Walmart Just Raised Their Minimum wage, Then This Happened IMMEDIATELY

Screen Shot 2015-08-01 at 12.03.22 PM

Walmart Raises Minimum Wage for 100,000 Employees, Stores Begin Closing, Workers Let Go


It’s almost become silly to state, but in yet another case of we told you so, the evidence is clear with just how harmful raising the minimum wage really is to all Americans.

Why is it hard to comprehend that stores and businesses will lay people off, cut their hours, and bring up the prices of goods if low skilled workers are making the same amount per paycheck as someone a couple years out of college?

If everyone earns one million dollars annually, wouldn’t you figure even a 900 sq. ft. house will start to cost two, three, four million? Well, use that analogy for EVERYTHING!

Underneath all the bogus activism from the Left is the fact that most liberals know that raising the minimum wage isn’t smart, but in the end what matters to them is that we become a more social nation – which means everyone suffers together.

Though, of course, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

From Federalist Papers:

Earlier this year, Walmart raised the starting wage for more than 100,000 of its employees. This move reportedly cost at least $1 billion to implement, though the long-term costs could potentially be far worse.

For instance, recent reporting by the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette revealed that Walmart plans to soon lay off 1000 employees at its home office in Bentonville.

This revelation comes only months after Walmart simultaneously shut down five stores across the nation for alleged “plumbing problems,” thus putting 2,500 employees in an extraordinarily precarious predicament.


According to Zero Hedge contributor Tyler Durden, “reporters determined that no plumbing permits had been filed in any of the locales where the shuttered stores were located.”

Durden suspected that the real reason for the shutdowns was to “cut costs.”

By choosing to boost “the living standards of its employees by the smallest of fractions,” argued Durden, Walmart crippled “the cost and wage structure of the entire ecosystem of” individual stores “that feed into it,” which in turn led to “a tidal wave of layoffs for said” stores.



Cuts will be blamed on bureaucratic inefficiencies

by ZERO HEDGE | JULY 31, 2015

“Please remember, these people are our neighbors and friends. You have a skill that will be very much in need when this goes down. You are experts in the job market and you know what it takes to get hired. This is a time for us to step up and do what we can to help.”

The quote above is from an internal memo sent to employees of Northwest Arkansas recruiting firm Cameron Smith & Associates and references an expected wave of layoffs at WalMart’s home office in Bentonville.

The memo was obtained by the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, who spoke with Cameron Smith himself via e-mail.

“The last time Walmart had a large layoff (800 plus), we were unprepared and overwhelmed with phone calls, emails, resumes and walk-ins,” Smith told the paper, referring to a series of cuts at WalMart in 2009. The next round of layoffs are just around the corner and could affect as many as 1,000 employees Smith contends, citing conversations with company insiders.
As those who follow the retailer closely are no doubt aware, context is key here.

Back in April, we asked why WalMart was mysteriously shuttering geographically distinct stores nationwide for “plumbing problems.” The company, citing the need to repair persistent “clogs and leaks”, closed five stores across the country almost simultaneously. The 2,500 affected employees were in some instances given almost no notice whatsoever.

After a few enterprising reporters determined that no plumbing permits had been filed in any of the locales where the shuttered stores were located, conspiracy theories sprung up, the most outlandish of which posited a link between the store closings and the Jade Helm 15 military drills which began earlier this month in Texas and six other states.

For our part, we argued that the store closures were more likely the result of two things: i) the need to cut costs, and ii) the desire to close a “problem” store in California that had for years served as a hotbed for union activism. For now, we won’t dive into the union issue, but for those interested, see here, here, and her.

As for cost cutting, consider the following, excerpted from “Why Is WalMart Mysteriously Shuttering Stores Nationwide For Plumbing Issues?“:

Earlier this year, WalMart became one of several corporate heavyweights to lift wages for its meagerly compensated workers, around 500,000 of which are now set to receive at least $9/hour and $10/hour by Q1 2016 (that of course assumes they make it on $9 an hour for another 12 months and don’t seek out other employment by sheer necessity).

Meanwhile, the move by the country’s largest retailer to pay a few extra pennies to its (basically) minimum wage employees comes at a cost to the company’s suppliers because when you operate on the thinnest of margins in order to be the “low price leader,” someone has to pay for those wage hikes and you can’t pass along the costs to customers because many of your low-income patrons are operating from the same tax bracket as your low-paid employees. As such, the supply chain is forced to lower their prices and of course they’re going to comply because well, you’re WalMart meaning you’re your vendors’ biggest account pretty much by default. The outcome is that “while WMT (or MCD or GAP or Target) boosts the living standards of its employees by the smallest of fractions, it cripples the cost and wage structure of the entire ecosystem of vendors that feed into it, and what takes place is a veritable avalanche effect where a few cent increase for the lowest paid megacorp employees results in a tidal wave of layoffs for said megacorp’s vendors.”

If that doesn’t turn out to be enough in the face of an economy which isn’t really recovering and in which low-income shoppers are constrained by lackluster (and by that we mean nonexistent) wage growth, some sacrifices may have to be made.
The first such sacrifice (apparently) were the 2,500 or so employees at the five locations with intractable plumbing problems, but clearly that was not enough which is why now, the company is moving to cut 1,000 higher paying jobs in Bentonville.

Of course WalMart can’t come out and say that a lackluster economy and nonexistent wage growth for 83% of the nation’s workforce has ironically served to make the company’s own minimum wage hikes untenable and therefore some heads in middle management have to roll, so instead the cuts will be blamed on bureaucratic inefficiencies. Here’s the Democrat-Gazette again:

Cutting through red tape and trimming bureaucracy has been among the goals of McMillon, who took over as CEO in February 2014. Wal-Mart employs more than 2 million worldwide and has more than 1.4 million employees in the U.S.

McMillon mentioned the size of the company’s headquarters as a possible detriment to quicker action at the store level and told retail analysts during a June question-and-answer session that employees should remember “there are no cash registers in the office.” During a store visit last year, McMillon said he encountered an electronics department manager who spent five hours on the phone with the home office to get assistance with a problem.

“We want people to make decisions and move with speed and not have the organization run in a way that causes it to slow down,” McMillon said.

He again referred to the “dangers of a big company” during a June 11 retail conference in Springdale.

“As we’ve grown and time has gone on, we’ve created pockets of our business, situations where people don’t want to share bad news. Lots of PowerPoints get built, lots of pre-meetings are held to socialize things so people aren’t surprised during a meeting,” McMillon said. “That is bureaucracy. That slows us down.”
Got it. Too many people are working on PowerPoints and when someone making $10 an hour calls the home office, the hold time is too long. These are clear signs of an elephantine, Washington-esque bureaucracy, which must be done away with.

Or something.

Just don’t dare suggest that the cuts are the indirect or even direct result of the wage hikes that will cost the retailer around $1 billion this year, because that would mean that critics of the push to hike the pay floor are correct to assert that forcing employers to pay more will immediately result in equal and offsetting layoffs.

Only here they aren’t necessarily “equal” at all.

That’s in no way a commentary on the “worth” (in a philosophical sense of the word) of an hourly worker versus a salaried employee, but if layoffs in Arkansas do materialize as Cameron Smith predicts, it seems entirely fair to suggest that the pittance given to hundreds of thousands of low paid workers will ultimately come at the cost of 1,000 or so breadwinner positions. We’ll leave it to readers to determine whether that is a net win for the economy.

On the bright side for anyone affected by the coming round of job cuts, at least you know that this time around, the staff at Cameron Smith & Associates is “much more prepared” to handle the sudden influx of 1,000 distraught former WalMart employees.

Politics: 2Q GDP is a sad 2.3 percent; media think that’s good


The soft bigotry of low expectations.

Aren’t you excited? USA Today reports “Economy bounces back“. Business Insider proclaims “America is growing again“. Even Forbes says “Economic growth picks up“.

If you didn’t know better, you’d think the government had just announced a really robust quarter of growth. But by now you know better than to trust the Obama Administration or the media, so you look at the actual growth number and what you see is that GDP in the second quarter of 2015 grew by a mere 2.3 percent.

That’s it. And no, that’s not good. It’s better than the 0.2 percent drop we saw in the first quarter, but if that’s your measure of economic strength, you really have surrendered to what George W. Bush in a different context called the “soft bigotry of low expectations.”

Worse: What little growth we have is almost entirely being driven by consumer spending and not by production. The problem with that is that it’s very volatile and not at all value-added. Lindsey Piegza of Stifel Economics expands on that thought in the Wall Street Journal:

The most concerning factor in the morning’s report was not necessarily the modest headline increase, but the lack of widespread support for growth in the second quarter. Personal spending accounted for two percent of the 2.3% headline increase. Spending, however, needs to be supported by other areas of activity in the economy, particularly business development and job creation. At this point, however, business development and expansion remains markedly weak. Going forward, without widespread improvement in business activity, there is very little to suggest stability, let alone momentum in the economy, as we look further into the second half of the year.

Over on the Journal’s editorial page, they note that this continues a sad six-year pattern that has given us the weakest “recovery” from a recession in 70 years:

Since the recession ended in June 2009, the economy has grown at an annual rate of about 2.1%. That’s 0.6-percentage points worse than even during the much-maligned George W. Bush expansion. Growth averaged more than 3% from 2003-2006, but the best growth during the Obama years has been 2.5% in 2010, and in both 2011 and 2013 it nearly slipped back into recession.

The nearby chart compares this expansion to the growth periods in the 1980s and 1990s, showing what might have been. Real GDP growth averaged 4.6% in the first six years of the Reagan expansion, and more than 3.6% a year in the first six years of the George H.W. Bush-Bill Clinton expansion (gaining speed after that). Had the current expansion been as robust as the average expansion since 1960, GDP would be some $1.89 trillion larger today, according to Congress’s Joint Economic Committee.

The slow-growth Obama era has given way to multiple explanations and excuses from the President’s economic advocates. They blame the hangover from the financial crisis (even six years later), foreign economic problems, the failure of government to spend and tax more, an aging population—anything but the policy differences between those previous eras and this one.

Leading lights on the left have even thrown up their hands to suggest we no longer really know what produces faster growth. Larry Summers calls it “secular stagnation,” as if it’s an illness we somehow caught. Others claim 2%-2.5% growth is about as good as we can now do, so get used to it—and keep interest rates at near-zero for as far as the eye can see.

Of course, if they really wanted to see robust growth, they could try the low-tax, low-regulation policies that worked in the 1980s rather than simply coming to the conclusion that there’s nothing we can do and we should just be satisfied with this morass. But the truth is that central control and political manipulation of the economy is much more important to this administration than growth. They’re not there to give us growth. They’re there to regulate, tax and redistribute wealth – and they’ll take that over growth any day if they have to chose. Which they do, of course, because policies like these are the quintessential killer of growth. We’ve seen it for six years and I don’t know why anyone would fail to understand that at this point until they’re simply so deep in their ideological hole that they no longer want to understand why things are going wrong.

Apparently that applies to the headline writers in the media as well.


Screen Shot 2015-07-29 at 8.07.27 PM

Alan Greenspan: This is ‘extremely dangerous’


While markets hone in on the Federal Reserve‘s monetary policy hints, former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan sees a bigger economic irritant—government spending.

On Wednesday, Greenspan decried a rise in entitlement costs, which he contended have pressured the U.S. economy.

“To me the discussion today shouldn’t even be on monetary policy it should be on how do we constrain this extraordinary rise in entitlements,” he said in a CNBC “Closing Bell” interview, calling the trend “extremely dangerous.”

Social expenditures in the U.S. were 19.2 percent of gross domestic product last year, up from 15.5 percent in 2005, according to data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Read MoreNot yet: Fed keeps interest rate pedal at zero

Still, the portion of GDP spent by the U.S. on social benefits last year was below the OECD average of 21.6 percent. The majority of member nations individually shelled out a higher percentage of GDP, as well.

Greenspan was the head of the U.S. central bank from 1987 to 2006. He declined to characterize the Fed’s policy-making committee’s assessment of the nation’s economy after its most recent meeting Wednesday.

However, he noted that he sees a “strong and growing labor market” despite concerns about productivity growth.

Read MoreFed tea leaves leave market wanting more


Screen Shot 2015-07-29 at 3.10.46 PM

Union officials argue exemption will allow them to negotiate better contracts


Union officials in Los Angeles are fighting to be excluded from minimum wage rules that they have lobbied to put in place.

Los Angeles city council is set to vote on a union-backed clause to its $15-an-hour minimum wage bill that would exempt workers covered by a collective bargaining contract. The debate is expected to start later this week when the council returns from summer recess.

In May, the Los Angeles city council voted in favor of raising minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2020. As the council prepared for a final vote on the legislation, the Los Angeles Times reported local union leaders had suggested an exemption that was common for such laws: to make companies with unionized workforces exempt from such wage increase.

The proposal was made by Rusty Hicks, executive secretary-treasurer at the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO. Hicks has been a leading voice for raising the minimum wage. He declined to comment for this story, referring the Guardian to previously released statements when he first introduced the proposal for the exemption clause.

Hicks has previously argued that in collective bargaining agreements, business owners and employees can “prioritize what is important to them”. Under the proposed clause, the unionized workers would be paid whatever their contracted hourly wage was even if the local minimum wage were raised to higher.

“This provision gives the parties the option, the freedom, to negotiate that agreement. And that is a good thing,” said Hicks, who is also one of the main organizer for Raise The Wage.

Raise the Wage and the local chapter of the AFL-CIO have been instrumental in rounding up support for the $15 minimum wage. The union had devoted a significant amount of resources to the effort, and its logo was seen at many of the marches and events held in support of the Fight for $15 movement.

After drawing criticism from both sides, Hicks released the following statement: “Raise the Wage stands with the City Council and supports the minimum wage ordinance as currently drafted.”

At that time, the copy of the bill did not exclude workers covered by a collective bargaining contract such as home healthcare workers. The union, however, did not drop the issue, but instead put it on hold for the time being.

“There are a number of outstanding issues that are in need of further review, including the collective bargaining supersession clause,” Hick’s statement continued, referring to the proposal. “This clause preserves and protects basic worker rights, and that is why nearly every city in California that has ever passed a minimum wage ordinance has included these protections.”

The ordinance to increase LA’s minimum wage to $15 officially passed after a third vote on 10 June, with local lawmakers voting 12 to 1 in favor of the bill. The issue of collective bargaining clause was left unresolved.

Such a clause is common in ordinances and laws passed to increase local minimum wage. Similar clauses have been included in legislations passed in Chicago and Milwaukee. In California alone, such clauses were included in wage bills in San Jose, Oakland, Richmond, San Francisco, Los Angeles and Long Beach,according to the US Chamber of Commerce, a business interest lobby group.

But not all local unions are in favor of such exemptions. The ordinance passed by the city council in Seattle does not include a clause exempting union workers.

“At this point in our history, we have to be very careful to send the message that we stand up for all workers,” David Rolf, president of SEIU 775 in Seattle, told the Los Angeles Times. “A wage is a wage is a wage. It’s very hard to justify why you’d want any worker to make less than the minimum wage.”

The exemption does not automatically mean that all workers represented by unions will be paid less than $15 an hour. It does mean that companies with unionized workforce can attempt to negotiate contracts with hourly wages lower than $15 an hour even after such wage goes into effect.

“Fifteen dollars an hour and a union is a nice marketing slogan, but unions don’t actually care about the employees they seek to represent,” Matt Haller, senior vice-president of communications and public affairs at the International Franchise Association, told the Guardian. “They only care about getting more union members, generating initiation fees and growing their political stranglehold over politicians. If they cared about the employees, they would refute the tactics and endorse a $15 wage irrespective of whether they are exempt or not.”

The unions argue that this exemption would give them more leeway at the bargaining table when negotiating contracts with employers and could result in better benefits for the workers.

The US Chamber of Commerce released a report at the end of last year describing these exemptions as “escape clause”.

“This ‘escape clause’ is often designed to encourage unionization by making a labor union the potential ‘low-cost’ alternative to new wage mandates, and it raises serious questions about whom these minimum wage laws are actually intended to benefit,” read the report.

Members of the Fight for $15 movement, which is supported in large part by US unions, have on multiple occasions stated that they are fighting for $15 minimum wage as well as the right to unionize. With such an exemption, being in a union might not guarantee $15 an hour even if that is the legal minimum wage.

Kendall Fells, organizing director of the Fight for $15, told the Guardian that the movement supports $15 an hour as a minimum wage for “all workers – in LA and everywhere – and don’t support anything that could undermine that”.

US unions have invested heavily in the Fight for $15 movement – in terms of manpower, time and resources. A press release issued by the International Franchise Association earlier this year claimed that SEIU spent $18.5m in 2014 on the Fight for $15 campaign. An analysis by the anti-union non-profit group the Center for Union Facts found that SEIU had paid $1.3m to Berlin Rosen, a public relations consultants firm handling press for the Fight for $15 protests, up from $848,000 in 2013 and $393,000 in 2012.

When speaking with the Guardian on 15 April, Mary Kay Henry, international president of the SEIU, said that the Fight for $15 campaign was worth the investment.

“There is not a price tag you can put on how this movement has changed the conversation in this country. It is raising wages at the bargaining table. It’s raised wages for eight million workers,” she said. “I believe we are forcing a real conversation about how to solve the grossest inequality in our generation.”

SEIU national office did not respond to the Guardian’s request for comment in time for publication.

Even if SEIU is not actively lobbying for such an exemption to be part of the law, once in place, the workers it represents will be subject to them.

// g?c=a+f+c:(g+=f.length,f=a.indexOf("&",g),c=0<=f?a.substring(0,g)+c+a.substring(f):a.substring(0,g)+c)}return 2E3<c.length?void 0!==d?t(a,b,d,void 0,e):a:c};var ba=function(){var a=/[&\?]exk=([^& ]+)/.exec(u.location.href);return a&&2==a.length?a[1]:null};var ca=function(a){var b=a.toString();": ";a.message&&-1==b.indexOf(a.message)&&(b+=": "+a.message);if(a.stack){a=a.stack;var c=b;try{-1==a.indexOf(c)&&(a=c+"\n"+a);for(var d;a!=d;)d=a,a=a.replace(/((https?:\/..*\/)[^\/:]*:\d+(?:.|\n)*)\2/,"$1");b=a.replace(/\n */g,"\n")}catch(e){b=c}}return b},v=function(a,b){a.google_image_requests||(a.google_image_requests=[]);var c=a.document.createElement("img");c.src=b;a.google_image_requests.push(c)};var w=document,u=window;var da=String.prototype.trim?function(a){return a.trim()}:function(a){return a.replace(/^[\s\xa0]+|[\s\xa0]+$/g,"")},ea=function(a,b){return ab?1:0};var x=null,fa=function(a,b){for(var c in a),c)&&,a[c],c,a)};function y(a){return"function"==typeof encodeURIComponent?encodeURIComponent(a):escape(a)}var ga=function(){if(!w.body)return!1;if(!x){var a=w.createElement("iframe");"none";"anonIframe";x=a;w.body.appendChild(a)}return!0},ha={};var ia=!0,ja={},ma=function(a,b,c,d){var e=ka,f,g=ia;try{f=b()}catch(l){try{var r=ca(l);b="";l.fileName&&(b=l.fileName);var G=-1;l.lineNumber&&(G=l.lineNumber);g=e(a,r,b,G,c)}catch(m){try{var B=ca(m);a="";m.fileName&&(a=m.fileName);c=-1;m.lineNumber&&(c=m.lineNumber);ka("pAR",B,a,c,void 0,void 0)}catch(Ma){la({context:"mRE",msg:Ma.toString()+"\n"+(Ma.stack||"")},void 0)}}if(!g)throw l;}finally{if(d)try{d()}catch(Wb){}}return f},ka=function(a,b,c,d,e,f){var g={};if(e)try{e(g)}catch(l){}g.context=a;g.msg=b.substring(0,512);c&&(g.file=c);0<d&&(g.line=d.toString());g.url=w.URL.substring(0,512);g.ref=w.referrer.substring(0,512);na(g);la(g,f);return ia},la=function(a,b){try{if(Math.random()c?Math.max(0,a.length+c):c;if(n(a))return n(b)&&1==b.length?a.indexOf(b,c):-1;for(;c<a.length;c++)if(c in a&&a[c]===b)return c;return-1},,b,c){return,b,c)}:function(a,b,c){for(var d=a.length,e=Array(d),f=n(a)?a.split(""):a,g=0;g<d;g++)g in f&&(e[g],f[g],g,a));return e};var ra=function(a,b){for(var c in a) 0,a[c],c,a)},sa=function(a){var b=arguments.length;if(1==b&&"array"==k(arguments[0]))return sa.apply(null,arguments[0]);for(var c={},d=0;dparseFloat(a))?String(b):a}(),Ea={},Fa=function(a){if(!Ea[a]){for(var b=0,c=da(String(Da)).split("."),d=da(String(a)).split("."),e=Math.max(c.length,d.length),f=0;0==b&&f<e;f++){var g=c[f]||"",l=d[f]||"",r=RegExp("(\\d*)(\\D*)","g"),G=RegExp("(\\d*)(\\D*)","g");do{var m=r.exec(g)||["","",""],B=G.exec(l)||["","",""];if(0==m[0].length&&0==B[0].length)break;b=ea(0==m[1].length?0:parseInt(m[1],10),0==B[1].length?0:parseInt(B[1],10))||ea(0==m[2].length,0==B[2].length)||ea(m[2],B[2])}while(0==b)}Ea[a]=0<=b}},Ga=h.document,Ha=Ga&&F?Ca()||("CSS1Compat"==Ga.compatMode?parseInt(Da,10):5):void 0;var Ia=function(a,b,c){if("array"==k(b))for(var d=0;d<b.length;d++)Ia(a,String(b[d]),c);else null!=b&&c.push("&",a,""===b?"":"=",encodeURIComponent(String(b)))},Ja=function(a,b,c){for(c=c||0;c<b.length;c+=2)Ia(b[c],b[c+1],a);return a},Ka=function(a,b){var c=2==arguments.length?Ja([a],arguments[1],0):Ja([a],arguments,1);if(c[1]){var d=c[0],e=d.indexOf("#");0e?c[1]="?":e==d.length-1&&(c[1]=void 0)}return c.join("")};var La={l:947190538,m:947190541,o:947190542,h:79463068,i:79463069},Na={g:"ud=1",f:"ts=0",s:"sc=1",c:"gz=1",j:"lp=1"};if(w&&w.URL){var Oa=w.URL,Pa;if(Pa=Oa){var Qa;if(Oa){var H=/.*[&#?]google_debug(=[^&]*)?(&.*)?$/.exec(decodeURIComponent(Oa));Qa=H?H[1]&&1<H[1].length?H[1].substring(1):"true":""}else Qa="";Pa=0=b)){var d=0,e=function(){a();d++;db;){if(c.google_osd_static_frame)return c;if(c.aswift_0&&(!a||c.aswift_0.google_osd_static_frame))return c.aswift_0;b++;c=c!=c.parent?c.parent:null}}catch(e){}return null},Va=function(a,b,c,d,e){if(10<Ta)u.clearInterval(N);else if(++Ta,u.postMessage&&(b.b||b.a)){var f=Ua(!0);if(f){var g={};K(b,g);g[0]="goog_request_monitoring";g[6]=a;g[16]=c;d&&d.length&&(g[17]=d.join(","));e&&(g[19]=e);try{var l=M(g);f.postMessage(l,"*")}catch(r){}}}},Wa=function(a){var b=Ua(!1),c=!b;!b&&u&&(b=u.parent);if(b&&b.postMessage)try{b.postMessage(a,"*"),c&&u.postMessage(a,"*")}catch(d){}};sa("area base br col command embed hr img input keygen link meta param source track wbr".split(" "));var O=function(a,b){this.width=a;this.height=b};O.prototype.round=function(){this.width=Math.round(this.width);this.height=Math.round(this.height);return this};var Xa;if(!(Xa=!za&&!F)){var Ya;if(Ya=F)Ya=9<=Ha;Xa=Ya}Xa||za&&Fa("1.9.1");F&&Fa("9");var P=!1,Q=function(a){if(a=a.match(/[\d]+/g))a.length=3};if(navigator.plugins&&navigator.plugins.length){var Za=navigator.plugins["Shockwave Flash"];Za&&(P=!0,Za.description&&Q(Za.description));navigator.plugins["Shockwave Flash 2.0"]&&(P=!0)}else if(navigator.mimeTypes&&navigator.mimeTypes.length){var $a=navigator.mimeTypes["application/x-shockwave-flash"];(P=$a&&$a.enabledPlugin)&&Q($a.enabledPlugin.description)}else try{var ab=new ActiveXObject("ShockwaveFlash.ShockwaveFlash.7"),P=!0;Q(ab.GetVariable("$version"))}catch(bb){try{ab=new ActiveXObject("ShockwaveFlash.ShockwaveFlash.6"),P=!0}catch(cb){try{ab=new ActiveXObject("ShockwaveFlash.ShockwaveFlash"),P=!0,Q(ab.GetVariable("$version"))}catch(db){}}};var eb=D("Firefox"),fb=wa()||D("iPod"),gb=D("iPad"),hb=D("Android")&&!(va()||D("Firefox")||E()||D("Silk")),ib=va(),jb=D("Safari")&&!(va()||D("Coast")||E()||D("Edge")||D("Silk")||D("Android"))&&!(wa()||D("iPad")||D("iPod"));var R=function(a){return(a=a.exec(C))?a[1]:""};(function(){if(eb)return R(/Firefox\/([0-9.]+)/);if(F||xa)return Da;if(ib)return R(/Chrome\/([0-9.]+)/);if(jb&&!(wa()||D("iPad")||D("iPod")))return R(/Version\/([0-9.]+)/);if(fb||gb){var a;if(a=/Version\/(\S+).*Mobile\/(\S+)/.exec(C))return a[1]+"."+a[2]}else if(hb)return(a=R(/Android\s+([0-9.]+)/))?a:R(/Version\/([0-9.]+)/);return""})();var lb=function(){var a=u.parent&&u.parent!=u,b=a&&0<="//".indexOf(;if(a&&"google_ads_iframe")||b){var c;a=u||u;try{var d;if(a.document&&!a.document.body)d=new O(-1,-1);else{var e=(a||window).document,f="CSS1Compat"==e.compatMode?e.documentElement:e.body;d=(new O(f.clientWidth,f.clientHeight)).round()}c=d}catch(g){c=new O(-12245933,-12245933)}return kb(c)}c=u.document.getElementsByTagName("SCRIPT");return 0<c.length&&(c=c[c.length-1],c.parentElement&&<"_ad_container"))?kb(void 0,c.parentElement):null},kb=function(a,b){var c=mb("IMG",a,b);return c||(c=mb("IFRAME",a,b))?c:(c=mb("OBJECT",a,b))?c:null},mb=function(a,b,c){var d=document;c=c||d;d=a&&"*"!=a?a.toUpperCase():"";c=c.querySelectorAll&&c.querySelector&&d?c.querySelectorAll(d+""):c.getElementsByTagName(d||"*");for(d=0;d<c.length;d++){var e=c[d];if("OBJECT"==a)a:{var f=e.getAttribute("height");if(null!=f&&0<f&&0==e.clientHeight)for(var f=e.children,g=0;g<f.length;g++){var l=f[g];if("OBJECT"==l.nodeName||"EMBED"==l.nodeName){e=l;break a}}}f=e.clientHeight;g=e.clientWidth;if(l=b)l=new O(g,f),l=Math.abs(b.width-l.width)<.1*b.width&&Math.abs(b.height-l.height)<.1*b.height;if(l||!b&&10<f&&10<g)return e}return null};var nb,S=0,T="",U=!1,V=!1,ob=!1,pb=!0,qb=!1,rb=!1,sb=!1,tb=!1,ub="",vb=0,wb=0,W=0,xb=[],L=null,yb="",zb=[],Ab=null,Bb=[],Cb=!1,Db="",Eb="",Fb=(new Date).getTime(),Gb=!1,Hb="",Ib=!1,Jb=["1","0","3"],X=0,Y=0,Kb=0,Lb="",Nb=function(a,b,c){U&&(pb||3!=(c||3)||rb)&&Mb(a,b,!0);(ob||V&&qb)&&Mb(a,b)},Ob=function(){var a=Ab;return a?2!=a():!0},Mb=function(a,b,c){(b=b||yb)&&!Cb&&(2==Y||c)&&Ob()&&(b=Pb(b,c),v(a,b),tb=!0,c?U=!1:Cb=!0)},Pb=function(a,b){var c;c=b?"osdim":ob?"osd2":"osdtos";var d=["//","?id=",c];"osd2"==c&&V&&qb&&d.push("&ts=1");T&&d.push("&avi=",T);nb&&d.push("&cid=",nb);d.push("&ti=1");d.push("&",a);d.push("&uc="+Kb);Gb?d.push("&tgt="+Hb):d.push("&tgt=nf");d.push("&cl="+(Ib?1:0));""!=ub&&(d.push("&lop=1"),c=p()-vb,d.push("&tslp="+c));d=d.join("");for(c=0;c<zb.length;c++){try{var e=zb[c]()}catch(f){}var g="max_length";2<=e.length&&(3==e.length&&(g=e[2]),d=t(d,y(e[0]),y(e[1]),g))}2E3<d.length&&(d=d.substring(0,2E3));return d},Z=function(a,b){if(Db){try{var c=t(Db,"vi",a);ga()&&v(x.contentWindow,c)}catch(d){}0<=pa(Jb,a)&&(Db="");var c=b||yb,e;e=t("//","avi",T);e=t(e,"vi",a);c&&(e+="&"+c);try{v(u,e)}catch(f){}}},Qb=function(){Z("-1")},Sb=function(a){if(a&&{var b;var;if(n(c)){b={};for(var c=c.split("\n"),d=0;d=e)){var f=Number(c[d].substr(0,e)),e=c[d].substr(e+1);switch(f){case 5:case 8:case 11:case 15:case 16:case 18:e="true"==e;break;case 4:case 7:case 6:case 14:case 20:case 21:case 22:case 23:e=Number(e);break;case 3:case 19:if("function"==k(decodeURIComponent))try{e=decodeURIComponent(e)}catch(g){throw Error("Error: URI malformed: "+e);}break;case 17:e=qa(decodeURIComponent(e).split(","),Number)}b[f]=e}}b=b[0]?b:null}else b=null;if(b&&(c=new J(b[4],b[12]),L&&L.match(c))){for(c=0;cX&&!V&&2==Y&&Tb(u,"osd2","hs="+X)},Vb=function(){var a={};K(L,a);a[0]="goog_dom_content_loaded";var b=M(a);try{Ra(function(){Wa(b)},10,"osd_listener::ldcl_int")}catch(c){}},Xb=function(){var a={};K(L,a);a[0]="goog_creative_loaded";var b=M(a);Ra(function(){Wa(b)},10,"osd_listener::lcel_int");Ib=!0},Yb=function(a){if(n(a)){a=a.split("&");for(var b=a.length-1;0<=b;b–){var c=a[b],d=Na;c==d.g?(pb=!1,a.splice(b,1)):c==d.c?(W=1,a.splice(b,1)):c==d.f&&(V=!1,a.splice(b,1))}Lb=a.join("&")}},Zb=function(){if(!Gb){var a=lb();a&&(Gb=!0,Hb=a.tagName,a.complete||a.naturalWidth?Xb():I(a,"load",Xb,"osd_listener::creative_load"))}};q("osdlfm",z("osd_listener::init",function(a,b,c,d,e,f,g,l,r,G){S=a;Db=b;Eb=d;U=f;nb=G;l&&Yb(l);V=f;1!=r&&2!=r&&3!=r||xb.push(La["MRC_TEST_"+r]);L=new J(e,ba());I(u,"load",Qb,"osd_listener::load");I(u,"message",Sb,"osd_listener::message");T=c||"";I(u,"unload",Ub,"osd_listener::unload");var m=u.document;!m.readyState||"complete"!=m.readyState&&"loaded"!=m.readyState?("msie"in ha?ha.msie:ha.msie=-1!=navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase().indexOf("msie"))&&!window.opera?I(m,"readystatechange",function(){"complete"!=m.readyState&&"loaded"!=m.readyState||Vb()},"osd_listener::rsc"):I(m,"DOMContentLoaded",Vb,"osd_listener::dcl"):Vb();-1==S?Y=f?3:1:-2==S?Y=3:0

*(AMERICANS SAY NO DEAL)* – Poll: Majority wants Congress to reject Iran nuclear deal

Screen Shot 2015-07-28 at 2.21.26 PM


Despite President Obama’s high approval rating, a majority of Americans want Congress to reject the recently-negotiated Iran nuclear deal.

Obama’s approval rating sits at 49 percent — the highest it has been since June 2013 — however, 52 percent of Americans say they would like to see Congress reject one of the president’s biggest foreign policy accomplishments in recent years. Forty-four percent say it should be approved, according to a new CNN/ORC poll.

A definite partisan gap exists about desires for the nuclear deal with Iran, which was announced earlier this month: 66 percent of Republicans and 55 percent of independents say Congress should reject it. However, roughly six in 10 (61 percent) of Democrats say the deal should be approved.

An age divide also exists about the nuclear deal: 52 percent of those age 18-34 say it should be approved, while 56 percent of those 35 years and older say the deal should be rejected.

Though Obama’s job approval stands at 49 percent, 47 percent of Americans still disapprove. Optimism about the economy remains low: Just 41 percent of Americans say the economy is in good shape, while 59 percent say it is poor. Fifty-two percent had an optimistic view of the economy in April.

The telephone-based poll of roughly 1,000 U.S adults was conducted July 22-25 with a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

The historic deal reached roughly two weeks ago between Iran, the U.S., Britain, China, Germany and Spain gives Tehran sanctions relief in exchange for curbing its nuclear program. It has faced mostly opposition from Republicans, who control Congress, and have roughly 60 days to approve or reject it.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,097 other followers