Being the great prognosticator that I am, I felt it was my duty to give my impression of the latest round of GOP debates hosted by Fox, without the Donald.
First off, for some reason, it seemed that all the other candidates got significantly more time on the air that was allowed in the previous debates. Most of them took advantage of it and made a better case for themselves than they had previously.
In my opinion, the winners of this debate were the Governors. I think all of them got to express their vision with a little more vigor than I had seen previously. I thought the biggest winner among the Governors was Bush. I really don't think it's going to help him in any immediate way, but if he can keep this more forceful tone and demeanor for the rest of the way, it's possible that he could become a factor in this race. He certainly has the war chest for a long run.
The Senators are all burdened with the same set of problems. They all have a voting record where they have had to compromise to some extent in order get something else they wanted. Or, perhaps they have actually changed their minds. And, those votes and positions are being used to attack the other. Cruz and Rubio where at odds all evening, throwing each others voting records at each other like hand grenades. It seems that the contest is to see who is the most conservative. Cruz probably wins that battle.
Rubio's current stand on immigration is a little to the left of the other Senators so he hurts in that arena with the very conservative voter. However, I think his position will play much better in the general election.
To me Donald Trump is an enigma, as he seems to be for all the political pundits. He makes statements he can't possibly backup, does a complete switch on positions he held earlier, seems to insult everybody in sight, and still is on top of all the polls. All the experts are waiting for the shine to rub off, resulting in his fading in the polls, with one of the other candidates, probably Rubio, ascending. Bill O'Reilly interviewed Trump on his show. Trump's main retort on so many of the difficult questions was a restatement of how he's ahead in the polls. The Republican establishment is afraid that he will carry this momentum on through the nomination process and end up as the Republican candidate, and he'll bring the GOP crashing around down around him in the general. Not a groundless fear I'm afraid.
But, the Donald has dumbfounded all the political experts to this point, so who knows. He certainly packs in the crowds wherever he speaks. He's like a magnet for the people who really feel that we're loosing our countries honor, standing and core values. He certainly has taped into those feelings. But, the big city folks, especially cities like NY and SF don't seem to share that feeling. But, the Republicans are not likely to carry the big northeaster states anyway, so I'm not sure it matters. Of course California is a lost cause as far as the Republicans are concerned in the general election. Those states are dominated by the big city votes and makes the more conservative inland populace irrelevant. With his in your face style and his put down of the establishment in Washington, he just might find his way into the White House.
Sunday, January 31, 2016
Saturday, January 23, 2016
Health Care in the United States
A subject that has been kicked around for some time and has a few attempts at doing something about, resulting in the mess that is known as Obama Care, which made the matter worse instead of better. I think it's time to look at the issue again.
To start with we should look at what's really happening in the American health care system, as opposed to what we might fool ourselves into believing. Our health care system is a mess. We have the most expensive health care system among the advanced nations of the world, with the lowest life expectancy, the highest infant mortality rate and some of the longest waiting times to see a physician. We spend almost twice as much on a per capita basis on health care the our next most expensive neighbor, Canada. We spend almost twice as much, as a percent of GDP, than France, Canada and Germany. Even though most other countries have a form of universal health care, the US spends more government revenue for health care than any of them, even though the government's share of the total costs is the least.
The World Health Organization compared the medical care across various nations and produced some disturbing results.
Other evaluations have been made by other organizations and the results are similar to the WHO. The United States is 37th in the rankings in health care for most of the world, the lowest of all the North American and European major nations.
A partial listing of the health care rankings by the WHO show the results of that ranking
While the rest of the world is seeing a rise in the cost of health care, the US is really out of control
A recent study by the Commonwealth Fund didn't exactly coincide with the WHO's findings, but both studies indicated the poor plight of the US healthcare system.
They pick and choose what data to emphasize to make the universal health care systems look inferior. But, they don't bother to compare the US system to the countries of Europe,the UK, Japan, Australia or other advance nations of the world. One of the selected data points they like to trot out is the wait times to see a doctor. But, as the data shows, the US is ranked fifth for that category by the Commonwealth Fund study. They love Canada with it's longer wait times and they publicized that fact as an example of what "Socialized Medicine" will bring, but that isn't representative of what you see in the UK or other European health systems. Of course anything that smacks of socialism is an anathema to a conservative, who believes that the free market is much better at curing ills. That is true where a free market exists, but when you think about it, the medical industry is not working in a free market. It is highly controlled industry by anyone's definition. They say that some unnamed bureaucracy in Washington will be making our medical decisions for us if we adopt a government run universal health system. But, the fact remains, unless you are very rich, an unnamed bureaucracy runs your medical decisions now through the allowable procedures dictated by the insurance companies. Of course if you're on Medicare or any of the other government programs, the decisions are already being made by a government bureaucracy. Only the very wealthy can take advantage of a pseudo free market for their health care because they are generally self insured. They can go anywhere and get any treatment they desire. Not so for the great unwashed masses.
They like to portray the government bureaucracies as a bunch of know nothing government appointees to create a greater fear factor, but in fact they are the same type of experts in each of the medical fields that the insurance companies employ, only without the profit motive.
The price we pay for patented prescription drugs is mind boggling . A lot of this is the governments doing: it often takes over a Billion Dollars to bring a new drug to market. The FDA is so afraid that a drug might turn out to have harmful side effects that they demand extraordinary measures be taken before it is approved for the American consumer. Another important factor is something the many European countries take advantage of that we don't. They have tremendous power to negotiate drug prices because they can act for their whole country, while our position is fragmented, thus losing that bargaining position. I know of no other product that is free to set their own prices without competition, that has the property of being needed by the consumer. The drug companies have a total monopoly on their own drugs as long as they are protected by a patent. It is very cheap to manufacture and distribute drugs, so the price they can sell the drug can be low and still turn a profit. To some extent the US is subsidizing the prescription drug market for most of the world. The drug companies can sell to Canada cheaper and make a profit and depend on charging enough to the American consumer to cover the R&D costs, as well as boost the profit margin.
We have some things to look proud about. The US leads the world in medical innovations. Since 1951, 76 Americans have either been awarded, either as individuals or shared, the Nobel Prize for Medicine. That is more awards than all other nations combined. Of course a lot of these awards were to scientists that weren't native born Americans. This reflects the wealth that America is able to expend on research facilities and grants as much as any thing else which brings research scientists to our shores. The next most was awarded to researchers in the United Kingdom with 19.
We can boast of some of the greatest medical centers in the world, and if you have access to them and you have the necessary financial position, you can match or exceed the medical treatment you can receive any place else. Of course some of our top medical professionals pick and choose which insurance plans they will take, and, in fact some don't take any at all. It's cash only.
Something to think about.
To start with we should look at what's really happening in the American health care system, as opposed to what we might fool ourselves into believing. Our health care system is a mess. We have the most expensive health care system among the advanced nations of the world, with the lowest life expectancy, the highest infant mortality rate and some of the longest waiting times to see a physician. We spend almost twice as much on a per capita basis on health care the our next most expensive neighbor, Canada. We spend almost twice as much, as a percent of GDP, than France, Canada and Germany. Even though most other countries have a form of universal health care, the US spends more government revenue for health care than any of them, even though the government's share of the total costs is the least.
The World Health Organization compared the medical care across various nations and produced some disturbing results.
A partial listing of the health care rankings by the WHO show the results of that ranking
One good measure of a health cares effectiveness is the rate of infant mortality. Where once the US was not the worst in that category, over time the other nations studied showed that we a lagging behind the advanced nations in that respect.
The problem is even worse when one looks at the growth rate for medical costs over the last 40 years of so.
While the rest of the world is seeing a rise in the cost of health care, the US is really out of control
A recent study by the Commonwealth Fund didn't exactly coincide with the WHO's findings, but both studies indicated the poor plight of the US healthcare system.
It might be useful to break the above chart down for specific parameters.
It seems that the UK is doing something right, but Canada, with it's single pay system, is ranked only slightly better than the US in both studies. So a single payer system alone doesn't guarantee success. Perhaps we should look at what the UK does that makes it such a success.
To start with there is not a single health system in the UK. Each of the countries comprising the UK has it's own publicly funded healthcare system.
To start with there is not a single health system in the UK. Each of the countries comprising the UK has it's own publicly funded healthcare system.
But they have a lot of similarities. They are all have government funded universal healthcare. What the conservatives call Socialized Medicine, with just some twists. They all seem to have sprung from the major healthcare overhaul that occurred in 1948 with the birth of the NHS, and modified since then with the last reorganization occurring in England in 2013. The other countries in the UK have also performed changes in their systems over roughly the same time period. It should also be noted the most of the medical systems in the rest of the advanced nations include prescription drug coverage, at least to some extent.
The biggest opponents to the US adopting any form of healthcare as practiced in the UK, the western European nations, or most of the advanced nations of the world, is the insurance industry. They have a fully paid PR staff and a horde of lobbyists dedicated to demeaning the UK's NHS and any other government funded system. They generate tons of propaganda toward that end. Obama Care is an example of just how powerful the insurance industry is. It resulted in a windfall for them. They pick and choose what data to emphasize to make the universal health care systems look inferior. But, they don't bother to compare the US system to the countries of Europe,the UK, Japan, Australia or other advance nations of the world. One of the selected data points they like to trot out is the wait times to see a doctor. But, as the data shows, the US is ranked fifth for that category by the Commonwealth Fund study. They love Canada with it's longer wait times and they publicized that fact as an example of what "Socialized Medicine" will bring, but that isn't representative of what you see in the UK or other European health systems. Of course anything that smacks of socialism is an anathema to a conservative, who believes that the free market is much better at curing ills. That is true where a free market exists, but when you think about it, the medical industry is not working in a free market. It is highly controlled industry by anyone's definition. They say that some unnamed bureaucracy in Washington will be making our medical decisions for us if we adopt a government run universal health system. But, the fact remains, unless you are very rich, an unnamed bureaucracy runs your medical decisions now through the allowable procedures dictated by the insurance companies. Of course if you're on Medicare or any of the other government programs, the decisions are already being made by a government bureaucracy. Only the very wealthy can take advantage of a pseudo free market for their health care because they are generally self insured. They can go anywhere and get any treatment they desire. Not so for the great unwashed masses.
They like to portray the government bureaucracies as a bunch of know nothing government appointees to create a greater fear factor, but in fact they are the same type of experts in each of the medical fields that the insurance companies employ, only without the profit motive.
The price we pay for patented prescription drugs is mind boggling . A lot of this is the governments doing: it often takes over a Billion Dollars to bring a new drug to market. The FDA is so afraid that a drug might turn out to have harmful side effects that they demand extraordinary measures be taken before it is approved for the American consumer. Another important factor is something the many European countries take advantage of that we don't. They have tremendous power to negotiate drug prices because they can act for their whole country, while our position is fragmented, thus losing that bargaining position. I know of no other product that is free to set their own prices without competition, that has the property of being needed by the consumer. The drug companies have a total monopoly on their own drugs as long as they are protected by a patent. It is very cheap to manufacture and distribute drugs, so the price they can sell the drug can be low and still turn a profit. To some extent the US is subsidizing the prescription drug market for most of the world. The drug companies can sell to Canada cheaper and make a profit and depend on charging enough to the American consumer to cover the R&D costs, as well as boost the profit margin.
We have some things to look proud about. The US leads the world in medical innovations. Since 1951, 76 Americans have either been awarded, either as individuals or shared, the Nobel Prize for Medicine. That is more awards than all other nations combined. Of course a lot of these awards were to scientists that weren't native born Americans. This reflects the wealth that America is able to expend on research facilities and grants as much as any thing else which brings research scientists to our shores. The next most was awarded to researchers in the United Kingdom with 19.
We can boast of some of the greatest medical centers in the world, and if you have access to them and you have the necessary financial position, you can match or exceed the medical treatment you can receive any place else. Of course some of our top medical professionals pick and choose which insurance plans they will take, and, in fact some don't take any at all. It's cash only.
Something to think about.
Saturday, January 16, 2016
GOP candidates and the White House
I have been interested in the world of politics for some time, but this election cycle is a cut above what has come before. The Democratic front runner is a weak candidate by any stretch of the imagination with her involvement in some of the most unpopular events and actions of the current administration and her obvious entanglement with the State Department correspondence on her personal servers. She would be a disaster if she is elected and she is ripe for the picking, if the GOP picks a viable candidate from the pack that is running. Most of them would seem to be a step up from Clinton by any measure.
There is still a lot of time before the big primaries that will decide the eventual nominee, but several of the candidates seem to be moving into a good position to be the GOP standard bearer.
There are two questions: Which of the candidates will win the nomination and which of all the candidates would make a better President.
Right now I think that the eventual winner is sort of a crap shoot. I have some real doubts that the Donald can carry enough votes into the convention to win the nomination. I'm not sure that his shoot from the hip and let the chips fall where they may, will hold up when many of the 2nd tier candidates start dropping out and their supporters coalesce behind someone else, and I don't think it will be Trump. It's far more likely to be Rubio or Cruz. My own choice at the moment is Rubio. Over and over again the front runner in January and in the early Iowa and New Hampshire contests have not emerged as the nominee. I just think that Rubio is in a good position to capture the big states when the main primary cycle begins in the middle of the year. But, then I haven't a good record in this arena.
An issue has been raised concerning the eligibility of Ted Cruz to be President.
The following excerpt was taken from the Wikipedia online encyclopedia:
"Ted Cruz announced on March 22, 2015, that he was running for the Republican Party's nomination for president in the 2016 election.[128] Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada,[129] to a "U.S. citizen mother and a Cuban immigrant father",[130] giving him dual Canadian-American citizenship.[131] Cruz applied to formally renounce his Canadian citizenship and ceased being a citizen of Canada, on May 14, 2014.[132][133] Professor Chin (see above),[130] former Solicitor General Paul Clement,[134] former Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal,[134] and Professor Peter Spiro of Temple University Law School[135] believe Cruz meets the constitutional requirements to be eligible for the presidency.[136]
Professor Tribe, however, described Cruz's eligibility as "murky and unsettled".[137] Harvard Law Professor Cass Sunstein believes that Cruz is eligible, but agrees with University of San Diego Professor Michael Ramsey that Cruz's eligibility is not "an easy question". Sunstein believes concerns over standing and the political-question doctrine will prevent the courts from resolving issues surrounding Cruz's eligibility.[138]
Professor McManamon (see above) believes generally that natural-born citizens must be born in the United States, which would make Cruz ineligible.[139] She has explicitly written that Cruz is ineligible.[140] Alan Grayson, a Democratic Member of Congress from Florida, does not believe Cruz is a natural-born citizen, and stated he intends to file a lawsuit should Cruz be the Republican nominee.[141] Orly Taitz, Larry Klayman, and Mario Apuzzo, who each filed multiple lawsuits challenging Obama's eligibility, have also asserted that Cruz is not eligible.[142][143]
In November 2015, two ballot challenges were filed in New Hampshire, alleging Cruz was ineligible because he was born in Canada.[144] The ballot commission rejected the challenges.[145] In December, similar lawsuits were filed in Vermont and Florida.[146][147] In January 2016, a similar lawsuit was filed in Texas.[148"
So I'm not at all sure that the matter has really been settled.
It is clear to me that Hillary has a real problem on her hands in any debate with whoever comes out on top of the GOP nomination process. Whoever they are, will have been honed by numerous, rather brutal debates, so they will come into any debate with Hillary with a lot more experience and background in handling the venue. Her experience has been the run she made 8 years ago, where Obama annihilated her,and a cake walk through a couple milk toast confrontations with Bernie Sanders, the Socialist. It might be that Hillary will opt out of any debate at all. That might the smartest move for her. She will be killed in an open debate with any of the GOP nominees. She just has too many issues they can use against her. Her best chance is to avoid the controversial, even illegal, issues that are in her background and just depend on the basic Democratic base and the women's vote (she hopes) to carry her over the top. She is sure she will capture the women's votes, just because she's a woman.
It certainly is not clear as to which of the candidates would actually make the better President. Our history is rife with people who came out of essentially nowhere, with no background that would foretell that this person would be a strong and determined President when they entered the office and then they rose to the occasion. Think Harry Truman. And, some have entered the office with seeming impeccable credentials that didn't do so well, in fact they were a disaster. We have had ex generals, senators, congressmen, governors, bureaucrats and college professors elected or thrust in the office. There seems to be little experience that can pre-judge a Presidents performance once they attain the office.
It would seem that the best background for the office would have been as the governor of one of the big states. They are the ones that have had to battle the entrenched bureaucracies, their own legislators and actually had to take actions that are part of the record. One of our greatest Presidents, Theodore Roosevelt, was a former Governor. Of the front runners Christie, Bush and Kasich fit that bill. I might include Huckabee, but he really is out of it. I really don't know why he bothers to run. Of the three front runners, they all have a very good record that should be, and is appealing to the GOP voters. But, they can't seem to catch on to the Republican base. I believe any of them would make a good President, they certainly seem to have the experience most closely related to the office.
The two business people that have entered the race, Trump and Fiorina, The Donald is the front runner by far. Would Trump make a good President? It's almost impossible to predict. He would certainly have a rude awakening when he enters the White House and tries to impose his will on congress and other nations like he does as head of a multibillion dollar organization. Now, when he says jump, every body around him only asks "how high". But, he's a very smart man and it may be that he will learn to play the game of politics as well as he learned the game of real estate development. My take is, that if he wishes to be successful in the general election, he had better work a little harder at thinking before he opens his mouth. He doesn't have to change his position, just be a little more realistic about what is possible or not. Deport all illegals? That sounds nice, but exactly how do you do that? No specifics given. Build a wall and Mexico pays for it? How do you make that happen? Again no specifics. Balance the trade imbalance with China? By erecting stiff tariffs on Chinese goods? What does he think the response from China would be? My trouble with Trump is he's full of great ideas that are not only not going to happen, but might get us into more trouble if he tried.
There have been a few Congressmen that have stepped into the Oval Office that have been very good for the country. How about Lincoln? They had no earlier experience in an executive position of any kind, but they grew into the job fast. Harry Truman, John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson (although he did serve as the VP) are a few more examples.
Of all the candidates I think Kasich would likely make the better leader, but I don't see him being nominated and even if nominated, I think he might have the hardest time of all the front runners of beating Hillary. So I fall back on Rubio. He's young, dynamic and an excellent speaker. He would eat Hillary up in a debate, that is if Hillary commits to one. I think he is electable in a general election. He hasn't alienated the Latino voters, and will likely gain a lot of votes from that group. His biggest drawback in winning the nomination might be his stance on immigration. He isn't out to expel all the immigrants immediately. That might play well in the general election however, unless that one issue causes the strong Republican base to stay home.
Hillary will almost certainly be the Democrat's candidate short of an indictment for criminal activity for the use of her private server in handling of classified material, or the link of the Clinton foundation to some rather nefarious activities. That may or may not happen. It won't if the Attorney General of the United States can avoid it. I'm afraid that no matter what the FBI turns up, the Justice Department will try to squash it. A lot depends on what Obama wants to do. If he wants it put under the table, that's very likely to happen.
Right now it looks like Hillary against Trump, Rubio or Cruz. All the pundits seem to picking Cruz, but my own favorite is Rubio. Of the three,I think he will be the strongest in the general election. He will appeal to a lot independents, a fair number of conservative Democrats and still hold on to the Republican base.
In any event, because of the Democrats superior numbers, the race to the White House seems tilted in their favor no matter who is running. But, I have a feeling that we're likely to see a Republican victory and by a rather large margin. But, that's for November. Still a long ways off.
148
There is still a lot of time before the big primaries that will decide the eventual nominee, but several of the candidates seem to be moving into a good position to be the GOP standard bearer.
There are two questions: Which of the candidates will win the nomination and which of all the candidates would make a better President.
Right now I think that the eventual winner is sort of a crap shoot. I have some real doubts that the Donald can carry enough votes into the convention to win the nomination. I'm not sure that his shoot from the hip and let the chips fall where they may, will hold up when many of the 2nd tier candidates start dropping out and their supporters coalesce behind someone else, and I don't think it will be Trump. It's far more likely to be Rubio or Cruz. My own choice at the moment is Rubio. Over and over again the front runner in January and in the early Iowa and New Hampshire contests have not emerged as the nominee. I just think that Rubio is in a good position to capture the big states when the main primary cycle begins in the middle of the year. But, then I haven't a good record in this arena.
An issue has been raised concerning the eligibility of Ted Cruz to be President.
The following excerpt was taken from the Wikipedia online encyclopedia:
"Ted Cruz announced on March 22, 2015, that he was running for the Republican Party's nomination for president in the 2016 election.[128] Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada,[129] to a "U.S. citizen mother and a Cuban immigrant father",[130] giving him dual Canadian-American citizenship.[131] Cruz applied to formally renounce his Canadian citizenship and ceased being a citizen of Canada, on May 14, 2014.[132][133] Professor Chin (see above),[130] former Solicitor General Paul Clement,[134] former Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal,[134] and Professor Peter Spiro of Temple University Law School[135] believe Cruz meets the constitutional requirements to be eligible for the presidency.[136]
Professor Tribe, however, described Cruz's eligibility as "murky and unsettled".[137] Harvard Law Professor Cass Sunstein believes that Cruz is eligible, but agrees with University of San Diego Professor Michael Ramsey that Cruz's eligibility is not "an easy question". Sunstein believes concerns over standing and the political-question doctrine will prevent the courts from resolving issues surrounding Cruz's eligibility.[138]
Professor McManamon (see above) believes generally that natural-born citizens must be born in the United States, which would make Cruz ineligible.[139] She has explicitly written that Cruz is ineligible.[140] Alan Grayson, a Democratic Member of Congress from Florida, does not believe Cruz is a natural-born citizen, and stated he intends to file a lawsuit should Cruz be the Republican nominee.[141] Orly Taitz, Larry Klayman, and Mario Apuzzo, who each filed multiple lawsuits challenging Obama's eligibility, have also asserted that Cruz is not eligible.[142][143]
In November 2015, two ballot challenges were filed in New Hampshire, alleging Cruz was ineligible because he was born in Canada.[144] The ballot commission rejected the challenges.[145] In December, similar lawsuits were filed in Vermont and Florida.[146][147] In January 2016, a similar lawsuit was filed in Texas.[148"
So I'm not at all sure that the matter has really been settled.
It is clear to me that Hillary has a real problem on her hands in any debate with whoever comes out on top of the GOP nomination process. Whoever they are, will have been honed by numerous, rather brutal debates, so they will come into any debate with Hillary with a lot more experience and background in handling the venue. Her experience has been the run she made 8 years ago, where Obama annihilated her,and a cake walk through a couple milk toast confrontations with Bernie Sanders, the Socialist. It might be that Hillary will opt out of any debate at all. That might the smartest move for her. She will be killed in an open debate with any of the GOP nominees. She just has too many issues they can use against her. Her best chance is to avoid the controversial, even illegal, issues that are in her background and just depend on the basic Democratic base and the women's vote (she hopes) to carry her over the top. She is sure she will capture the women's votes, just because she's a woman.
It certainly is not clear as to which of the candidates would actually make the better President. Our history is rife with people who came out of essentially nowhere, with no background that would foretell that this person would be a strong and determined President when they entered the office and then they rose to the occasion. Think Harry Truman. And, some have entered the office with seeming impeccable credentials that didn't do so well, in fact they were a disaster. We have had ex generals, senators, congressmen, governors, bureaucrats and college professors elected or thrust in the office. There seems to be little experience that can pre-judge a Presidents performance once they attain the office.
It would seem that the best background for the office would have been as the governor of one of the big states. They are the ones that have had to battle the entrenched bureaucracies, their own legislators and actually had to take actions that are part of the record. One of our greatest Presidents, Theodore Roosevelt, was a former Governor. Of the front runners Christie, Bush and Kasich fit that bill. I might include Huckabee, but he really is out of it. I really don't know why he bothers to run. Of the three front runners, they all have a very good record that should be, and is appealing to the GOP voters. But, they can't seem to catch on to the Republican base. I believe any of them would make a good President, they certainly seem to have the experience most closely related to the office.
The two business people that have entered the race, Trump and Fiorina, The Donald is the front runner by far. Would Trump make a good President? It's almost impossible to predict. He would certainly have a rude awakening when he enters the White House and tries to impose his will on congress and other nations like he does as head of a multibillion dollar organization. Now, when he says jump, every body around him only asks "how high". But, he's a very smart man and it may be that he will learn to play the game of politics as well as he learned the game of real estate development. My take is, that if he wishes to be successful in the general election, he had better work a little harder at thinking before he opens his mouth. He doesn't have to change his position, just be a little more realistic about what is possible or not. Deport all illegals? That sounds nice, but exactly how do you do that? No specifics given. Build a wall and Mexico pays for it? How do you make that happen? Again no specifics. Balance the trade imbalance with China? By erecting stiff tariffs on Chinese goods? What does he think the response from China would be? My trouble with Trump is he's full of great ideas that are not only not going to happen, but might get us into more trouble if he tried.
There have been a few Congressmen that have stepped into the Oval Office that have been very good for the country. How about Lincoln? They had no earlier experience in an executive position of any kind, but they grew into the job fast. Harry Truman, John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson (although he did serve as the VP) are a few more examples.
Of all the candidates I think Kasich would likely make the better leader, but I don't see him being nominated and even if nominated, I think he might have the hardest time of all the front runners of beating Hillary. So I fall back on Rubio. He's young, dynamic and an excellent speaker. He would eat Hillary up in a debate, that is if Hillary commits to one. I think he is electable in a general election. He hasn't alienated the Latino voters, and will likely gain a lot of votes from that group. His biggest drawback in winning the nomination might be his stance on immigration. He isn't out to expel all the immigrants immediately. That might play well in the general election however, unless that one issue causes the strong Republican base to stay home.
Hillary will almost certainly be the Democrat's candidate short of an indictment for criminal activity for the use of her private server in handling of classified material, or the link of the Clinton foundation to some rather nefarious activities. That may or may not happen. It won't if the Attorney General of the United States can avoid it. I'm afraid that no matter what the FBI turns up, the Justice Department will try to squash it. A lot depends on what Obama wants to do. If he wants it put under the table, that's very likely to happen.
Right now it looks like Hillary against Trump, Rubio or Cruz. All the pundits seem to picking Cruz, but my own favorite is Rubio. Of the three,I think he will be the strongest in the general election. He will appeal to a lot independents, a fair number of conservative Democrats and still hold on to the Republican base.
In any event, because of the Democrats superior numbers, the race to the White House seems tilted in their favor no matter who is running. But, I have a feeling that we're likely to see a Republican victory and by a rather large margin. But, that's for November. Still a long ways off.
148
Tuesday, January 5, 2016
Gun Control
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Further editing was done on this article after first publishing. The changes are noted in italics.
The second amendment to the Constitution seems clear to me and anybody else that isn't a lawyer. They can't seem to understand much of anything about the constitution. The Supreme Court has held that this right extends to all the people, not just to an organized militia. But, being primarily lawyers, they have held that certain restrictions may be placed on selling and ownership of guns. I'm not sure how they arrived at that position which clearly infringes on the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.
Anyone who has studied even a little of American history knows why the States insisted on that amendment to the Constitution. They had just came out a brutal war and remembered well what the British had imposed on the Colonists. You will also notice that the Constitution makes no provision for the establishment of a standing Army, only that congress could raise and army and call up the militia when needed. The founding fathers feared the rise of a strong and dictatorial central government, so provisions were included in the Constitution to try to prevent that from occurring. The second amendment was one of those curbs on central power.
Every time there is some mass shouting there is an outcry for more restrictions on the sell and ownership of guns. That is isn't surprising. It's a knee jerk reaction to the horrific events which has occurred.
But, without completely trampling on the Constitution, it is hard to image a set of laws and/or regulations that will keep guns out of the hands of people who wish to commit crimes. It has been shown over and over again, that none of the proposed restrictions now in force, or proposed, would have prevented the mass shooting that have been experienced in the last few years. Furthermore, study after study has not been able to show any correlation between the presence or absence of gun laws and the incidence of gun related crimes. A result the gun control lobby hates. But, no matter the evidence, the gun control enthusiasts maintain that all we have to do is enact more laws and the problem will be solved.
If guns are available through any source, people who want to commit mayhem will get their hands on them. The world is awash with AK47's and their knockoffs.
It seems the only path that makes any sense is to go to the extreme one way of the other. Either (1) remove most restrictions on the buying and carrying of firearms, so that whole citizenry is potentially armed. Remove any requirement for a need to own and carry a gun. It is enough that the citizen feels they have a need for one. Background checks would still be accomplished by licensed gun dealers so the firearms don't fall into the hands of known criminals and other such risky individuals, or (2) restrict the selling and possession of any firearm that isn't a single shot device. I.e. a single action revolver or bolt/lever/pump action rifle or shot gun. All with limit of 6-8 rounds of ammo in the piece. The penalty for selling or even possessing any other type of weapon would have to made severe. And continue the current practice of issuing permits for the carrying of concealed firearms. This might pass Supreme Court muster, but I kind of doubt it. The Supreme Court, in every case, has come down on the side of the right of individuals to own guns. The second amendment doesn't specify what kind of guns that the government can't infringe, so just maybe, with the right Court it could squeak through.
Of course there exists a third option: repeal the 2nd amendment. That is the option that the majority of the gun control lobby would like. That's not likely to happen any time soon.
The first condition would be perfectly in accordance with the Constitution. I really don't know what the outcome would be, but I feel that it would really deter any nut who wants to walk into a crowded theater and cut loose. When a lot of people in that mob could be packing, that would really put a damper on any potential shooter. Experience has shown that the nuts who commit mass shootings in crowded places are looking for soft targets. Targets where the victims can't shoot back. In every case when someone shows up with a weapon, they bolt. They're not about to face somebody armed. Of course the antigun lobby would argue that we would be hit with a rash of impulse shootings. I really have my doubts about that. In spite of the Hollywood westerns, shootouts in bars from drunken, armed, people wasn't really the prevalent in the old west where packing a six gun was normal. Look at Texas, which has the loosest gun control laws in the country. In fact, in Texas, it is legal to have a gun in plain sight, if you have a carry permit. The gun related crime is not as bad in that state as it is many states with strict gun control legislation. And, incidentally, I don't recall any mass shooting occurring in Texas.
The second condition would really trample on the Constitution, but would have the effect of removing the automatic and semiautomatic firearms that are prevalent used in mass shootings, and in gang warfare. Reloading a six shooter or bolt action rifle takes time, A time where people can do something, escape or attack. Of course it wouldn't prevent individual crimes, murder, robbery and crimes of that source, but it would put a big damper on mass shootings. Enforcing laws of this type would be rather hard to do. Like I said the world is awash in assault rifles and automatic pistols.
When you get down to it, the mass shooting, which capture the medias attention are really an insignificant part of the overall problem. I think that a more realistic approach is not a whole new set of gun laws, which have the effect of making it hard for the individual to purchase a firearm for self-defense and does very little to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, but rather, a severe crackdown on people who use a gun in committing a crime by increasing and enforcing the penalties associated with that use. Make it a federal offense so that after the state has their say in the commission of a state crime, the feds can then prosecute the criminal for use of a gun. Much as the race related crime is dealt with today in violation of civil rights laws. I think that such an approach would do more to reduce the use of guns than all the gun laws that can be passed could do. And, I feel that the NRA and the gun lobby would endorse such an approach, which would grease it's passage through the congress.
Further editing was done on this article after first publishing. The changes are noted in italics.
The second amendment to the Constitution seems clear to me and anybody else that isn't a lawyer. They can't seem to understand much of anything about the constitution. The Supreme Court has held that this right extends to all the people, not just to an organized militia. But, being primarily lawyers, they have held that certain restrictions may be placed on selling and ownership of guns. I'm not sure how they arrived at that position which clearly infringes on the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.
Anyone who has studied even a little of American history knows why the States insisted on that amendment to the Constitution. They had just came out a brutal war and remembered well what the British had imposed on the Colonists. You will also notice that the Constitution makes no provision for the establishment of a standing Army, only that congress could raise and army and call up the militia when needed. The founding fathers feared the rise of a strong and dictatorial central government, so provisions were included in the Constitution to try to prevent that from occurring. The second amendment was one of those curbs on central power.
Every time there is some mass shouting there is an outcry for more restrictions on the sell and ownership of guns. That is isn't surprising. It's a knee jerk reaction to the horrific events which has occurred.
But, without completely trampling on the Constitution, it is hard to image a set of laws and/or regulations that will keep guns out of the hands of people who wish to commit crimes. It has been shown over and over again, that none of the proposed restrictions now in force, or proposed, would have prevented the mass shooting that have been experienced in the last few years. Furthermore, study after study has not been able to show any correlation between the presence or absence of gun laws and the incidence of gun related crimes. A result the gun control lobby hates. But, no matter the evidence, the gun control enthusiasts maintain that all we have to do is enact more laws and the problem will be solved.
If guns are available through any source, people who want to commit mayhem will get their hands on them. The world is awash with AK47's and their knockoffs.
It seems the only path that makes any sense is to go to the extreme one way of the other. Either (1) remove most restrictions on the buying and carrying of firearms, so that whole citizenry is potentially armed. Remove any requirement for a need to own and carry a gun. It is enough that the citizen feels they have a need for one. Background checks would still be accomplished by licensed gun dealers so the firearms don't fall into the hands of known criminals and other such risky individuals, or (2) restrict the selling and possession of any firearm that isn't a single shot device. I.e. a single action revolver or bolt/lever/pump action rifle or shot gun. All with limit of 6-8 rounds of ammo in the piece. The penalty for selling or even possessing any other type of weapon would have to made severe. And continue the current practice of issuing permits for the carrying of concealed firearms. This might pass Supreme Court muster, but I kind of doubt it. The Supreme Court, in every case, has come down on the side of the right of individuals to own guns. The second amendment doesn't specify what kind of guns that the government can't infringe, so just maybe, with the right Court it could squeak through.
Of course there exists a third option: repeal the 2nd amendment. That is the option that the majority of the gun control lobby would like. That's not likely to happen any time soon.
The first condition would be perfectly in accordance with the Constitution. I really don't know what the outcome would be, but I feel that it would really deter any nut who wants to walk into a crowded theater and cut loose. When a lot of people in that mob could be packing, that would really put a damper on any potential shooter. Experience has shown that the nuts who commit mass shootings in crowded places are looking for soft targets. Targets where the victims can't shoot back. In every case when someone shows up with a weapon, they bolt. They're not about to face somebody armed. Of course the antigun lobby would argue that we would be hit with a rash of impulse shootings. I really have my doubts about that. In spite of the Hollywood westerns, shootouts in bars from drunken, armed, people wasn't really the prevalent in the old west where packing a six gun was normal. Look at Texas, which has the loosest gun control laws in the country. In fact, in Texas, it is legal to have a gun in plain sight, if you have a carry permit. The gun related crime is not as bad in that state as it is many states with strict gun control legislation. And, incidentally, I don't recall any mass shooting occurring in Texas.
The second condition would really trample on the Constitution, but would have the effect of removing the automatic and semiautomatic firearms that are prevalent used in mass shootings, and in gang warfare. Reloading a six shooter or bolt action rifle takes time, A time where people can do something, escape or attack. Of course it wouldn't prevent individual crimes, murder, robbery and crimes of that source, but it would put a big damper on mass shootings. Enforcing laws of this type would be rather hard to do. Like I said the world is awash in assault rifles and automatic pistols.
When you get down to it, the mass shooting, which capture the medias attention are really an insignificant part of the overall problem. I think that a more realistic approach is not a whole new set of gun laws, which have the effect of making it hard for the individual to purchase a firearm for self-defense and does very little to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, but rather, a severe crackdown on people who use a gun in committing a crime by increasing and enforcing the penalties associated with that use. Make it a federal offense so that after the state has their say in the commission of a state crime, the feds can then prosecute the criminal for use of a gun. Much as the race related crime is dealt with today in violation of civil rights laws. I think that such an approach would do more to reduce the use of guns than all the gun laws that can be passed could do. And, I feel that the NRA and the gun lobby would endorse such an approach, which would grease it's passage through the congress.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)