, so it's just more theater.
In fact, Paul Ryan much ruled it out for a vote yesterday, but it remains "on the table."
Mark Meadows and Jim Jordan, among others, say the deputy attorney general is slow-walking all kinds of House document requests. The Justice Department has turned over a small mountain of documents, but some disagreements exist.
I've covered many congressional subpoena battles over the years, and sometimes they lead to contempt-of-Congress citations. (These usually are voided when the inevitable compromise is reached.) But I can't think of a case that led to a serious impeachment effort.
So even if the lawmakers' frustration with Rosenstein is justified, the resolution seems more like a public protest of his role in overseeing the Mueller investigation.
Jeff Sessions said yesterday that "my deputy, Rod Rosenstein, is highly capable. I have the highest confidence in him."
And by the way, President Trump could fire Rosenstein today (except there would be an enormous political backlash). That's why the impeachment effort isn't serious, and Meadows said yesterday he is dropping it for now.
The final bit of theater centers on a lawsuit involving the Trump hotel a few blocks down Pennsylvania Avenue. It's getting some press because a federal judge allowed the suit, filed by Maryland and D.C., to move forward.
Invoking the obscure "emoluments" clause of the Constitution, the suit argues that the president is unfairly profiting from the five-star hotel because foreign dignitaries and others seeking favor with the administration are staying there. (The hotel was already in the works when Trump declared his candidacy, and I remember him holding a campaign news conference there when it was still under construction.)
The two jurisdictions claim other hotels are being hurt, but I think the suit is all about Trump. And in the unlikely event he had to sell the hotel, he'd still make money.
Even more of a politically motivated stretch: A D.C. advisory neighborhood commission is trying to get the hotel's liquor license revoked on grounds that Trump lacks the required "moral character." And it's not even the advisory committee for that neighborhood!
So all of this makes for good kabuki, a cheap way of getting headlines, and creating the appearance of action. But the deficits aren't shrinking, Rosenstein isn't going anywhere, and the Trump International Hotel will probably be serving guests for a long time to come.
Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m.). He is the author "Media Madness: Donald Trump, The Press and the War Over the Truth." Follow him at @HowardKurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz.

On trade policy, Trump is turning GOP orthodoxy on its head

President Donald Trump's trade policies are turning long-established Republican orthodoxy on its head, marked by tariff fights and now $12 billion in farm aid that represents the type of government intervention GOP voters railed against a decade ago.
President George W. Bush increased the number of countries partnering with the United States on free trade agreements from three to 16. President Ronald Reagan signed a landmark trade deal with Canada that was later transformed into the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and expanded to include Mexico. Both those Republican presidents also enacted tariffs, but their comments on trade were overwhelmingly positive.
"We should beware of the demagogues who are ready to declare a trade war against our friends, weakening our economy, our national security and the entire free world, all while cynically waiving the American flag," Reagan said in a 1988 radio address.
Trump, by comparison, has called NAFTA "the worst trade deal maybe ever signed anywhere," and his administration has opted to use tariffs as a tool intended to leverage more favorable agreements with virtually every major U.S. trading partner. He shredded the trade agreement the Obama administration tried to work out with Pacific Rim nations that had strong backing from farm groups and chief executives from major U.S. corporations.
Republicans also have altered the priority of tackling the national debt, an issue the GOP hammered President Barack Obama on as the country struggled to recover from the 2008 economic crisis. "Our nation is approaching a tipping point," GOP Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, now the House speaker, said in January 2011 when the national debt hit $14 trillion.
Today, the Congressional Budget Office projects the $21 trillion debt will rise to more than $33 trillion in 10 years. That estimate notes that the tax cut lawmakers passed in December would increase economic output, but add $1.8 trillion to the deficit over the coming decade.
The GOP's evolving priorities are not lost on some in the party. Rep. Mark Sanford, R-S.C., who lost a close primary election this year after butting heads with Trump on some issues, said he finds it "perplexingly destructive" for the GOP brand.
"It takes a long while to build a brand, but brands can be diminished or destroyed in relatively short order, and I think the administration is destroying bedrock cornerstones to what the party has historically stood for," Sanford said. "There is no conversation on the debt, deficit and government spending these days. That has been a cornerstone."
Sanford made headlines as South Carolina governor when he said he would reject stimulus money approved during the financial crisis because he did not think the country should go into debt to fund recovery efforts.
"Here we are now with a hypothetical $12 billion bailout package and you don't hear a word," Sanford said. "That is quite a transition in not so many years from decrying what the Obama administration had done with bailouts to now endorsing the idea of bailouts."
Trump, in a Friday interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity's radio show, said the strong economy would help the U.S. reduce the deficit. "The economy, we can go a lot higher ... We have $21 trillion in debt. When this really kicks in we'll start paying off that debt like water. We'll start paying that debt down."

"The economy, we can go a lot higher. ... We have $21 trillion in debt. When this really kicks in we'll start paying off that debt like water. We'll start paying that debt down."
- President Trump, speaking to Fox News' Sean Hannity on Friday

The administration's plan on the bailout announced last week would borrow money from the Treasury to pay producers of soybeans, sorghum, corn, wheat, cotton, dairy, and hogs. Many farmers have criticized Trump's tariffs and the damage done to commodity prices and markets.
Some GOP lawmakers are expressing concerns. "I didn't come up here to start new government programs," said Sen. John Kennedy, R-La.
But it's unlikely that the Republican-controlled Congress will try to block the administration's agricultural aid plan.
"I'm looking at this and saying, 'You're going to single out one sector?' What about the manufacturing sector? What about the energy sector?" said Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska. "Where do you draw the line? I've got some real concerns."
But others praised the move. GOP Rep. Mike Conaway of Texas, chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, called it "welcome relief."
"This is the right fight to have, but in the meantime, our producers have got to live as this fight is going on," Conaway said of a trade dispute with China that has prompted the imposition of tariffs by both nations.
Conaway said the president has reshaped the way Republicans think about trade.
"He's kind of changed the narrative of the conversation that it's really not OK to let other people take advantage of America," Conaway said.
Rep. Dan Kildee, D-Mich., said it's clear the GOP has changed over the past two years with Trump in office.
"This is the party of Trump. He calls the plays and they line up and they execute the play," Kildee said.

"This is the party of Trump. He calls the plays and they line up and they execute the play."
- U.S. Rep. Dan Kildee, D-Mich

But Kildee also opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal that the Obama administration was trying to work out with Japan, Vietnam, Singapore and others. He and many other Democrats described past trade deals such as NAFTA as hurting workers in their home districts. So why the criticism of Trump and the efforts he has undertaken on trade?
Kildee said he would prefer a more deliberative approach and a multilateral approach that doesn't fray longstanding alliances.
"Simply engaging on the issue of trade doesn't mean he's doing it right," Kildee said.
The president's meetings with lawmakers in the past week and his trade advisers' visits to Capitol Hill are acknowledgements that many GOP lawmakers are worried about where Trump is headed — and what it could mean in the November election as farmers, bourbon makers and manufacturers who use imported steel and aluminum deal with the fallout.
A possible breakthrough with the European Union announced Wednesday at the White House appears to have eased their concerns and given the president more time to work out new deals.
"The fact the EU was here today and good talks happened, I think that points to there's proof it's working," said Rep. Dan Newhouse, R-Wash. "That's not just wishful thinking. I think we can see that."

Randa Jarrar Cartoons

Bush-bashing Fresno State professor returns to Twitter, calls on 'white editors' to resign

The infamous California university professor who relished in the death of former first lady Barbara Bush is back at it again.
Randa Jarrar, an English professor at California State University, Fresno (aka Fresno State), tweeted this week that “white editors” must resign from positions of power, the Fresno Bee reported, citing CampusReform.org.
“We don’t have to wait for them to f--- up,” Jarrar allegedly wrote. “The fact that they hold these positions is f--- up enough.”
Jarrar’s Twitter account is set to private, but the tweet was captured in a screenshot by Campus Reform.
The tenured professor seemed to be reacting to a 14-line poem written by a “white male” published in the far-left magazine the Nation, the Washington Times reported.
Amid criticism, the poetry editors of the Nation dubbed the poem “ableist” and apologized for “the pain” they caused to “affected” communities.
In April, Jarrar drew public backlash for calling Barbara Bush an “amazing racist” who raised a “war criminal” – a reference to her son, President George W. Bush -- only an hour after the news of the former first lady's death was made public.
“[E]ither you are against these pieces of s--- and their genocidal ways or you’re part of the problem,” Jarrar said in a follow-up tweet. “I’m happy the witch is dead. can’t wait for the rest of her family to fall to their demise the way 1.5 million iraqis have.”
Jarrar merely gloated in the face of near-universal backlash -- which included threats by Fresno State donors to no longer support the university -- and boasted of her $100,000 annual salary.
“I work as a tenured professor,” she said. “I make 100K a year doing that. I will never be fired. I will always have people wanting to hear what I have to say.”
She also bashed farmers as being "f---ing stupid" supporters of President Donald Trump.
According to the Bee, Jarrar is scheduled to resume teaching at the university in the fall. In April, Fresno State's president decided that Jarrar's views were protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Pelosi describes 9/11 attacks as 'incident,' suggests GOP weaker on border than Democrats

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi described the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks as an “incident” during her weekly news conference on Thursday.  (Reuters)

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi described the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks as an “incident” during her weekly news conference Thursday.
The outlandish slip-up about the deadliest attack on U.S. soil came during a discussion in which Pelosi criticized the Trump administration’s stance on immigration and its claims that the Democrats have been weak on border security.
She claimed that Republicans are actually weaker on the issue than Democrats because they did not implement some of the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations that concerned border security enforcement and immigration.
“We have a responsibility to protect our borders. All of our borders. Let’s make no mistake about that. Democrats have been strong on that point. All of our borders,” Pelosi told the reporters.
“In fact, I said to some of you before, when we had the 9/11 incident and the commission was formed — and they made their recommendations — they made recommendations to protect America, but the Republicans would never take them up. And some of it was about our borders. The Republicans would never take them up,” she added.

"When we had the 9/11 incident and the commission was formed — and they made their recommendations — they made recommendations to protect America, but the Republicans would never take them up."
- House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi

The 9/11 terror attacks, perpetrated by Al-Qaeda terrorist group and its leader Usama bin Laden, killed around 3,000 people in what was the deadliest terror attack on U.S. soil in modern history.
Pelosi went on to say that only in 2006 – when Democrats overwhelmingly won the midterm elections amid dissatisfaction with wars in Afghanistan and Iraq – a border security measure was introduced.
“It took until we won in ‘06 — first bill on the floor, H.R. 1 — to enact the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission,” she said.
The top Democrat’s attempts to portray the Republicans as weak on immigration may hit the wall as her colleagues at the party are increasingly lurching leftward on the issue of immigration.
Some top mainstream Democrats, including U.S. Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, are embracing the goal of abolishing the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency over its role in deporting illegal immigrants.
Congressional Democrats are also opposed to Trump’s signature issue of the border wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, blocking any efforts in Congress to provide funding toward the project.

Remains of US war dead retrieved from North Korea, White House says

A soldier carries a casket containing what was believed to be the remains of a U.S. soldier who was killed in the Korean War, during a ceremony at Osan Air Base in Pyeongtaek, South Korea, July 27, 2018.  (Associated Press)

Fifty-five cases containing what were believed to be the remains of U.S. servicemen killed during the Korean War were returned Friday, the White House said.
The cases, each draped with the flag of the United Nations, arrived aboard a U.S. military plane at Osan Air Base outside Seoul, South Korea. Earlier, the plane and its crew had traveled to Wonsan, North Korea, to collect the remains, the White House said.
The transfer of the remains from the 1950-53 Korean War had been negotiated last month during a summit meeting in Singapore between President Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.
President Donald Trump tweeted about the return of the remains late Thursday, as the transfer mission was getting underway.
"The Remains of American Servicemen will soon be leaving North Korea and heading to the United States! After so many years, this will be a great moment for so many families. Thank you to Kim Jong Un," the president wrote.
US ANTICIPATES NORTH KOREA WILL RETURN REMAINS OF 55 SERVICE MEMBERS, OFFICIAL SAYS
About 7,700 U.S. soldiers are listed as missing from the 1950-53 Korean War, and 5,300 of the remains are believed to still be in North Korea. The war killed millions, including 36,000 American soldiers.
Officials in North Korea had no comment on the handover on Friday, the 65th anniversary of the end of the Korean War, which the country celebrated as the day of "victory in the fatherland liberation war."
Earlier Thursday, the White House released a statement confirming details about the transfer of the remains.
"At their historic meeting in Singapore, President Donald J. Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un took a bold first step to achieve the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, transform relations between the United States and North Korea, and establish enduring peace," the statement said. "Today, the Chairman is fulfilling part of the commitment he made to the President to return our fallen American service members. We are encouraged by North Koreas actions and the momentum for positive change."
NORTH KOREA IS SAID TO BE POISED TO RETURN BODIES OF SOME 50 US VETS SOON: REPORT
Among the other results from the highly anticipated meeting, the two leaders signed a document that said Pyongyang would work toward "complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula."
A U.S. official previously told Fox News that the U.S. was expecting that the rogue regime would be sending back the remains Friday. However, the official said that nothing was set in stone until the U.S. plane leaves Wonsan with the remains.