FactCheck.org SNAFU's RNC Speeches

As a neutral observer, FactCheck.org's article covering the RNC speeches last night seems to do a lot of mincing of words in efforts to call out the speakers on fact-twisting, but presents thin, naïve arguments at best. Let's take their refute on machine speeches about Benghazi: The marines on the ground, whether an official order was issued or not, likely were given a temporary stand-down while the "seniors deliberated" whether or not to go in. Whether the words "wait" or "stand-down" were used, to a marine, this is telling him not to do his job when he feels it's necessary and is going to be the equivalent of "stand down soldier, let the eggheads think about it before you do what you were trained to do." Regardless of perceptions, the findings of an official panel that there was "no evidence" does not equate to "it didn't happen." It simply means there is insufficient proof to move forward with legal proceedings. Only those who were actually there can say what really happened, and we all know someone in this equation isn't telling the truth since accounts are conflicting at best. FactCheck.org - I'd let this one go or you risk looking biased given so many people on the ground continue to dispute the "official" findings.

   I'm no fan of Giuliani, but the "facts" this writing team used to support their dismissal of Giuliani's crime record actually support his claims. They state that NY experienced a 16% higher crime reduction rate than the national average during his time in office. When you also factor in higher rates of immigration and race relation problems that have long plagued NY, this is quite an accomplishment, regardless of whether or not there was a decline in crime rates across the US. What the writers also leave out is any indication of whether or not additional programs, funding, etc in NY were initiated by Giuliani that may have been at play during that time. Either way, the sheer numbers support his claims, again giving the impression of naiveté or bias.

  Many people see the "path to legal citizenship" as equivalent to opening the country's borders. This is because so many Americans feel they have been displaced from their jobs by illegal immigrants who can work cheaper because they pay no taxes. I'm personally on the fence about legalizing illegals. On the one hand, it seems most are simply hardworking people hoping to find a better life and should be given the opportunity to become US citizens. On the other hand, they have broken the law and benefitted in ways that have hurt legal American citizens who can't compete with their low rates in service jobs and who pay taxes which benefit these undocumented workers' families through free school and medical care that they haven't contributed toward. It's a tough call, but I can see where the RNC speakers' positions on Clinton's immigration record equates to "open borders." What good are increased border protections if you are going to reward those who sneak through for their violation of immigration law? That will simply encourage more to attempt to get in illegally. However, if you ship all illegals back home and encourage them to seek legal entry, you take away the incentive to break the law in the first place and hopefully reduce the need for border patrols. It's simple psychology and logic.

  Finally, the wage and jobless perception. This article fails to address whether or not the claim that immigrants are taking the jobs. (I don't know the answer, though I can say the bulk of new hires at the high tech consulting company I work with are on visas and most of the day workers around here weren't born in this country.) Inflation rates have been wildly unpredictable and "real wage" calculations focus only on hourly wages and minimum wages, though most modern middle income earners and above have shifted to salaried models, which actually dilutes the amount earned hourly since actual working hours aren't tracked for salaried employees. According to Pew Research, as of 2014, the real wage of ALL Americans has barely shifted since the 1960s, and still remains lower than it was in the 1970s. In addition, most studies fail to account for the increased cost of living brought on for 80% of wage earners in the form of healthcare. ACA may have opened the door to healthcare for that 20% of Americans that didn't have it at all, but it did so by effecting a dramatic increase in premiums for the 80% who already had insurance. I personally went from a $0 premium to almost $400 per month for myself and one child. For most Americans, that is a major impact on "real wages" that most studies do not accommodate. It is also not factored into the inflation rate as healthcare premiums are not driven by supply/demand like consumer goods.