What do you owe to your country?

     Ask not what your country can do for you but, ask what you can do for your country. Sound familiar?  John F. Kennedy in his inaugural address in 1961.  Of course Kennedy was a war veteran, in fact a war hero, so he felt a deep commitment to service to the country. So I ask, what do you owe the United States of America? And based on what I'm seeing today, it seems to me that the population in general, with some exceptions, feels they owe nothing to this country, but rather the fact that they're in this country either legally of illegally means that the government owes them. 
      Every segment of the population seems to have their hand out pleading for the government to give them something. At the same time they protest paying taxes, avoid military service and any other commitment that might constitute a sacrifice of some kind. 
      They want the government to provide free health care, but don't want to pay for it.  If they aren't making enough money to live the life style that they wish because they didn't pursue the opportunities (education, etc.) that are available them, then the government should take it from the people who did put in the effort and give it them. 
      Obamacare is a good example of effort by the government, read liberal Democrats, to provide health coverage for the twenty percent of the population that couldn't afford it, or at least choose to spend their money on other things rather than health insurance. Sounds good doesn't it. As a result of the act, the government has succeeded in providing health care for a lot of those people, but not all. But, at what cost? The eighty percent of the population that had health insurance and were perfectly happy with it, upon implementation of the act, faced an increase in premiums and an increase in deductibles. Many people found out that their policy didn't meet all the government's requirements, had their policies canceled and were forced to take on much more expensive coverage. To make sure that everybody complied with the provisions of the act, it was made mandatory and a fine is levied for people not participating. A lot of younger healthy people have chosen to pay the fine rather that buy the insurance; it's cheaper. On top of that the doctors are facing a reduction of payments from Medicare and private insurance companies. The payouts to doctors for medical care in some implementations is so low that it doesn't cover the costs involved. Patients go to the back of the line when seeking medical treatment. So the eighty percent of the population that had insurance now has to pay for the twenty percent who didn't. 
      Our armed forces today are all volunteers. The vast majority of the American people have no direct connection to them or to the events happening around the world. Very few of the younger generation (under 50)  have any background in the military, let alone any combat experience in the brush fires that America has been fighting around the world for the last 30 years or so. After all, the last draft was for the debacle that was the Vietnam War that ended in the early seventies. The commitment to service that the average citizen should feel to his country isn't there. Why do you think that when the National Anthem is played at a ball game only the veterans seem to stand proud that they are Americans. Any mention of instituting the draft again is met with howls from the population at large. 
     People crash our borders and if they are successful in eluding detection for a few years they cry for amnesty and to demand they be given all the benefits offered by the government and paid for by the taxpayers. They owe no allegiance to the United States, don't wish to speak our language or adopt our customs, but they're perfectly willing to take anything they can get from the public trough. But the left sees them as political capital and fights to keep them in the country.
     College students march on campus and demand that society give them a very expensive free education. The fact is that they don't even begin to pay the cost of their education now; most of the cost shouldered by the taxpayers. And what do they do with that largely subsidized education? They protest if an Army, Navy, Air Force or Marine Corps recruiter is allowed on campus. In fact they have successfully bared such recruiters from a few campuses in the past. They have attempted to drive ROTC programs out. In fact I believe they succeeded in a few cases. They hate capitalism and the system that largely funds that education. They study the liberal arts in huge numbers, which is tantamount to studying the teachings of Karl Marx and Lenin. They flock to classes taught by socialist professors who imbue them with the socialist version of utopia. 
     They have become the Easily Offended Generation. Every thing must be Politically Correct. They have a knee jerk reaction to any event in the country that involves a minority and the police They march and protest without the slightest idea of what the real facts surrounding  the incident about which they're marching and protesting. Many times they have a legitimate position, because there are instances of police misconduct, but the protesters, for the most part, don't really know the circumstances around which they're protesting. They demand that the colleges hire more black professors and admit more black students. They don't seem to realize that the demand for fully accredited and qualified educators of color is in such high demand that is very difficult to find enough to fill the positons available, even though the administrators have tried. The only way to admit more black students would be to implement racial profiling (otherwise known as affirmative action). But, the Supreme Court has held that to be unconstitutional.  The schools still lean over backward to admit qualified minority students by taking other factors into consideration.  An interesting irony occurs in California, where the University has had to practice sort of reverse discrimination by limiting the number of Asian students at some schools. At the University of California at Irvine, Asians make more than half the student body. They're just too good for the rest of us.  I wonder why there isn't mass demonstrations of whites to demand that more slots in the student body be reserved for the underprivileged white applicants who don't measure up to the Asian applicants.  
      The University's liberal student activists have become the greatest threat to free speech in the country today. They are exercising extraordinary power on the campus. Because of weak willed, or willing administrators, they get their way in to many cases.  Only persons that share their views are allowed to speak on campus. A conservative voice, or a dissenting opinion is shouted down. They have caused professors, deans and college presidents to resign because they dared make a small stand against the reigning orthodoxy of the left or did not actively fall in line with their positions. They have forced many Universities to designate Free Speech Zones, where conservative speech, labeled Hate Speech by the left, is allowed; such speech is not permitted at any other place on campus. I don't think they ever heard of the first amendment to the constitution which guarantees that the whole country, and that means the whole campus, is a free speech zone. The interesting thing is, that the protests are almost completely without participants from the science and engineering departments as well as the business schools.  That includes their professors. Science depends on facts and conclusions reached from those facts. If the facts don't support the hypothesis, then it is concluded that the hypothesis is wrong. That doesn't seem to bother the demonstrators. They seem to have a set of preconceived notions and they stick to them, no matter the facts and real world experience. 
     What is really frightening is that these are the people that are most likely to enter the political arena or go to work for government and becoming part of that vast bureaucracy. After all, the private sector has no need for the skills and education they picked up in college. I see a push for a growing welfare state, higher taxes, a shrinking military, an ever expanding national debt and even more oppressive regulations to govern peoples lives. The public universities of the country are paving the way for a complete change in the direction this country has traveled up till recently. One that made us the most prosperous, mightiest nation in the world.        
     
    
       
        
     
     

Obama is abandoning the Middle East

     It is clear to anyone whose looking that the Obama administration has decided that the middle east is just too much trouble and he has decided to just pull out. It has been clear from the beginning of his administration that he felt that we really had no interest in that region. And, Donald Trump seems to agree with him. He proceeded to nullify all the gains, at the expense of American lives, that had been made before he took office. Whether you agree on our decision to topple the Iraq regime or not, the fact is, we were there and after a lot of effort had accomplished a great deal in pacifying the insurgents and making the country safe for it's citizens. Obama almost immediately started pulling our troops out of the region and left an unstable situation that just invited the Taliban and ISSIL to emerge again. You see what that has got us.  
     Lately, the nuclear deal with Iran and the move of the Russian/Iranian coalition into Syria is the latest and most damaging of his many moves in that direction. He has stated that we should let the Russians deal with that quagmire, he didn't want to. Our position has resulted in our few allies, especially Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, in the middle east being very worried. They see the threat of the Iranians desiring to create a new Persian Empire. Of course Israel sees real danger ahead.
    The net result of this administration's foreign policy will be the creation of an Islamic coalition dominated by Russia and Iran.  That will leave Israel surrounded by countries that are dedicated to their destruction.
     Pity the poor President who inherits this mess from Obama. For as sure as God made little green apples, Iran and it's allies, with Russia's backing, will attack Israel. After all, they have vowed to wipe Israel from the map. Then what are we going to do? If we move in to help Israel by the use of our armed forces we will be in a confrontation with not only the whole Islamic world, but their Russian backers. Obama has left the next administration with a no win scenario. Of course if that administration is anything like Obama we will just write Israel off as a not worth the risk.
    Obama, by abandoning our role in the world, may well have set up WWWIII.  He will join the long list of starry eyed politicos that sought peace to avoid confrontation at any price, and believed the promises of the Stalins, Hitlers and their ilk. Now, Putin is joining that group. Remember Chamberlain and his conceding another countries territory to Hitler? Before that, France when they didn't challenge the Germans when they marched into the Rhineland? History has shown the appeasement never works with a dictator that is bent on expansion of his power. Nor does their promises mean anything.
     Just look at what Putin has accomplished while Obama has been the world leader. He has taken over the Crimea and effectively done the same with eastern Ukraine with no real challenge from America. He has actively supported the Iranian build up of their atomic program. He has moved into Syria with planes and likely soon with troops ,along with Iran, in support of another repressive dictator.  He has rapidly climbed to the position of real power in the middle east and his reach is still expanding. It's anybody's guess as to what more will happen under the Obama watch, but I don't think it's going to good for American interests.
    

 
    

The second GOP debates

                   

     I watched with interest a lot of the second GOP debates. I didn't feel one way or the other about most of the candidates as to their "performances" during the course of the three hours. I was only struck by  the Donald's continued bombastic behavior.  It was clear from the beginning that CNN wanted controversy and the manner of questions strove for that end.  And, they pretty much got what they were looking for.  As a result, an aggressive type like Trump thrived in that environment and seemed to dominate the podium. No matter what the question and who it was directed at he was there with his opinion. I'm not sure what the allure for some voters for this man is to become the President of the United States. He spouts lots of platitudes, which I guess appeals to a certain segment of the population, but he offers no idea how he would plan to carry them out. I really heard nothing from him about how he would actually handle illegal immigration, although that is a cornerstone of his campaign. He says he will deport all the illegals immediately, but when backed into a corner about the difficulty of such a move, he really waffled. The rest of the candidates seemed to be prepared and stated their positions rather well on all the subjects that came up. I most struck by Carly and Rubio. 

     What was more interesting was to see the post debate discussions by panels at both CNN and Fox. I have to admit that I felt the CNN had a better post debate wrap-up. I felt that their panel was clearer and really less biased about the debate than Fox's. 

     However, both the Fox and CNN panel felt that the Donald may have not done all that well in the debate, but he really didn't lose his base supporters. They both felt the Carly Fiorina was the real winner. However, they weren't sure how that will be reflected in the polls.  Ben Carson was Ben Carson. Soft spoken and not the fire breather as were the rest of the candidates. This type of format was clearly not his strength. 
    I will be very interested in the next debate, but I wish they would somehow whittle the field down a little. Eleven is just too many for an intelligent debate.  

Can The Problems Actually Be Fixed?

     The country is suffering from a lot of problems, or at least perceived problems, for which the politicians say they have an answer. Just vote for them and all your problems will be solved. But, I wonder if  anyone really has an answer to any of them. At least one that will actually work without disastrous consequences. I will try to list some of them and take up further discussion in later blog postings. Some of them may be real problems and others may be only those created to serve some political end. The list is just too long to have a meaningful discourse on all of them at once. 
     The wealth disparity.  There is a vast gulf between the wealthiest among us and the rest of us. There is the fact that 0.1% if the population own about 25% of the wealth. The bottom 90% own about 20% or another way, the top 10% own 80% of the wealth of the country.  That is a problem for all of us because that means that a very small number of people are really controlling the economy. And, they will take actions that will benefit them before they even think about the public good.
           The middle class is disappearing. There is the lingering and growing problem of the disappearance of the middle class. The middle class is actually the ones who fuel the economy. They're the ones who purchase the cars, appliances, homes, etc. There is a two tier system; the people with the right skills in high demand and are compensated well, and those who have to settle for low skilled jobs and the low pay that goes with it. The old blue collar middle class jobs, which were primarily in manufacturing, are disappearing overseas or to the incorporation of extensive robotics. More and more of what's left of the middle class is composed of people working on the taxpayers dime. The problem, perhaps, is that the public sector of the job market seems to be growing.
      Poverty level. There is the unyielding poverty level for about 15% of the population that is not getting any better. The government has tried many programs to try to lift the underclass out of poverty with little success. Making matters worse is the growing number of families where there is only the under trained or under educated woman to provide support. There is a valid argument that the real poverty level is really closer to 2%-3% after one factors in government programs such as assisted housing, food stamps and other forms of government assistance.   
      Cost of education keeps rising.  A college education is getting almost prohibited to the children of the lower economic classes unless their child somehow stands out, either athletically or academically, and can get a scholarship. College tuition and other expenses have risen much faster than the growth in wages for almost everyone. The most elite universities are for either the very gifted, or with the right connections (meaning family money) to get admitted. What this usually means is the student graduates with a mountain of student loan debt that has to be repaid by somebody. To make matters worse, many of the degrees granted to graduates are really of no real value in the work place. It is common for a graduate to be under employed, if they have a job, with a huge debt. 
      The exporting of  jobs. The continued exporting of jobs to foreign countries where the labor costs are much less than in this country is a problem. The global economy has resulted in the United States workers having to compete with foreign workers making a tenth of their salaries. Companies have had to move their operations to a foreign workplace or automate in a big way in order to compete in today's market. 
      The national debt. The growing, ever growing, national debt is a real problem now and more so in the future. I seems that we can't get off this ever expanding need to borrow money to finance ever growing demands from the public for more and more entitlements. Any politician who attempts to cut the entitlements now in place must be ready for a firestorm from the left, especially those who are getting the benefits.  The main thrust by the liberals in congress  at any attempt to control government expenditures (when they even think about such things)  has been the effort to cut the military funding to a level that is posing a real threat to American interests. The interest on the national debt is growing and taking up more and more of the budget. We're in a position now where we are borrowing money in order pay the interest on the debt we already have. And a huge amount of that debt is owed to foreign countries. 
      The trade deficit. There is huge and expanding trade deficit. We are importing much more than we export. China virtually owns the United States now and the export deficit just keeps growing. Look at virtually everything you own, from your clothes, appliances, and cars. Chances are that most of them were manufactured in a foreign country. Even those brands we think of as American, think of Ford and GM's products, might very well be actually made in another country. Or at least a good number of the parts that go into the product even it's assembled in the US.
     Public employee retirement benefits. State and local governments are faced with crippling unfunded benefits for their retired employees, and it's growing. The unfunded pension obligations for the State of California, for instance, has grown 3,046% since 2003. At that time the underfunded amount was 6.3 million dollars. It has grown to 198.2 million dollars in 2013.  The emergence of the public employee unions and the fact that they can pour huge amounts of money into election campaigns, has resulted in elected officials being sympathetic to their pleas for greater and greater retirement benefits as well as pay raises and other benefits while working. The workers can hire their own bosses. Here in California, one of most powerful unions of public employees is the teachers union, who almost dictate the running of the public schools and are instrumental in the state wide elections. They have demanded and got retirement packages that are so liberal that it is heading toward bankruptcy with the taxpayer is on the hook for bailing the fund out.  
     The infrastructure. The public infrastructure of this country is breaking down. The highway taxes levied on gasoline, which was intended to keep the roads and bridges in good order and and for expansion of the highway system as needed, is commonly hijacked by the politicians in the state capitols for other purposes.  Pot holes appear on our freeways and bridges collapse while we divert money elsewhere.   
     The public education system. Our schools are perceived to be among the lowest ranking of all the education systems of the industrial world. We spend a fortune on education while our students are being graduated without the skills to balance their checkbook or read simple directions. I wonder is this is really true.

Chapter 3-What if Obama had been President when----

     Adolf Hitler, climbed to power on the promise of returning Germany to it's former place as a world power after the humiliation of  the WWI defeat and the terms of the Peace Treaty that assured that she would be mired in deep economic slumps for years. He rebuilt the German's armed forces and proceeded to take back territory that had been stripped from Germany as result of the treaty. He then moved to bring Austria into the Reich and then bluffed his way into capturing the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia. All this time the western powers set and watched. In fact the English were complicit in ceding of the Sudetenland to Germany, when Hitler promised Chamberlain that this acquisition would be the last of German ambitions. He had a piece of paper signed by Hitler to proof it.  
     Hitler then signed a non-aggression pact with Joseph Stalin with a secret proviso specifying zones of influence between the two nations concerning all of eastern and northern Europe including Poland, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. It was agreed that Germany's zone would include western Poland and the USSR's would include the eastern half

    On September 1, 1939 Germany invaded Poland, based on a false pretext of Polish soldiers having attacked some German outpost, The Gleiwitz incident. 
      Nine days later the Soviets moved to occupy the eastern parts of Poland. The Soviet government announced it was acting to protect the Ukrainians and Belorussians who lived in the eastern part of Poland. (Sound familiar). 
     Britain had signed mutual defense pact with Poland, the British-Polish Pact of Mutual Assistance on 25 August. In this accord, Britain committed itself to the defense of Poland, guaranteeing to preserve Polish independence.  On September 3, 1939, Britain and France declared war on Germany, and the second European War was on. 
    As war progressed the German army overran France in a matter of weeks and almost destroyed the British army before a good part of it was rescued at Dunkirk. Britain was now isolated and all alone in it's fight with Germany. They are an island nation and depend heavily on imports of food and other essentials to maintain their existence. Without outside help it is doubtful that England could have survived the first couple years of the war. 
    Roosevelt's sentiments were well know. In October 1937, he gave the "Quarantine" speech aiming to contain aggressive nations. He proposed that warmongering states be treated as a public health menace and be quarantined.  So it isn't really surprising that Roosevelt jumped into the fray with both feet on the side of the British, as he could foresee the threat that the Nazis projected on the western democracies. He did every thing he could to support the British, the Chinese and the Soviets, short of declaring war. He was determined that the British would not be defeated. Some of his feeling might have been swayed by his personal friendship with Churchill. 
     Roosevelt was a visionary and detected the growth of military powers in Japan when they invaded Manchuria in 1931. In an effort to build up the Navy he commissioned the building of the USS Yorktown, launched 4 April, 1936 and USS Enterprise, launched 3 October 1938, reportedly by diverting funds from the WPA.  Later he commissioned the building of the USS Hornet, which was launched 14 December, 1940.  After Pearl Harbor these three carriers were the only significant power in the Pacific. 
     In 1939 he allowed the French to place huge orders with the American aircraft industry on a cash-and-carry basis. But, the aircraft they ordered was not ready at the time of France's collapse in May 1940, so Roosevelt arranged in June 1940 for the French orders to be sold to Britain.
     The fall of Paris shocked the public and the isolationist sentiment declined. In July 1940 he appointed two interventionist Republicans to the cabinet as Secretaries of War and Navy.  Roosevelt asked for and got the nation's first ever peacetime draft.  
    The British ran out of money, so in March 1941 he pushed the Lend Lease Agreement through Congress, which would direct massive military and economic aid to Britain, the Republic of China and later the Soviet Union. 
     The sea lanes in the north Atlantic were treacherous for any shipping carrying supplies to Britain due to the intense U-Boat activity and the British needed more help in protecting the convoys carrying those supplies. Roosevelt had stated that America should be the "Arsenal of Democracy". On September 2, 1940, he openly defied the Neutrality Acts by passing the Destroyers for Bases Agreement, which transferred 50 WWI destroyers to Britain in exchange for basing rights in the British Caribbean Islands.  
     The American Navy was dispatched to protect convoys in the western Atlantic and they were actively involved before America was in the war. In April, 1941, Roosevelt extended the Pan-American Security Zone east almost as far as Iceland. British troops occupied Iceland after the fall of Denmark but, the USA was persuaded to provide forces to relieve them. American war ships began escorting Allied convoys in the western Atlantic as far as Iceland and had several hostile encounters with U-Boats. Tropical Atlantic had become dangerous for unescorted American as well as British cargo ships. On May 21, the SS Robin Moor, an American vessel carrying no military supplies was torpedoed, shelled and sunk by U-69.  Roosevelt did refuse Churchill's request that the American warships extend their protection into the eastern Atlantic however.
     On December 7, 1941 and Hitler's declaration of war on the United States, the Sino-Japanese and European wars became a world war. 
     That was what Roosevelt did, but what would Obama have done from 1933 until America entered the war at the very end of 1941? The answer, based on his record is---none of the above. Obama considers himself a peacemaker and would have spent what time he gave to foreign affairs trying to negotiate, although he would have more concerned with domestic affairs. If Obama had been President in the 30's he would faced with same domestic problems that plagued Roosevelt. Massive unemployment and a severely depressed stock market.  That's where almost his energy would be spent. I don't think he could have juggled the demands of foreign policy problems along with the internal problems facing the nations. He would likely have tried the same kind of remedies that Roosevelt employed on the domestic front, with little more success than Roosevelt achieved.
     It is hard to know what would have transpired from about 1941 and later, because the events after that depend mostly on what other nations did. Given the nature of Obama's actions in the Pacific and Hitler's whims, there were many courses this alternate history could have followed.  One is based on the proposition that Japan still felt it was necessary to attack the US and the other that the empire felt it didn't need to neutralize the US to achieve it's objective in the Pacific.  It is quite possible that the Japanese would not instigated a war with the United States as they saw no need to. They were getting their way in the Pacific. However, I think the Japanese felt that the acquisition of the Philippines was essential to their security and goals in the Pacific. So it is highly likely that there would have been a Pearl Harbor, or something like it. We would have been thrust into a war that we were totally unprepared for. In addition, Hitler, using whatever logic he used in the actual timeline, would have declared war on the United States in the wake of the Japanese declaration. 
      It is almost certain that England would have starved into accepting the German terms in order to survive. Hitler did not want the British Isles, his focus was to the east and the vast agricultural potential and natural resources of Russia. All he wanted was for England to get out of the way and let him have the run of Europe. 
        America would have entered any war without an army or navy of any consequence. As a result the war in Europe would only involve the Soviets and the Germans for at least a year, or possibly longer, before the Americans could lend any appreciable aid. Rommel would have ran rough shod over the British in Africa, captured Egypt and taken control of the Suez Canal without American supplies of arms.  
     Germany and the Soviets would have been in a death struggle, where the winner would become the masters of all of Europe. I'm not sure who would have won, but either way it would spell disaster for America. 
     If the Germans won, the German, Japanese and Italian Axis powers would have domination over a great part of the world. If the Soviets won, they would then turn on the Japanese, their traditional enemy, and take control of all of Europe and now the Asian sphere.  No matter what, we were next. 
     German scientists were working on advance weapon systems that could threaten America. The jet powered aircraft, ballistic missiles, and atomic bombs. With little budget for national defense during the thirties America would have been left far behind in the development and deployment of advanced weapons. 
    There is just too many branches in this alternate history to predict with certainty at all. If Obama had been President, one thing is for sure. We would have a far different past that we have now.  
     

  

What if Obama had been President when---Chapter 2

    In 1937 the Japanese Empire invaded China and started the 2nd Sino-Japanese war. They had previously overran Manchuria and now conquered the eastern parts of China, which meant control of of all the Chinese ports. The Japanese were also, during the campaign, guilty of murdering hundreds of thousands of Chinese in one atrocity after another as they overran many of the major cities of China. 
     President Roosevelt demanded that the Japanese stop their aggression and withdraw from China and instituted an embargo of all American materials going to Japan when they didn't comply. The embargo hurt the Japanese war effort significantly because they depended on American steel and oil to fuel their war machine. China was in dire straights as she had no significant industrial capacity to manufacture the tools of war and had to import them. She desperately needed help to stave off the Japanese.  In the early stages of the war with Japan, the Soviets supplied planes and other aid to the Chinese, but  was withdrawn when the Soviets got in a war with Germany. The only path open to provide aid to the Chinese that was capable of supplying large amounts of aid was the Burma Road. With no effective air power to defend the road the Japanese were free to bomb Chinese cities and transportation at will.  They could make the Burma Road unusable. 
Roosevelt undertook aid to China on a rather large scale, supplying weapons and other necessary supplies. Because the Japanese controlled all the Chinese ports, the only way to keep the supplies coming into China was through the Burma Road and through air support by planes flying the hump. 
Clair Chennault, at the time, Chief of Staff to Chiang Kai-shek went to Washington and appealed to the President for airplanes and men to help defend the Road and the cities of western China. Of course, because we were not at war with Japan the US couldn't act overtly, so they came up with another plan. Roosevelt would arrange a loan to the Chinese so that they could purchase fighters from American manufacturers and then diverted 100 P40's to China that had been scheduled to be delivered the the RAF. Also, an agreement was reached that let Chennault recruit US pilots to fly in a newly formed American Volunteer Group (AVG) which would become part of the Chinese Air Force to fly the planes. Upon completion of their contract with the AVG they would be allowed to return to their previous service with no loss in rank or seniority. 
American help and the exploits of the AVG, which became famous as the Flying Tigers, kept the Burma road open, protected many of her cities and helped keep China from defeat until America entered the war following Pearl Harbor.  
Now the question: What would Obama have done?  Obama's actions in the Ukraine and in the middle east shows clearly that we would not have become involved directly in the Sino-Japanese war. Obama would have protested, tried diplomacy and threats to try to get the Japanese to behave, but he never would have activity supported China with arms and especially the creation of the only effective air force the Chinese had to protect their western cities and especially the life line into China before Americans entry into the war. Assuming that the Japanese still felt that they had to attack the US. There was no other country with resources that could come to China's aid that wasn't already involved in a war of their own. 
Would China have fallen to the Japanese?  Without American help, read that Roosevelt's help, it is likely that the whole of China, at least the major parts, would come under Japanese control with their vast resources of food and manpower. That would have set the Japanese up in a much more powerful position.  They would use China much as they used Manchuria, moving a lot of their industrial capacity to China and having huge pools of manpower to make the tools of war and feed their troops and Navy in their expanding empire. A quick look at the map shows that from China a nation can dominate the western pacific. 
Without the need to station whole armies in China in a combat roll and supplies of men and supplies needed to fight on that front, the Japanese would have far more resources to expand and hold the gains in the pacific. Things would get a lot tougher.      
      

What if Obama had been President when---Chapter one

     Over the last century world shaking events have occurred. Events that shaped the political map of the world and impacted the position of the United States in that world. Almost all of these events also affected future generations as the results of the outcomes as they actually happened. The President at the time of the events reacted as they did and we know what the results of the actions were, and still are.

     Based on President Obama's actions and reactions to the events in the Middle East, Africa, and the Ukraine, we can make a pretty good guess as to how he would have reacted to some of the major events that have risen up over the last century. What is not so easy, is to ascertain what would be the outcome of those decisions. 
    World War I broke out in 1914, with an assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of the Austrian Empire by a Serb national. This incident, which drew little attention, even from the Austrian royalty at first, escalated due to bunch of miscalculations of the various nations and the pigheadedness of the rulers then in power and resulted in the largest and costliest war in history.
     The American people wanted nothing to do with that war and neither did the President. Two things happened however, that changed Wilson's mind. After being warned, the Germans unleashed unrestricted warfare on the high seas. That really meant that they would sink any ship that was bringing supplies to the British Isles. They felt that they had to cut off aid to Britain in order to starve her into submission and get her out of the war. A lot of that aid was American. The German U-Boats sank 7 US merchant ships after resuming unrestricted war. In addition, a message was purportedly intercepted by the British that originated by Germany enticing Mexico to enter the war against the US. In return Germany would aid Mexico in reacquiring the territories lost to the US as a result of the Mexican American war. The British, of course got  the message to Wilson via the American Embassy in Britain. This became known as the Zimmerman note. Wilson also had visions of advancing the US into the world stage and did not want us to be left out as a major player. As a result Wilson asked the Congress to declare war on Germany. The US declared war on April 6, 1917.
     Now, the question. What would Obama have done were he President at the time? Would he have gone before congress and asked for a declaration of war, or would he have taken another route? 
     Obama would have faced with the same problems Wilson faced in his own time. Virtually no standing army, which would have meant a conscription and military buildup of the army and the industrial capacity to fight a war. But, Obama has shown that he does not support a military build up and is dead set against a draft. After all America was not threatened by that war. I believe that Obama would NOT have asked for a declaration of war. He would likely have met with Mexican leaders and got their assurance that they had no intention of going to war against the US. He would also have sent diplomatic envoys to Germany to try and negotiate some compromise concerning the open warfare stance of the German U-Boats. The Germans would have talked and talked and probably  kept right on doing what they were doing, even though some compromise might be reached. He would likely put restrictions on the shipment of any military supplies to the Allied nations. He might have gone so far, although I don't think it likely, as to have US warships escort cargo ships carrying food, medical and other non military supplies to Britain and France, but I think that would be about as far as he would go. In the end I think we would not get involved in the European mess.
     So what would that mean in the global sense? The war in Europe had degenerated to a static condition that became known as trench warfare. But, I think that condition was about to change. The Americans, entering the war in the real world, tipped the balance decidedly in favor of the Allies. In fact the threat of the Americans entry into the conflict spurred Germany into launching one of the largest campaigns in the war in a effort to end the war before American buildup could be accomplished. The campaign was moderately successful but resulted in huge German casualties. Germany, already in dire straights, saw the prospect of facing a growing force as the Americans poured tens of thousands of men, supplies of all kinds, and equipment in the fight, saw no course but to give it up. 
     But, suppose that the Americans hadn't come in and the Germans saw no threat from us? The Germans would not have been pushed into actions that shortened the war considerably.  Given a little time, a new era of warfare was about to unfold. A new weapon, the tank, has been introduced to the battlefield. A weapon that could neutralize the most awesome weapon at the time in that type of war, the machine gun. The strategy of digging into static lines and sending thousands of men across no mans land into a hail of machine gun fire and artillery was going to come to an end as the armies learned how to use this new weapon. 
     England and France were the first to introduce the tank to the battlefield. But,after the initial shock the Germans begin to learn how to deal with them. They were slow, ungainly, and very prone to breakdowns. Also, the Germans are not stupid and they have some of the best engineers in the world. It is likely that given the time they would have designed and fielded a new generation of tanks to counter the Allies. Of course the development of tank technology would not be static on the Allies side either. New and better tanks would enter the fray and new tactics would be developed to utilize these new weapons. So the war would have become a war of movement again. Tank warfare would escalate as new technology entered the fray. Think of the rapid escalation of the airplane and air warfare during WWI which would continue as the war dragged on. 
     At about this time, to make things worse for the Allies, the Russian revolution and their withdrawal from the war has removed the threat to Germany on their eastern front and as result they can and do move their entire eastern army to the west to face the British and French forces. In addition this also opened up routes for goods to be imported to Germany where before she as literally blockaded and cut off from all trade routes.
     At some point both sides would have probably had about all they can take in terms of manpower lost, as well as the drain on their treasury, and might seek an armistice.  The British and French treasuries were both bare and without the infusion of American men and supplies the Allied armies were running on empty. Germany was no better shape. A treaty springing from this would not look anything like what came out of at the end of WWI. There would not be the punishing reparations from Germany. I don't know whether the royals in Germany would have survived the changes taking place. It is possible that the Kaiser would remain but would be reduced to a ceremonial monarch just as is the King of England. In any event the government that will emerge is not likely to fail as actually happened. The German people would not feel the humiliation that was heaped on them as a result of the Treaty of Versailles. As a result Hitler and the Nazis would not have risen to power. WWII might have been avoided altogether, at least in Europe. 
     Where does that leave us? Basically out of the loop. WWI did not develop the means to destroy a countries cities and industrial centers as happened in WWII.  We would not have an advantage there. The American armed forces would not change much as we had no reason to build up our standing army. We would not have built up our Navy nor participated in the new evolution in warfare that had been developed by the European powers. Advances in tank, aircraft and other weapon technology would likely not be emphasized, at least as long as Obama was President and likely with his successor. The money necessary to do these kind of things would go to social welfare programs. 
     The end result, I think, if Obama had been President in 1917, would be a world far different from the one that actually happened. Whether that's good or bad depends on ones perspective.  

Let's talk business and other things

     My wife's niece seems to interested in politics and, to say the least, has a rather liberal viewpoint on some subjects. In a discussion on Facebook I posed several questions to her to see how she would answer. I found her response interesting and I thought I might try to respond. I think this kind of discussion is a bit much for Facebook, as it is essentially a social medium and is not intended for any meaningful discussion of anything. I decided to address this on my blog and share it with her. I find the subject quite interesting.
    I asked her to contemplate the questions: How are jobs created? Especially the middle income type jobs. And, what are the impediments to creating those jobs? I also stated that there is no such thing as a free lunch; somebody pays, always. 
    She answered that jobs were created  by the demand for goods and services and stated that middle class earning jobs were created from some form of contract.  She also stated, suspecting where I was going, that taxes don't kill jobs. That greed is responsible for stopping job growth. 
    The answer to the first question I find (while true in a sense) to be a little overly simplistic. In fact jobs are created by businesses. Very often businesses that require a huge initial investment to get them started. But, whether it's a massive investment to start or expand a large business, or to start one on a smaller scale the result is the same. An investment that carries with it the risk that the business will fail and the investment will be lost. That investment is the engine that drives the creation of the business for the purpose of making money if they succeed. Some call that greed.  It is businesses that are formed to meet the need or desires for goods and services, jobs follow. Sometimes there was no perceived need for a product or service until a business is formed and as a result of marketing strategies, a desire was established.  These businesses in turn hire people to design, produce and market the product or service. When you think about it a lot of the businesses operating today started that way.  Nobody thought they needed the dishwasher, clothes washer, electric toaster, the light bulb or radio until it was developed and the public found that they wanted those things. Now they are considered almost necessities. 
      Let us take a few examples of businesses that produced a lot of jobs. 
      In the case of the market responding to a built in demand we can take the automobile industry after WWII. In fact all kinds of manufactured products such as washing machines, refrigerators were in high demand. Following WWII the American manufacturing capability was totally intact and able to switch from war time production to peace time very rapidly. We kind of had the world by the tail. The manufacturers hired a ton of people to design, manufacture and market the goods we were making to meet this demand. We were almost  the only source of  produced goods in world for a number of years. The jobless rate stayed so low that an unemployment rate of over 4 1/2 percent was viewed with great concern. In this case, indeed, demand created jobs because industry responded to the demand. 
     This condition, however, was a two edged sword. Having no global competition and a ravenous market, the manufacturers did everything to feed that market. They produced cars with their bumpers literately falling off and depended on the dealers to fix the problems. That came back to haunt them later as they lost market share to foreign cars, especially Japans, on the basis of reliability. They capitulated to the unified labor unions ( the UAW) for almost every demand in order to keep the lines moving. The unions demanded and got work rules which, to say the least, were ridiculous. The unions did ever thing they could to expand the work force. They paid middle class wages for putting nuts on bolts. They only had themselves to compete with and the unions negotiated as a group. No outside players were as yet in the game. In a sense all the car companies were competing on a level playing field. 
     As everybody knows that condition slowly came to an end as the products from Japan and Europe begin to enter the market. Especially after the first great oil crises created by OPEC.  Many of the manufacturers went out of business because they couldn't compete and thousands of workers lost their jobs. Remember Studebaker, Rambler, Hudson, and Packard? And, still the unions, with strong government backing hung on to all the perks that they had gained during the plush times, in spite of the fact that they were making American manufacturing noncompetitive in the new emerging global market.  In the end, two of the remaining  three major auto makers had to declare bankruptcy and only Ford was spared because they had negotiated a large loan just prior to the recent recession. Only massive loans by the government saved GMC and Chrysler.  The failure of these companies would have resulted in thousands of American jobs lost.  The demand was there for cars, but that could have easily been satisfied by overseas industries. The demand for goods and services would be there but, that would not have resulted in any American jobs. Only saving the businesses did that. Under auspices of the bankruptcy court they restructured their contracts to reduce costs and with the money from the government loans, the car companies are now back in business and competing very well with the foreign made cars. They have paid back all the money they borrowed. 
     Take a look at your appliances, clothes and shoes; where they made?  Not likely in the USA. High costs due to labor, taxes and regulations have driven almost all major manufacturing overseas. Your say they are greedy. But wait a minute, why did Americans stop buying home grown products resulting in the exodus of manufacturing?  For two reasons. They actually were made better and they were cheaper. Businesses either compete or say adios and kiss all their workers goodbye.
          Let's now consider the creation of a jobs where there was no demand for a product; ergo no business,ergo no jobs. Because there is no history or established Washington mafia these types of business are generally not regulated as much by government bureaucracies making it much easier for a start-up. Apple computer is a good example. There was no demand for personal computers. Two guys went into their garage and developed this technology specifically for computer geeks (the Apple I).  They got initial investment capital from a "greedy" investor who thought they might have a good idea and proceeded to market their creation.  It was more successful than they had imagined. This led them to  design the first true desktop stand alone computer, the Apple II.  The established computer powers such as IBM never conceived of a market for personal computers at that time. They thought the market was with the large main frames where they excelled. They questioned why the average citizen would ever want to have access to a computer. They thought the market was limited to Engineers, Science, big business,government and the like. But, some investors saw the product and took the risk that the Apple II would make money and invested in the manufacturing capacity to build the computer. Of course the Apple II was roaring success as ordinary people bought it in droves and it changed the computer landscape forever. The investors were rewarded for their faith and assumption of risk. Following that was whole string of Apple products that had no demand until they marketed it and created that demand. They produced a the IPad, IPod and all the other "I" products, most of which had no market until Apple marketing made one. Apple hired a whole bunch of middle and high end labor to keep at the forefront of the tech design. In this case business didn't respond to a demand, they created one. Out of that venture rose Microsoft, Intel, Dell Computers, a bunch of PC makers and a whole host of additional companies employing thousands of well paid people.  
      You can also look at Facebook, Tweeter, Google and a lot other so called dot-com businesses that were created before there was any demand for them. After all, who really needs any of the social media. They employ a ton of people. Some required massive investment to grow to their present condition others are small operations employing less that 100 people. Remember also, that most of the dot-com adventures, involving a lot of investment money went belly up and all the investment was lost. 
      Another example might be the type of business that took some service or product that existed in a limited way, usually only for the rich, and improved it so much that it became the standard for their industry from that point on. A good example of that might be creation of the Ford Motor Co.  
     Henry Ford envisioned a new manufacturing method that could revolutionize the way cars are built so that they could be owned by the average person and not just the wealthy. His ideas of mass production however, would require huge investments of capital to built the facilities required for his methods to work. He acquired the capital from individual and institutional investors who were willing to take the risk on his ideas. Of course the first mass produced car in the world was the Ford Model T. A roaring success. It seemed that everybody in America wanted one. As a result of Ford's ideas and foresight, thousands of workers were employed in making of the Ford cars. Of course it wasn't long before his assembly line methods were adopted by other manufacturing companies producing everything from toasters to automobiles resulting in hundreds of thousands of new jobs being created as the price of manufactured goods plummeted and ordinary people could begin to afford these luxuries. 
      Of course Ford was entering virgin territory with his venture and there were not yet a ton of government regulators breathing down his neck at every turn. Nor where there a large body of entrenched interests in Washington set to protect the then current industries. 
     And Ford wasn't only example of this type. There was Carnegie, who figured out how to produce steel cheaply and spawned a building boom never seen before; there was Rockefeller, who revolutionized the oil industry and made American the largest producer and exporter of oil for many years, Edison with his many inventions and the industries that came out of his ideas, Tesla and the electric power systems we use today. And the list goes on. 
     So again I reiterate that business creates jobs. Therefore, it should be clear that impediments to business development has a negative effect on the job market. 
     So what are the true obstacles that businesses have to face at their start up and every day of operation?  Mainly, if you are competing in the open market, it's controlling costs. The price you can sell your product or service for is dictated by market conditions. If the manufacturer of  the product or service can not meet the market price because of high costs and still make a profit, they will fail and go out of business with all the concurrent job losses that go with it. It follows then that an essential task for any business leader in a competitive environment is to control costs.
     Of course government does not operate under those restraints. There is absolutely no incentive for government departments to worry about controlling costs. They have no competition.  
     There are a number of factors that go into the cost of providing a product or a service.  The cost of the material they have to purchase, their faculties costs (likely a nearly a constant),  labor, including executive salaries, taxes and adherence to government and collective bargaining regulations and restrictions are some of them.  Companies have some control over most of the costs involved with the exception those that are government imposed. I.e. taxes and regulations. 
     Of all the things government does to hamper job growth, the more onerous is probably the abundance of regulations they have created for a business to get started and to operate. Potential businesses have to spend a large amount of money and time doing all kinds of studies to show the potential new businesses impact on everything. They must show the impact on the environment, wild life, ancient tribal sacred grounds and their compliance with local zoning and long term objectives of local planning commissions among other things. And none of the studies are cheap. If a company gets over the initial hurdles and starts to operate, they now have a prolific set of laws and regulations that must be met concerning workers safety, access for the disabled, working hours, product safety, and other regulations. An over abundance of these types of things results in companies fleeing to less onerous locations. 
       One should also be very clear that the cost of a company complying with a government regulation is, by necessity, passed on the consumer in form of a higher price. It is almost impossible to conceive of a regulation that doesn't cost money to implement. That is not to say that all regulations handed down by a myriad of government bureaucracies are all bad. But, they do cost money. And, the originating agency never seems to consider cost of implementing their brain burst.     
     On the subject of taxes.  Let's be clear. Who Pays All Taxes? And I do mean all taxes. The answer: the consumer. That's in addition to the up front taxes the consumer pays in the form of income tax, sales tax and any special tax that local government has imposed. When you buy that new Chevy you are paying GMC's corporate taxes. You are also paying their workers compensation in all forms. The company contributions to pensions, Social Security and Medicare, vacations and sick leave for their workers are factored into the selling price of the car. That's in addition to the taxes that their subcontractors had to pay in order to sell their own product, which the final manufacturer  has to absorb. Taxes are just another expense to the manufacturer. If the manufacturer is competing on a global scale then higher taxes mean higher costs and thus they are
less competitive. If they are less competitive they sell less of their product, therefore don't need as many employees; loss of jobs. The average corporation pays something like eighteen percent of it's net profits in taxes. That's money that is not there for reinvestment in R&D, expansion and hiring more workers as a result and payment of dividends to it's stockholders. The company has to offset those expenses somehow and the only means they have is to reduce hiring to a minimum to reduce labor costs.  
      If there is one thing the economists all agree on is that taxes are bad for the economy. What they don't agree on is the effect of a tax cut on Federal Revenue. Historically as taxes crept higher the economy suffered and unemployment rose. When the tax rate was lowered an economic resurgence occurred almost always occurred with lower unemployment, a growth in the GNP, and the government actually took in more money. A good example was the Revenue Act of 1964, an across the board tax reduction championed by JFK and carried through by LBJ. In 1964 and again in 1965 unemployment fell, the GNP increased and the Federal revenue increased. That is a story that was repeated under Reagan in 1984. 
      To the statement that "greed" is what hampers job growth, just doesn't stand up. "Greed" i. e. a desire to make money, as a matter of fact creates jobs as a myriad of  examples would show. What hampers job growth are factors which effect businesses ability to produce products at a price the people are willing to pay. People are willing to pay only so much for their widgets. If the price gets to high, or the quality gets too bad, they will slow down on their widget purchasing resulting in the lose of jobs in the widget industry. Produce a high quality widget at a good price and the mob will beat a path to their door and the widget manufacturer will hire lots of people to make more widgets. 

The Republican's Party Future?

            
     Is there a future for the Republican Party at the national level or is destined to become irrelevant; remember the Whigs?  It seems that every time the party seems to be written off, it comes bounding back. However, the resurgence is usually just a rebellion against the Dems and some particular unpopular law that they have rammed though congress and got signed by the President. Currently that's Obama care (Affordable Care Act) and it's impact. It seems now that most of the Democrats running for office never heard of it. That issue may result in the Republicans taking control of the Senate as well as the House. It seems to me that this gain may be only temporary as the pain of the ACA is absorbed by the population. I'm afraid that the Democrat's basic constituency will regain the upper hand and the liberals will come back into power. 
     To my eyes the Party has a couple of  issues that must be addressed, and somehow come to terms with, or they will become the loyal opposition party in perpetuity. They must deal with the advantage the Democrats hold with women, and the huge support for the Democrats from the African-American and the Latino populations. The Republicans must approach and develop a plan and approach to convince these groups that the Republicans are not their enemy.  These are the three cornerstones the Democrats have used to move into the White House in the last elections and will ride these groups into power in the foreseeable future unless the party wakes up and makes some fundamental changes in some of it's positions. To make matters worse for the Republicans, the Latino and African-American populations are an ever growing group of voters that will determine the future of national politics in America in the coming years, especially the Latinos.         
       The way our system of government is set up leads to a two party system.  There really is no viable alternative. That is largely due to the fact the our President is separately elected by the electoral college and must receive a majority vote from that body.   One of the downsides of that system is what would be third or fourth parties in a parliamentary system, end up having to find their way into one of the major parties if they are to have a voice. And, if they are vocal enough and have a fairly large following in a few key states, they can end up having an out of proportion influence on the parties platform and election process. A quick view of history will tell you that a few third party candidates have had an influence on the election; the Bull Moose Party, Ross Perot's run for the White House, comes to mind, but they have never placed a candidate in the White House. In addition there have been few third party members of congress over the years. All this leads to a party whose core members are socially and fiscally liberal and a party whose members tend to be fiscally conservative and attracts the socially conservative as well. 
        The Democrats core base is generally comprised of a couple of groups consisting of the overtly liberal constituency (think San Francisco) and the ever growing receivers of the entitlements championed so liberally by the Dems. I'm not sure that the Republicans really have much of a chance of luring that group into a Party that preaches self sufficiency, fiscal responsibility, national defense as a top priority and independence from government control to the extent possible. The conservative Republicans and the liberal wing of the Democratic Party have little in common and it's likely to stay that way. They are on opposite ends of the pole on such items as defense spending, infrastructure development, government intrusion into private business, the proliferation of entitlement programs, and whole host of other issues. 
       The religious right occupies a unique position in the Republican party. They view themselves as a great strength, but to me they are the Achilles heel of the party. The Republican candidates have a problem, stemming from the strong influence the religious right has captured in the party, and the political clout they wield in a number of states, especially the southern states. The candidates believe that to be nominated they must embrace the religious right, or at least not alienate them. However, in the general elections they must now move toward the social center to appeal to the voters at large. The nation, as a whole, is not in sync with the religious rights position on some key social issues, especially on abortion, which is the anchor on which the Democrats hang their "War on Women" banner around the Republicans necks. The two biggest issues the religious right champions are both religious in nature. Anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage.     
     From all the polls it is clear that the majority of the American people agree, in general, with the Republicans stand on fiscal issues. They believe in fiscal responsibility in government and the goal of a balanced budget.  And, like their family finances, the government shouldn't spend money it hasn't got. However, there is a condition to this; they don't want to balance the budget by sacrificing whatever perk the government hands out to their own person or clan.      

      One of the biggest problems the Republicans have is overcoming the hard right position held by the religious fundamentalists who would totally outlaw abortion. That position has found its way into the Republican platform and is a millstone around any candidate running for President in the general election.  In many ways the abortion issue parallels the fight during the prohibition era between the "Dries" and the "Wets".  It is considered by many that the hard position of the "Dries" for the total ban on all forms of intoxicating drink let to the revolution against the Volstead Act resulting in it being repealed. They believe if the "Dries" had modified their position to some extent the Act would still be in place. 
     The Democrats have used this plank in the party platform to fling an accusation at the Republicans that they wish to dis-empower women. They have made this central to the women's rights campaign, "War on Women", and they have been very successful.  This position, and the Democrat's exploitation of it, has resulted in a lot of women, a big majority of young women, voting Democrat. With women constituting roughly half the voters, that is a big hurdle to get over. 
     The Republicans must recognize that there will never be a constitutional amendment; the right wings fond hope, to place a ban on any form of abortion.  Not now, not ever. You will never get the three fourths approval to accomplish that from the states, even if you elect a congress that would pass it; and not very likely. And until then, the courts will hold sway on this issue.  Neither the congress not the President will have the final say. 
               The Party should develop a strong position to address the issues facing the modern American women, and not some fanciful idea of the June Cleaver stay at home mom as the typical woman. The Party should address and support measures which help the modern woman achieve all she is capable of along with the requirements of the family. The issues of the single mom, child care and other issues need to addressed in a realistic manner that somehow stays within the confines of a balanced budget. Some of the bias for women to vote for the Dems may be modified in the future as more and more women enter the work force and become the taxpayers that have to support the liberal programs.  
     Another, and maybe biggest,  problem the Republicans have is the immigration issue and the Latino vote. The fact of the matter is that the Hispanics have become so numerous in the past few decades that they can, and do in some cases, become the deciding element in any close election.  In fact the Mexican vote, almost alone, has swung the biggest state in the union solidly into the Democrat's camp.  The people of Latin American heritage, especially Mexicans, in general, do not want any tight immigration laws on the books.  Nor to have the ones on the books enforced.  Almost all of them are only removed from illegals by one or two generations and they want their relations and friends to be able to enter the country at will.  Not only to enter the country, but become voters fairly quickly. The Republicans stance on illegal immigration has pushed these people into the Democrats camp. The Democrats are glad of the support and the large number of votes they bring.  Consequently the Republicans lose big time to the Latino vote, something like 90% in the last election.  
     Within the Republican Party there is fair number of members that want to close the border and kick every illegal out of the country, and do it now. They actually don't represent the majority of the membership which are open, in a limited way, to the idea of providing a path to stay in the country legally and eventually to attain citizenship. But, in general the Republicans would like to see the borders strengthened  and  recent border crashers caught and deported. But, people that serve in the military with honor, teenagers that grew up in this country and know no other should perhaps be given consideration. Such a position is the only chance that the Party has of gaining back some of the Latino vote. 
      And, like a lot of issues in the Republican plank on social issues that ship has sailed.  Look around today and you see Latinos as Mayors, Governors and other high political positions throughout the border states and beyond.  Pretty soon they will be the majority group in many states, including California and Texas, the two largest states in America. A certain pragmatism must enter into party politics. And, after all, this issue isn't what the Republican Party is all about is it.  
     So where should the party sink it's roots.  I would suggest that the model of Theodore Roosevelt  provides the kind of thinking that should become one of the bedrocks of the Party. The recent meltdown of major banking and financial institutions caused by questionable, likely illegal practices of it's top executives is a case in point. Theodore would have come down on these people like the hammer of Thor. But, nothing has happened to the people who engineered this breakdown. In fact these same people have received bonuses and raises as a reward for getting the government to bail them out. I don't think the party addressed the issue at all.  A few Senators and Representatives did, but they got no support from their party that I could see. 
       Anyone that has been keeping up with the business news of late is well aware of the stampede of mergers that have been taking place. It seems we are moving into a position where very few companies will dominate the entire market, especially the most critical markets. Government does have a role in making sure that markets remain free and open to competition.  Small business should be encouraged to the maximum extent. No industry should be dominated by just a few companies so that they can set the conditions and dictate the prices for the the services and goods they provide.   
     The basic message of fiscal responsibility along with the commitment to a strong military, a sound infrastructure, assuring  a free market for goods and ideas, improving our global commerce positions, a rational approach to the nations health care, welfare of it's citizens and Social Security should be at the core positions of the party, and either rise or fall on that platform. 
       
     
     
       

Pity the Poor Taxpayer

      The poor taxpayer has all kinds of burdens hanging on his back. He or she is expected to not only support the building of roads, support our the military, arm and feed foreign nations, monitor our food, water and air to assure that they aren't killing us, provide for law enforcement agencies to protect us from the bad guys and a huge number of additional government functions that are growing as fast as our congress can think up things that they think the taxpayer should support.
      In addition the taxpayer has the privilege of supporting retired public employees with pensions and retirement benefits that he or she will never enjoy. Of course we're glad to do that because the poor government employee with their secure jobs, 30 days vacation a year, high wages for the skills they bring to the job and medical benefits that most of us envy, along with sick leave and other fringe benefits deserve it.
     Of course the taxpayer has the privilege of supporting the  illegal immigrants flooding across our border.  The President says so, and the President is never wrong.
     Now the taxpayer has the privilege of supplying most of the funding for the medical coverage dictated by the recently enacted Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obama Care. That's in addition to the already imposed Social Security tax. A pyramid scheme if there ever was one.
     The taxpayer is also glad that the Local, State and Federal regulators and law makers hide a lot of the burden of taxes that they have to shoulder. Take a look at your utility bill sometimes for instance. Or better yet, think of how much the price of a new car, or any other purchase, is determined by the cost to the manufacturer of taxes that they have to pay to government. In the end the consumer pays all taxes. That doesn't include the costs to the consumer due to myriad of regulations that the manufacturer labors under, which, by necessity, is passed on.
      As we move further and further into a total welfare state, the taxpayer will have the privilege of supplying more and more of the funding necessary to keep the government engine running. And, it is clear we're heading toward a sort of quasi socialist state right now. Isn't the taxpayer lucky?