Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump - two highly flawed candidates for the office of President of the United States, the most powerful office in the world.
Hillary has been part of and instrumental in the course in foreign affairs and agreements reached during Obama's reign. She has shown time and again that she really has no clue about the real world and what's happening. Her primary concern seems to be about her and protecting her position in the governing body. She put together a health plan during her husband's administration that even the Democrats couldn't swallow. When the incident in Benghazi blew up, she lied like a sailor to cover the state departments culpability in the whole affair. She had a private server installed in her own residence so that her e-mails would not be open to inspection by any government agency and proceeded to perform government classified activities on that unprotected server. Then she continued her lies when caught, stalled and erased thousands of e-mails from the server before the FBI could get their hands on it. Her story is that the documents that she received and transmitted at the time where not marked as classified. That's about the lamest excuse any public figure, especially the Secretary of State, can use to avoid prosecution for handling of classified data. She's supposed to know what's classified. On top of that, a former member of her staff has said that she directed that the classification markings on some documents be deleted before being transmitted.
Donald has tapped into a couple of sensitive issues for the blue collar workers and has exploited those issues to win a large lead in delegates to the convention. The problem he has now, is that he has left a trail of blood behind him. Personal insults levied at any and all of his opponents that dared to really challenge him. Now that he needs the party to unite behind him he has alienated everybody in sight. He didn't have to do that. His message was obviously resonating with enough voters to produce that lead. He didn't have to get personal with the other candidates. He managed to open his mouth and and say politically incorrect things that are often perceived to be an insult women, Hispanics and other minorities along the way. He probably was just being Trump, with no skill in playing the political game. The people who have known him for years say emphatically that he is none of those things. But, he has generated a prolific amount of potential sound bites for Hillary's campaign in the general election. Reality means very little in the political area, perception is everything. He is not going to do well among that group come November. And, without at least 25 to 30 percent of that group, you don't win.
A lot of key Republicans (the establishment),are frankly dubious about his ability to win in November. So what is the party to do? They see themselves losing the White House in an election that should have been a slam dunk. Even the local dog catcher could beat Hillary. They're afraid that Donald will take the party down with him and they might lose control of congress. As a result there is a lot of effort to force this primary into a open convention, where they feel that they may be able to field a better candidate. They look at the polls, break down the demographics, and see no way the Trump can win. Of course those same polls show that the next likely candidate, Cruz, can't win either. Unfortunately the polls show that the candidates that could win have been driven out of the race.
To set both Trump and Cruz aside at the convention would raise a storm within the party. A lot of their supporters would just stay home. There really is no way out of this conundrum. The only thing the party should hope for is that Donald will surprise every body again, just as he has throughout this whole campaign. In the beginning he was so incorrect in his statements all the pundits wrote him off. But, look what happened.
At this point Trump doesn't have the nomination wrapped. He's really the only one with a chance of doing so. Cruz may get close and challenge at the convention. Especially with the well funded and massive campaign being waged by the Republican establishment geared on stopping Trump from gaining the nomination on the first ballot. I think it would be best for the party if Trump did sew up the nomination before the convention. The last thing the party needs at this point is a floor fight over the nominee.
The question in November will be which candidate is the most disliked. Both have a large unfavorable rating.
We'll see how it plays out. For political junkies, this is a joyous time.
Friday, March 18, 2016
Monday, March 14, 2016
The new attack on free speech
Ever since the adoption of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the first amendment has been under attack. Especially the right of the citizen to gather in groups and to hear speakers expressing views contrary to those held by another faction.
Down through the years one group or another has been trying to shut down meetings and rallies, by disruptive tactics, to which it didn't want people exposed. In the 19th and through the late 20th century it was the political far right for the most part. The KKK, for a brief period the American Nazi party, the big manufacturers who attempted suppression of the labor movement, the enemies of civil rights and similar organizations that attempted to disrupt, intimidate and harass any speaker and their listeners who tried to hold a meeting, or a rally in support of reform. They tried to suppress any demonstration of citizens that were campaigning for equality of races and/or gender or better working conditions. They attempted and were frighteningly successful, at least for awhile. in disrupting rallies and demonstrations for a position on critical human rights issues that contradicted their preconceived notions, prejudices and greed. The crusaders persevered however, and with the backing of the government with legislation was able to gain many, if not most, of their objectives.
Now, however, a new dynamic has entered the political arena. It is the left wing, the so called liberals, that are the biggest impediment to free speech in America today. These are the same groups, that at one time, where the recipients of bully boy tactics attempting suppress their drive for a change of the status quo.
The evidence is everywhere. The disruption at a Donald Trump rally just the other day in Chicago is just one example, but there are many. They want to make sure the no one is exposed to political positions that they don't agree with. They did not choose a peaceful demonstration outside the hall where Trump was to speak, but rather, infiltrated the hall and disrupted the meeting, causing enough violence and threat of violence that the meeting had to be cancelled. Of course Donald Trump's problem is- He turns on his mouth before he engages his brain. So, he is far from being politically correct. But, he has the right to be so. Most speakers caught in the same position as Trump, with demonstrators trying to disrupt his or her meeting, might have thought the same things that he said out loud. But, most politicians know that those types of pronouncements are not politically correct and would have handled it differently. Of course in Trumps case, the motivation may be more than just disagreement for some of his "speech before thinking pronouncements" and may have the objective of keeping him from getting the nomination.
Conservative speakers who don't toe the liberal orthodoxy are shouted down and even banned from campuses. A former National Security Advisor and Secretary of State, Condolleezza Rice, was asked by a major university to withdraw from a commencement address because the left leaning students threatened to disrupt it and didn't want to hear what she might say. This was a woman who was instrumental in American foreign policy for almost eight years, who was also a recognized expert in that field before she ever became part of the administration. She was a person who had something to say and should have been allowed to say it. This is far from the only example. This is happening at the same time socialist professors and speakers, a completely failed system every place it's been tried, are welcomed with open arms. In many colleges and universities across this country, conservative talk is labeled as "Hate Speech" and is not to be allowed.
The university is supposed to be the citadel of discourse and ideas discussed freely. They should be the greatest defenders of the right of the students to express their thoughts and to have free and open discussions on all points of view. The student should be exposed to, and asked to dissect, the positions of the right and the left of the political spectrum. However, the left is not willing to engage the people that they disagree with in civil discourse, but rather use the tactics that were used by the fascists in Germany and Italy prior to WWII and despots around the globe. The left employs these tactics to make sure ideas that are counter to their positions would not be heard. That's probably because in a civilized debate their position would be shown to be full of fairy dust.
Some people in the organized, and it was clearly organized, disruption at the Trump political rally were carrying signs that equated Trump with Hitler. Of course that comparison is ludicrous, and is used extensively by left wing groups that don't like the political views of another. When you think about it, it is the crowd that is using the methods of fascists, not the scheduled speaker.
The liberal media immediately blamed the near riot on Trump. That the disruptive people were exercising their constitutional right in staging the interruption and breaking up the political rally. Frankly that argument holds no water at all. The group with different beliefs have a perfect right to hold rallies and demonstrations supporting their own views, with out disruption from any other group, but they don't have the right to infringe on another person, or groups, in an effort to prevent them from their right of free speech. Bernie Sanders has the right to spout socialism at organized rally's and should be able to do so without organized hostile crowds trying to prevent him from giving his point of view. As should Hillary. Martin Luther King had a right to organize and lead the famous marches for which he is famous without violence and threat of violence dogging his every move.
As a side thought, I wonder what the media would say if a right wing group attempted the disruption of a Sanders or Clinton political rally to the point it had to be cancelled. I'm sure that the group that staged the protest would have been labeled with unflattering names.
I believe it was Hamilton who said, "I might not agree with what you're saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Down through the years one group or another has been trying to shut down meetings and rallies, by disruptive tactics, to which it didn't want people exposed. In the 19th and through the late 20th century it was the political far right for the most part. The KKK, for a brief period the American Nazi party, the big manufacturers who attempted suppression of the labor movement, the enemies of civil rights and similar organizations that attempted to disrupt, intimidate and harass any speaker and their listeners who tried to hold a meeting, or a rally in support of reform. They tried to suppress any demonstration of citizens that were campaigning for equality of races and/or gender or better working conditions. They attempted and were frighteningly successful, at least for awhile. in disrupting rallies and demonstrations for a position on critical human rights issues that contradicted their preconceived notions, prejudices and greed. The crusaders persevered however, and with the backing of the government with legislation was able to gain many, if not most, of their objectives.
Now, however, a new dynamic has entered the political arena. It is the left wing, the so called liberals, that are the biggest impediment to free speech in America today. These are the same groups, that at one time, where the recipients of bully boy tactics attempting suppress their drive for a change of the status quo.
The evidence is everywhere. The disruption at a Donald Trump rally just the other day in Chicago is just one example, but there are many. They want to make sure the no one is exposed to political positions that they don't agree with. They did not choose a peaceful demonstration outside the hall where Trump was to speak, but rather, infiltrated the hall and disrupted the meeting, causing enough violence and threat of violence that the meeting had to be cancelled. Of course Donald Trump's problem is- He turns on his mouth before he engages his brain. So, he is far from being politically correct. But, he has the right to be so. Most speakers caught in the same position as Trump, with demonstrators trying to disrupt his or her meeting, might have thought the same things that he said out loud. But, most politicians know that those types of pronouncements are not politically correct and would have handled it differently. Of course in Trumps case, the motivation may be more than just disagreement for some of his "speech before thinking pronouncements" and may have the objective of keeping him from getting the nomination.
Conservative speakers who don't toe the liberal orthodoxy are shouted down and even banned from campuses. A former National Security Advisor and Secretary of State, Condolleezza Rice, was asked by a major university to withdraw from a commencement address because the left leaning students threatened to disrupt it and didn't want to hear what she might say. This was a woman who was instrumental in American foreign policy for almost eight years, who was also a recognized expert in that field before she ever became part of the administration. She was a person who had something to say and should have been allowed to say it. This is far from the only example. This is happening at the same time socialist professors and speakers, a completely failed system every place it's been tried, are welcomed with open arms. In many colleges and universities across this country, conservative talk is labeled as "Hate Speech" and is not to be allowed.
The university is supposed to be the citadel of discourse and ideas discussed freely. They should be the greatest defenders of the right of the students to express their thoughts and to have free and open discussions on all points of view. The student should be exposed to, and asked to dissect, the positions of the right and the left of the political spectrum. However, the left is not willing to engage the people that they disagree with in civil discourse, but rather use the tactics that were used by the fascists in Germany and Italy prior to WWII and despots around the globe. The left employs these tactics to make sure ideas that are counter to their positions would not be heard. That's probably because in a civilized debate their position would be shown to be full of fairy dust.
Some people in the organized, and it was clearly organized, disruption at the Trump political rally were carrying signs that equated Trump with Hitler. Of course that comparison is ludicrous, and is used extensively by left wing groups that don't like the political views of another. When you think about it, it is the crowd that is using the methods of fascists, not the scheduled speaker.
The liberal media immediately blamed the near riot on Trump. That the disruptive people were exercising their constitutional right in staging the interruption and breaking up the political rally. Frankly that argument holds no water at all. The group with different beliefs have a perfect right to hold rallies and demonstrations supporting their own views, with out disruption from any other group, but they don't have the right to infringe on another person, or groups, in an effort to prevent them from their right of free speech. Bernie Sanders has the right to spout socialism at organized rally's and should be able to do so without organized hostile crowds trying to prevent him from giving his point of view. As should Hillary. Martin Luther King had a right to organize and lead the famous marches for which he is famous without violence and threat of violence dogging his every move.
As a side thought, I wonder what the media would say if a right wing group attempted the disruption of a Sanders or Clinton political rally to the point it had to be cancelled. I'm sure that the group that staged the protest would have been labeled with unflattering names.
I believe it was Hamilton who said, "I might not agree with what you're saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Tuesday, March 1, 2016
The American Retreat
When you look at the history of American actions, or lack thereof, over the last few years, you can't come to any conclusion other than America is retreating from the world stage. We don't seem to have the will it takes to do the things that must be done to maintain our external and internal security.
Right after WWII we drew down our armed forces and put ourselves into a vulnerable position, thinking that our possession of the atomic bomb would deter any aggressor form threatening us. That turned out to be a short lived advantage as Russia was able to steal almost our atomic secrets and build their own bomb.
Then came Korea. A war we weren't expecting and not ready to fight. In that war , in the end, we had to settle for a stalemate because were unwilling to do the things that had to be done to achieve victory. That would have required that we stand up to the Chinese, something we were not willing to do.
Vietnam was next on the list. A war we should have and could have won, but were again unwilling to make the steps necessary to win. A war that dragged on and on to become America's longest war, being led by a bunch of people in Washington who had no idea what the hell they were doing. This was a war that could have been won decisively within a couple of years with a tenth of the body count that did occur, but our leaders were afraid and unwilling to commit the military to the task. The body bags piled up with the military hampered by decisions made in Washington that were driven by uncertain leaders. The era of instant communications had arrived and that allowed and encouraged the Washington brain trust, who had no military experience of any kind, to micromanage the war, as opposed to WWII where the goal was spelled out by the President but the execution was left to the professionals in the military.
The press, given free reign in Vietnam, as opposed the WWII, told a story that was one sided and definitely not favorable to the Americans fighting in that war. All the public ever saw was the sensational pictures that sold newspapers or ads on TV. It has been speculated, and probably true, that if the American press had been given the same freedom in WWII they were given in Vietnam, they would have withdrawn support for the war after the battle for Tarawa.
The American public was unwilling to back the effort necessary and the politician's reacted accordingly. We lost that one big time and left in full retreat and with our tail between our legs. The casualties and the waste of resources was all for nothing. Vietnam was one of the most shameful events in American history. We entered a war we were not committed to win, with no long term objectives fully in mind.
Then we had the Iran situation arise, where members of the American embassy were taken hostage after the invasion of American territory by the Iranians. By any definition that was a act of war against America. So, how did we react? We protested and wrung our hands. I can guess what would have happened if such an act had occurred under a number of other administrations. American armed forces would have been mobilized and Iran would have either had to release our people of face the consequences. At one time foreign governments did not mess with Americans-the consequences were too dire.
We did have a brief 12 year reprieve from a meek position under Reagan and George H. W. Bush.
Reagan stood up to aggression against our allies and the threat from the powerful Soviet Union. Reagan faced the Soviets and dared them to expand their empire. There is no doubt the Soviets yearned for the annexing of all of Europe into the Soviet Bloc. A strong U S military, rebuilt under Reagan, along with our allies, challenged that desire and finally contributed heavily to the fall of the Soviet Union and the liberation of a number of countries formally held hostage by the Soviets. At that time our allies viewed the United States as being trustworthy and would stand by them in case of trouble. That trust no longer exists.
George H. W. Bush put together a force and expelled the Iraqis from Kuwait after they invaded. But, he didn't pursue the defeated Iraqi army into Iraq and take on the problem of Nation Building, which would surely happen if he did. Again we stood up for our friends, this time in the middle east.
Why we invaded Iraq is still a mystery to me. George W. Bush was assured by the CIA and DIA that Sadam Hussein was building weapons of mass destruction, but then so was Iran and North Korea. I suppose the reasoning was two fold. He felt that his father had not finished the job when he chose not to pursue the Iraqi forces and perceived that Iraq would be a threat to the Middle East if he succeeded. I'm sure that he nor his closest advisors ever considered the fact that if we overthrew the Iraqi regime we would inherent the long term problem of nation building. The President and his advisors were badly mislead on the mood in Iraq and probable consequences of deposing Hussein and his army, which what was keeping the country pacified.
We were overjoyed when we invaded and defeated the Iraqi army so decisively but, we were not really prepared for the reality of what would happen afterward.
George W. did recognized, a little late perhaps, the reality of the Iraqi occupation and increased troop strength in what's been called the surge. That worked. But, Obama proceeded to dismantle the occupation forces and encouraged the spread of insurrection in the area. Most of problems in the middle east now can be traced back to America's actions. First we destabilized the situation in the area and then we pulled back, leaving a highly volatile mess behind.
Now the US is faced with problems on the world stage with a President that is unwilling, unable, or naïve enough to face up to our growing list of enemies and their aggressive actions.
In the South China Sea on a speck of land, disputed by several countries, far from the borders of China, the Chinese have placed surface to air missiles and fighter planes. The facilities now function as a forward base for the Chinese military in a challenge to the US naval dominance of the Pacific Rim. And what do we do? Nothing.
We have supported Syrian rebels in their fight to throw off the dictatorship Bashar-al-Assad regime. The rebels were making significant gains in their fight against the government and looked close to overthrowing the regime. But, the Russians have entered the fray with significant air power and have propped up dictatorship. This war has sent a flood of refugees fleeing the war and is swamping neighboring countries and Europe by their numbers. At the same time there is a large ISIL force in Syria trying to expand their caliphate. We have provided limited air support to the troops fighting ISIL on the ground, but have not challenged the Russians at all in their very active support of Bashar-al-Assad. All we have done is wring our hands and tried to negotiate something with the Russians.
The Russians invaded and annexed the Crimea, taking it from the Ukraine by force. We wrong our hands but did nothing. Not even providing the arms to the Ukraine so that they had a chance against the armored Russian invaders. That bit of history has been almost forgotten with the sweep of other events.
The Russians then effectively split the Ukraine into two separate provinces. The eastern part of Ukraine being completely under Russian control. And what do we do? Nothing. We refuse to even supply defensive weapons to aid them in defense of their country.
Iran has repeatedly violated UN banes with a shopping spree for military weapons, development of a nuclear bomb and development and testing of ballistic missiles. They have acquired the S-300 anti-aircraft batteries from Russia and is negotiating another 8 billion dollar arms deal with them. What did we do? We pulled back after an agreement that clearly has no teeth and released100 billion dollars to them.
The United States is retreat all over the world, while China is advancing their dominance over the Asian rim, Russia is exerting her influence and domination over eastern Europe and Iran. along with Russia, are already in a position to dominate the middle east.
We still have the most powerful military in the world. But, I guess their purpose is to march in parades and do flyovers at football games. We certainly are not using our military might as a factor in the events that are taking place. If your enemy knows you won't interfere in their actions, then there is not restraint on what they can do.
And what does our President concentrate on? Climate change, Cuba and Gitmo.
Right after WWII we drew down our armed forces and put ourselves into a vulnerable position, thinking that our possession of the atomic bomb would deter any aggressor form threatening us. That turned out to be a short lived advantage as Russia was able to steal almost our atomic secrets and build their own bomb.
Then came Korea. A war we weren't expecting and not ready to fight. In that war , in the end, we had to settle for a stalemate because were unwilling to do the things that had to be done to achieve victory. That would have required that we stand up to the Chinese, something we were not willing to do.
Vietnam was next on the list. A war we should have and could have won, but were again unwilling to make the steps necessary to win. A war that dragged on and on to become America's longest war, being led by a bunch of people in Washington who had no idea what the hell they were doing. This was a war that could have been won decisively within a couple of years with a tenth of the body count that did occur, but our leaders were afraid and unwilling to commit the military to the task. The body bags piled up with the military hampered by decisions made in Washington that were driven by uncertain leaders. The era of instant communications had arrived and that allowed and encouraged the Washington brain trust, who had no military experience of any kind, to micromanage the war, as opposed to WWII where the goal was spelled out by the President but the execution was left to the professionals in the military.
The press, given free reign in Vietnam, as opposed the WWII, told a story that was one sided and definitely not favorable to the Americans fighting in that war. All the public ever saw was the sensational pictures that sold newspapers or ads on TV. It has been speculated, and probably true, that if the American press had been given the same freedom in WWII they were given in Vietnam, they would have withdrawn support for the war after the battle for Tarawa.
The American public was unwilling to back the effort necessary and the politician's reacted accordingly. We lost that one big time and left in full retreat and with our tail between our legs. The casualties and the waste of resources was all for nothing. Vietnam was one of the most shameful events in American history. We entered a war we were not committed to win, with no long term objectives fully in mind.
Then we had the Iran situation arise, where members of the American embassy were taken hostage after the invasion of American territory by the Iranians. By any definition that was a act of war against America. So, how did we react? We protested and wrung our hands. I can guess what would have happened if such an act had occurred under a number of other administrations. American armed forces would have been mobilized and Iran would have either had to release our people of face the consequences. At one time foreign governments did not mess with Americans-the consequences were too dire.
We did have a brief 12 year reprieve from a meek position under Reagan and George H. W. Bush.
Reagan stood up to aggression against our allies and the threat from the powerful Soviet Union. Reagan faced the Soviets and dared them to expand their empire. There is no doubt the Soviets yearned for the annexing of all of Europe into the Soviet Bloc. A strong U S military, rebuilt under Reagan, along with our allies, challenged that desire and finally contributed heavily to the fall of the Soviet Union and the liberation of a number of countries formally held hostage by the Soviets. At that time our allies viewed the United States as being trustworthy and would stand by them in case of trouble. That trust no longer exists.
George H. W. Bush put together a force and expelled the Iraqis from Kuwait after they invaded. But, he didn't pursue the defeated Iraqi army into Iraq and take on the problem of Nation Building, which would surely happen if he did. Again we stood up for our friends, this time in the middle east.
Why we invaded Iraq is still a mystery to me. George W. Bush was assured by the CIA and DIA that Sadam Hussein was building weapons of mass destruction, but then so was Iran and North Korea. I suppose the reasoning was two fold. He felt that his father had not finished the job when he chose not to pursue the Iraqi forces and perceived that Iraq would be a threat to the Middle East if he succeeded. I'm sure that he nor his closest advisors ever considered the fact that if we overthrew the Iraqi regime we would inherent the long term problem of nation building. The President and his advisors were badly mislead on the mood in Iraq and probable consequences of deposing Hussein and his army, which what was keeping the country pacified.
We were overjoyed when we invaded and defeated the Iraqi army so decisively but, we were not really prepared for the reality of what would happen afterward.
George W. did recognized, a little late perhaps, the reality of the Iraqi occupation and increased troop strength in what's been called the surge. That worked. But, Obama proceeded to dismantle the occupation forces and encouraged the spread of insurrection in the area. Most of problems in the middle east now can be traced back to America's actions. First we destabilized the situation in the area and then we pulled back, leaving a highly volatile mess behind.
Now the US is faced with problems on the world stage with a President that is unwilling, unable, or naïve enough to face up to our growing list of enemies and their aggressive actions.
In the South China Sea on a speck of land, disputed by several countries, far from the borders of China, the Chinese have placed surface to air missiles and fighter planes. The facilities now function as a forward base for the Chinese military in a challenge to the US naval dominance of the Pacific Rim. And what do we do? Nothing.
We have supported Syrian rebels in their fight to throw off the dictatorship Bashar-al-Assad regime. The rebels were making significant gains in their fight against the government and looked close to overthrowing the regime. But, the Russians have entered the fray with significant air power and have propped up dictatorship. This war has sent a flood of refugees fleeing the war and is swamping neighboring countries and Europe by their numbers. At the same time there is a large ISIL force in Syria trying to expand their caliphate. We have provided limited air support to the troops fighting ISIL on the ground, but have not challenged the Russians at all in their very active support of Bashar-al-Assad. All we have done is wring our hands and tried to negotiate something with the Russians.
The Russians invaded and annexed the Crimea, taking it from the Ukraine by force. We wrong our hands but did nothing. Not even providing the arms to the Ukraine so that they had a chance against the armored Russian invaders. That bit of history has been almost forgotten with the sweep of other events.
The Russians then effectively split the Ukraine into two separate provinces. The eastern part of Ukraine being completely under Russian control. And what do we do? Nothing. We refuse to even supply defensive weapons to aid them in defense of their country.
Iran has repeatedly violated UN banes with a shopping spree for military weapons, development of a nuclear bomb and development and testing of ballistic missiles. They have acquired the S-300 anti-aircraft batteries from Russia and is negotiating another 8 billion dollar arms deal with them. What did we do? We pulled back after an agreement that clearly has no teeth and released100 billion dollars to them.
The United States is retreat all over the world, while China is advancing their dominance over the Asian rim, Russia is exerting her influence and domination over eastern Europe and Iran. along with Russia, are already in a position to dominate the middle east.
We still have the most powerful military in the world. But, I guess their purpose is to march in parades and do flyovers at football games. We certainly are not using our military might as a factor in the events that are taking place. If your enemy knows you won't interfere in their actions, then there is not restraint on what they can do.
And what does our President concentrate on? Climate change, Cuba and Gitmo.
Thursday, February 25, 2016
The New American Revolution
There is a revolution occurring in this country that is evident from the trends that we see in the current race for the White House. And, I don't mean Donald Trump. The revolution is taking place in the young, as evidenced by their support for Bernie Saunders. He is preaching what they want to hear.
I don't think he has much of a chance to unseat Hillary as the Democrats nominee for the Presidential race, but the trend is evident. The young want a security blanket wrapped around them and they're going to get it. Probably not this time, but just wait a few years.
The millenniums are growing older and they are starting to get involved in the political process. Where, before they didn't have a significant impact, their voice will be heard in the future. Some of the Socialist sentiment will wane with time, but not enough of it to sidetrack the basic thrust. They have been raised at home and educated in the liberal public schools and colleges to expect that some one should provide them with security and that the government should step in a solve all their problems.
One payer medical plans, heavily subsidized college admissions, high minimum wages, liberal work rules, such as extended maternity leave and other perks that this generation is demanding will happen. The trend is there now and I don't see any reversal coming. Think about what has happened since the great depression of the 30's. The nation has adopted more and more security blanket programs that resulted in greater and greater government involvement in the everyday lives of the people. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, the involvement of the federal government in education and a host of other "entitlements" and regulations dreamed up by a mostly Democratic congress and President.
They will attempt to pay for all of this by "taxing the rich" and try to even the playing field for American workers by enacting high tariffs on imports. The problem is, they don't review history to see what those kind of policies have produced in the past. They should read about the counterproductive steps that were taken during the great depression to get an idea of history should be teaching us.
The trend might be, and probably will be, interrupted temporarily by the election of a conservative. But, that will only be a hitch in the general trend.
It is true that the economic picture is dire, to say the least, for the young people entering the job market today, even those who graduated from college. The global market has resulted in huge loss of the middle class jobs that are the backbone of the thriving economy. We are living in dynamic economic times. The industries and job skills that were pertinent one day might very well be obsolete the next. So, instead of our public schools and colleges teaching the skills that are marketable in this global economy, they are spouting a philosophy that encourages the growth of government and the increased involvement in the lives and businesses of the citizens.
I think the future of the American economy will look more and more like what we see in Europe. There are a host of academics who see that as a good thing. And, they have influenced a whole generation of students to think along the same lines. The future will see that social programs will consume more of the federal budget than ever. It is projected that in 15 to 20 years the social programs and interest on the federal debt will take over 85% of the budget, leaving the balance for all other programs such as defense and infrastructure development and maintenance.
The millenniums and their children will have to face the rising debt that is accumulating. The federal debt now stands at 19 trillion dollars, that's TRILLION. But, as Dr. Ben Carson points out, if you take into account unfunded obligations of the government such as government pensions and retirees health benefits, the actual national debt is closer the 200 trillion dollars. I don't know how the millenniums can have all, or even some, of the things they're demonstrating for without throwing the country into bankruptcy. In fact, it seems to me, we've already reached, if not passed, a critical point and have to cut back somehow. And, I'm not sure there is a way out of this spiral of ever growing debt. I don't think the folks in Washington have the desire or even the ability to really tackle it.
I don't think he has much of a chance to unseat Hillary as the Democrats nominee for the Presidential race, but the trend is evident. The young want a security blanket wrapped around them and they're going to get it. Probably not this time, but just wait a few years.
The millenniums are growing older and they are starting to get involved in the political process. Where, before they didn't have a significant impact, their voice will be heard in the future. Some of the Socialist sentiment will wane with time, but not enough of it to sidetrack the basic thrust. They have been raised at home and educated in the liberal public schools and colleges to expect that some one should provide them with security and that the government should step in a solve all their problems.
One payer medical plans, heavily subsidized college admissions, high minimum wages, liberal work rules, such as extended maternity leave and other perks that this generation is demanding will happen. The trend is there now and I don't see any reversal coming. Think about what has happened since the great depression of the 30's. The nation has adopted more and more security blanket programs that resulted in greater and greater government involvement in the everyday lives of the people. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, the involvement of the federal government in education and a host of other "entitlements" and regulations dreamed up by a mostly Democratic congress and President.
They will attempt to pay for all of this by "taxing the rich" and try to even the playing field for American workers by enacting high tariffs on imports. The problem is, they don't review history to see what those kind of policies have produced in the past. They should read about the counterproductive steps that were taken during the great depression to get an idea of history should be teaching us.
The trend might be, and probably will be, interrupted temporarily by the election of a conservative. But, that will only be a hitch in the general trend.
It is true that the economic picture is dire, to say the least, for the young people entering the job market today, even those who graduated from college. The global market has resulted in huge loss of the middle class jobs that are the backbone of the thriving economy. We are living in dynamic economic times. The industries and job skills that were pertinent one day might very well be obsolete the next. So, instead of our public schools and colleges teaching the skills that are marketable in this global economy, they are spouting a philosophy that encourages the growth of government and the increased involvement in the lives and businesses of the citizens.
I think the future of the American economy will look more and more like what we see in Europe. There are a host of academics who see that as a good thing. And, they have influenced a whole generation of students to think along the same lines. The future will see that social programs will consume more of the federal budget than ever. It is projected that in 15 to 20 years the social programs and interest on the federal debt will take over 85% of the budget, leaving the balance for all other programs such as defense and infrastructure development and maintenance.
The millenniums and their children will have to face the rising debt that is accumulating. The federal debt now stands at 19 trillion dollars, that's TRILLION. But, as Dr. Ben Carson points out, if you take into account unfunded obligations of the government such as government pensions and retirees health benefits, the actual national debt is closer the 200 trillion dollars. I don't know how the millenniums can have all, or even some, of the things they're demonstrating for without throwing the country into bankruptcy. In fact, it seems to me, we've already reached, if not passed, a critical point and have to cut back somehow. And, I'm not sure there is a way out of this spiral of ever growing debt. I don't think the folks in Washington have the desire or even the ability to really tackle it.
Sunday, February 14, 2016
Flat Taxes and other Thoughts
Some thoughts on the flat tax:
It occurred to me, after reviewing some of the arguments for and against the true flat tax as espoused by most of the candidates that believe in it, is the idea that the gross income of individuals, as reported on W2 and/or 1099 forms, and corporations, as reported on their yearly financial reports, would pay a flat tax on income with no other deductions. One of the benefits of such a tax system would be the almost complete elimination of the IRS into the lives of individuals and simplify the preparation of taxes for everyone. Not much in the way of calculations are required for the IRS.
For the individual, because the are no deductions, taxes could be withheld from their pay, or other types of income reported on the 1099 forms and they would have no paperwork to file at all. Corporations could pay their taxes each quarter based on their quarterly financial statements as reported publicly for the SEC. Capitol gains would not be taxed nor need to be reported. Of course that will be a tax break for the upper 1% as they derive a great portion of their income from capital gains and dividends as shown in Figure 1. The chart doesn't differentiate between capital gains and dividends, but I would guess that most of the income is from dividends. Eliminating the capital Gains tax would have some impact on federal revenue, depending on the year. Capital Gains generate an average of 5.2 percent of the governments income, though that can swing wildly, as it has in the past, where it varied from 2 percent in 1957 to 12.8 percent in 1986.
Figure 1
The holes in such a system, of course, are a lot like the problems facing the tax man today. Quite a bit of earnings are "off the books" and not reported. That's especially true for one man businesses ran by an individual whose income is not reported on any form the government can get their hands on. Having no employees, or only day workers paid off in cash with no reporting, they will continue to fall through the cracks. I'm not sure what can be done about that with any system. A larger problem for the tax man has not changed. Privately held businesses, not matter how big, don't have to submit financial reports for the public and have no motivation to show good earnings. If fact, just the opposite - they have to pay taxes on the net income. They have every reason to hide income. The owners of such businesses routinely purchase items for their personal use and charge them to the business. Cars, major household appliances, vacations masking as business trips, etc. are some of the common dodges that are used to enrich the owner(s) and avoid paying personal income tax on profits. In some type of businesses the owner is paid in cash and does not report the income. Such practices allow them to take less in reported salaries, also avoiding the tax man. Any one who thinks the IRS is going away because of the flat tax is sadly mistaken.
For publicly held incorporated businesses, the SEC on one hand and the stock holders on the other, would not look kindly to corporations hiding their income. It's not to their advantage to report low earnings for a period of time.
To try to envision what that means in terms of what the true flat tax should be in this case is kind of iffy. I suppose the best measure of what the tax base for such a system would be is the Gross Domestic Income, which is in the neighborhood of 18 trillion dollars. I'm not sure, but it seems that GDI does not include income from capital gains. The Figure 2 shows how GDI and GDP are calculated. They end up being virtually the same.
Figure 2
I'm assuming that the flat tax applies only to corporate and personal incomes, with the other taxes remaining roughly the same.
The distribution of revenue to the federal government from all sources for 2014 is shown in Figure 3.
.
Figure 3
It is clear that the largest contributors to the federal coffers are the income tax and the payroll tax, which is mainly Medicare and Social Security, and is likely to remain about the same. Income taxes, corporate and individual, make up 57% percent of the total federal income in 2014
Considering that the budget is somewhere around 4 trillion dollars, a tax would have to produce about 2.8 trillion dollars in revenue. Payroll taxes, which include Medicaid and Social Security, have their own withholding rates separate from income tax rates. The flat tax rate then would have to be set at about 16%. That would constitute a decrease in taxes for all the large corporations and highly paid individuals. The maximum tax rate for corporations today is 35%.
So what is the tradeoffs of the flat tax?
On the plus side, the filing of income taxes for both individuals and corporations would become much simpler. Indeed, for the individual, they could be completed on a post card.
The much lower tax rate on dividends and highly paid individuals, the argument goes, would liberate funds for investing in new products and industries as well expansion of current businesses, thus creating many new jobs. Something we desperately need. However, just how valid is that argument. Just how much of the additional wealth will be plowed back into the economy in such a way as to create the kind of jobs we need. Will it induce them to buy more stuff, which creates demand for products? Considering that the tax break would only benefit the top 20% of taxpayers, in fact a little over 80% goes to the top 1%, that's not too likely. After all, they're already wealthy enough to afford pretty much everything they want. I suspect a lot of it will go back into stocks and bonds which have no effect on the desirable outcome. For instance, if stock in Apple is bought with that extra cash, the effect might be to drive up Apple's share price. That will not create a single job at Apple. The things that will create jobs at Apple are selling more IPads or other Apple products. Same can be said for any other manufacturing company. Only investment in start-up companies or expansion of present companies will have the desired effect. I suspect that the immediate effect of a lower tax rate on the wealthy would be for the Rich to get Richer---which doesn't mean that the poor get poorer. Of course, you have the counter argument that money is mobile. A lower tax rate among the wealthy will encourage the money to stay home and not flee to a foreign country. That is an important consideration. It would encourage investment in industrial expansion and new enterprises because the lower tax rate wouldn't punish success.
The lower tax rate on corporations would make the American made products more competitive in the global market. That would create jobs as companies ramped up production to meet larger world demand for American products.
The proponents also state that not taxing capitol gains would provide a stimulus for investing and the creation of jobs with the growth of industry. This also would also have the effect of making American industry more competitive on the global market. That's not clear.
Figure 4 depicts the change in the GDP as correlated to the maximum capital gains tax
Figure 4
There really doesn't seem to be a hard correlation of the growth in the GDP and the maximum capital gains tax. But, what the chart does indicate is that a high capital gains tax is not good for the economy as shown in the mid seventies and then again in the late 80's to mid 90's. It can be noted that through the 50's until 1970 a maximum rate of 25% was matched by a wildly fluctuating changes in the growth of the GDP, but on average remained roughly the same. The subsequent lowering of the capital gains taxes starting in 2000 did not result in any noticeable growth in the GDP, in fact it followed the tax rate down where it bottomed out during the recent recession at virtually zero growth.
Privately owned businesses would not get that benefit of a simpler tax return, as they still would have to file their returns pretty much the same as they do now. The only change is the tax rate would be that same for all levels of income.
However, there is a lot of reasons for incorporating a business, even if all the "stock" is held by one individual, family or investment firm. Have you noticed that your dentist is probably incorporated.
The biggest argument advanced against such a system is the fact that the lower and even middle classes will have to pay more taxes than they do now and the upper classes would pay less. In fact, the lower 50% of earners would now have to pay taxes, where before they paid none or very little. This also applies to smaller corporations that make less in profits than the big guys. Also, the congress would not be able to encourage individuals and corporations to invest in their pet projects, such an investment in solar energy, ethanol or climate change initiatives, by offering a tax break or tax incentives to participants. Not so sure that isn't a plus. Of course a mountain of tax breaks and incentives is one of the reasons there is such a large tax code. It's also why large corporations with million of dollars in net income have avoided, at times, paying any taxes at all. The hard part would be to keep congress from doing that anyway, flat tax or not. Congress seems to always find ways to fund their pet projects.
To even the playing field for the lower wage earners a modified flat tax has been forwarded where a small number of deductions are allowed for the individual. Perhaps mortgage interest rates, charity, and dependents. None for corporations. That would help the lower earning taxpayers but, result in some increase in the tax rate for higher income brackets. Not much, I would think. After all, the bottom 50% pay very little of the governments revenue anyway in our present system. This keeps the taxes on the lower earning individual at zero or near it but, keeps the corporate taxes, which now range from 15% to 35%, at around 16%. Good and bad for corporations, depending on their earning.
Another thought not directly related to the flat tax:
The Federal spending in 2014 is shown in Figure 5. If you refer to the distribution of tax revenue in Figure 3, to no ones surprise we spent more than we took in. And it's only got worse since.
Figure 5
What is striking is that the expenses that are nominally covered by the payroll taxes make up 48% of the total budget while the taxes to support these programs only make up a about than 34%. The rest is funded from the income and corporate taxes.
To give an idea of how the distribution of tax revenue has progressed over the last few years, the following is offered in Figure 6. It is disturbing to look at how payroll tax revenue have grown with respect to all other tax sources.
Figure 6
Income tax revenue has remained rather steady for the period shown, while corporate taxes have fallen and payroll taxes have continued to rise. Spending in 2014 devoured 48% of the total federal revenue and it's still climbing. The baby boomers are entering the door for receiving Social Security and Medicare benefits in great numbers. And, their life span is much longer than their predecessors. The Ponzi scheme called Social Security is in trouble. The pyramid that is basis for the Social Security program is becoming inverted.
If that isn't a clear message that congress had better attack the problem presented by the currently entitled social programs, I don't know what will.
It occurred to me, after reviewing some of the arguments for and against the true flat tax as espoused by most of the candidates that believe in it, is the idea that the gross income of individuals, as reported on W2 and/or 1099 forms, and corporations, as reported on their yearly financial reports, would pay a flat tax on income with no other deductions. One of the benefits of such a tax system would be the almost complete elimination of the IRS into the lives of individuals and simplify the preparation of taxes for everyone. Not much in the way of calculations are required for the IRS.
For the individual, because the are no deductions, taxes could be withheld from their pay, or other types of income reported on the 1099 forms and they would have no paperwork to file at all. Corporations could pay their taxes each quarter based on their quarterly financial statements as reported publicly for the SEC. Capitol gains would not be taxed nor need to be reported. Of course that will be a tax break for the upper 1% as they derive a great portion of their income from capital gains and dividends as shown in Figure 1. The chart doesn't differentiate between capital gains and dividends, but I would guess that most of the income is from dividends. Eliminating the capital Gains tax would have some impact on federal revenue, depending on the year. Capital Gains generate an average of 5.2 percent of the governments income, though that can swing wildly, as it has in the past, where it varied from 2 percent in 1957 to 12.8 percent in 1986.
The holes in such a system, of course, are a lot like the problems facing the tax man today. Quite a bit of earnings are "off the books" and not reported. That's especially true for one man businesses ran by an individual whose income is not reported on any form the government can get their hands on. Having no employees, or only day workers paid off in cash with no reporting, they will continue to fall through the cracks. I'm not sure what can be done about that with any system. A larger problem for the tax man has not changed. Privately held businesses, not matter how big, don't have to submit financial reports for the public and have no motivation to show good earnings. If fact, just the opposite - they have to pay taxes on the net income. They have every reason to hide income. The owners of such businesses routinely purchase items for their personal use and charge them to the business. Cars, major household appliances, vacations masking as business trips, etc. are some of the common dodges that are used to enrich the owner(s) and avoid paying personal income tax on profits. In some type of businesses the owner is paid in cash and does not report the income. Such practices allow them to take less in reported salaries, also avoiding the tax man. Any one who thinks the IRS is going away because of the flat tax is sadly mistaken.
For publicly held incorporated businesses, the SEC on one hand and the stock holders on the other, would not look kindly to corporations hiding their income. It's not to their advantage to report low earnings for a period of time.
To try to envision what that means in terms of what the true flat tax should be in this case is kind of iffy. I suppose the best measure of what the tax base for such a system would be is the Gross Domestic Income, which is in the neighborhood of 18 trillion dollars. I'm not sure, but it seems that GDI does not include income from capital gains. The Figure 2 shows how GDI and GDP are calculated. They end up being virtually the same.
I'm assuming that the flat tax applies only to corporate and personal incomes, with the other taxes remaining roughly the same.
The distribution of revenue to the federal government from all sources for 2014 is shown in Figure 3.
.
Figure 3
It is clear that the largest contributors to the federal coffers are the income tax and the payroll tax, which is mainly Medicare and Social Security, and is likely to remain about the same. Income taxes, corporate and individual, make up 57% percent of the total federal income in 2014
Considering that the budget is somewhere around 4 trillion dollars, a tax would have to produce about 2.8 trillion dollars in revenue. Payroll taxes, which include Medicaid and Social Security, have their own withholding rates separate from income tax rates. The flat tax rate then would have to be set at about 16%. That would constitute a decrease in taxes for all the large corporations and highly paid individuals. The maximum tax rate for corporations today is 35%.
So what is the tradeoffs of the flat tax?
On the plus side, the filing of income taxes for both individuals and corporations would become much simpler. Indeed, for the individual, they could be completed on a post card.
The much lower tax rate on dividends and highly paid individuals, the argument goes, would liberate funds for investing in new products and industries as well expansion of current businesses, thus creating many new jobs. Something we desperately need. However, just how valid is that argument. Just how much of the additional wealth will be plowed back into the economy in such a way as to create the kind of jobs we need. Will it induce them to buy more stuff, which creates demand for products? Considering that the tax break would only benefit the top 20% of taxpayers, in fact a little over 80% goes to the top 1%, that's not too likely. After all, they're already wealthy enough to afford pretty much everything they want. I suspect a lot of it will go back into stocks and bonds which have no effect on the desirable outcome. For instance, if stock in Apple is bought with that extra cash, the effect might be to drive up Apple's share price. That will not create a single job at Apple. The things that will create jobs at Apple are selling more IPads or other Apple products. Same can be said for any other manufacturing company. Only investment in start-up companies or expansion of present companies will have the desired effect. I suspect that the immediate effect of a lower tax rate on the wealthy would be for the Rich to get Richer---which doesn't mean that the poor get poorer. Of course, you have the counter argument that money is mobile. A lower tax rate among the wealthy will encourage the money to stay home and not flee to a foreign country. That is an important consideration. It would encourage investment in industrial expansion and new enterprises because the lower tax rate wouldn't punish success.
The lower tax rate on corporations would make the American made products more competitive in the global market. That would create jobs as companies ramped up production to meet larger world demand for American products.
The proponents also state that not taxing capitol gains would provide a stimulus for investing and the creation of jobs with the growth of industry. This also would also have the effect of making American industry more competitive on the global market. That's not clear.
Figure 4 depicts the change in the GDP as correlated to the maximum capital gains tax
Figure 4
There really doesn't seem to be a hard correlation of the growth in the GDP and the maximum capital gains tax. But, what the chart does indicate is that a high capital gains tax is not good for the economy as shown in the mid seventies and then again in the late 80's to mid 90's. It can be noted that through the 50's until 1970 a maximum rate of 25% was matched by a wildly fluctuating changes in the growth of the GDP, but on average remained roughly the same. The subsequent lowering of the capital gains taxes starting in 2000 did not result in any noticeable growth in the GDP, in fact it followed the tax rate down where it bottomed out during the recent recession at virtually zero growth.
Privately owned businesses would not get that benefit of a simpler tax return, as they still would have to file their returns pretty much the same as they do now. The only change is the tax rate would be that same for all levels of income.
However, there is a lot of reasons for incorporating a business, even if all the "stock" is held by one individual, family or investment firm. Have you noticed that your dentist is probably incorporated.
The biggest argument advanced against such a system is the fact that the lower and even middle classes will have to pay more taxes than they do now and the upper classes would pay less. In fact, the lower 50% of earners would now have to pay taxes, where before they paid none or very little. This also applies to smaller corporations that make less in profits than the big guys. Also, the congress would not be able to encourage individuals and corporations to invest in their pet projects, such an investment in solar energy, ethanol or climate change initiatives, by offering a tax break or tax incentives to participants. Not so sure that isn't a plus. Of course a mountain of tax breaks and incentives is one of the reasons there is such a large tax code. It's also why large corporations with million of dollars in net income have avoided, at times, paying any taxes at all. The hard part would be to keep congress from doing that anyway, flat tax or not. Congress seems to always find ways to fund their pet projects.
To even the playing field for the lower wage earners a modified flat tax has been forwarded where a small number of deductions are allowed for the individual. Perhaps mortgage interest rates, charity, and dependents. None for corporations. That would help the lower earning taxpayers but, result in some increase in the tax rate for higher income brackets. Not much, I would think. After all, the bottom 50% pay very little of the governments revenue anyway in our present system. This keeps the taxes on the lower earning individual at zero or near it but, keeps the corporate taxes, which now range from 15% to 35%, at around 16%. Good and bad for corporations, depending on their earning.
Another thought not directly related to the flat tax:
The Federal spending in 2014 is shown in Figure 5. If you refer to the distribution of tax revenue in Figure 3, to no ones surprise we spent more than we took in. And it's only got worse since.
Figure 5
What is striking is that the expenses that are nominally covered by the payroll taxes make up 48% of the total budget while the taxes to support these programs only make up a about than 34%. The rest is funded from the income and corporate taxes.
To give an idea of how the distribution of tax revenue has progressed over the last few years, the following is offered in Figure 6. It is disturbing to look at how payroll tax revenue have grown with respect to all other tax sources.
Income tax revenue has remained rather steady for the period shown, while corporate taxes have fallen and payroll taxes have continued to rise. Spending in 2014 devoured 48% of the total federal revenue and it's still climbing. The baby boomers are entering the door for receiving Social Security and Medicare benefits in great numbers. And, their life span is much longer than their predecessors. The Ponzi scheme called Social Security is in trouble. The pyramid that is basis for the Social Security program is becoming inverted.
If that isn't a clear message that congress had better attack the problem presented by the currently entitled social programs, I don't know what will.
Friday, February 12, 2016
The Democrats Debate in Wisconsin
I watched the Democrats debate in Wisconsin between Hillary and Bernie. I came to several conclusions.
The very fact of the debate shows that the DNC is now concerned with the Bernie Saunders rise in the poles and his crushing win in NH. Originally the Clinton forces wanted few debates. She had an overwhelming lead in the poles and there was no reason for her to confront her rivals for the nomination. Hillary is their choice and they will do everything they can to get her elected. Now we have four more debates scheduled.
It is clear that the Clinton machine was in full swing. The audience for the debate, which was held at the University, was heavily populated with Hillary supporters. Considering that the debate was held on a college campus, where Bernie has his greatest support, you would expect a different setting. But the Clinton organization marshaled their forces and the faithful were there in spades.
Hillary is a good debater. She has her facts and figures at her finger tips and can recall them at will. Her experience on that type of platform serves her well.
She clearly out shown Bernie on foreign affairs. She quoted all the agreements she negotiated for Obama and was well aware of the world situation, especially in the middle east. Her term as Secretary of State served her well in this arena.
Bernie seems to have the better of her on the domestic front, especially on those economic issues so close to the left wing of the party. Free health care, free college, forgiving student debt were all received well with the audience.
The moderators avoided asking the really tough questions that are at the heart of the opposition against Hillary. But, the format, because there were only two on the stage, allowed a much deeper and expansive description of the candidates position on their policies in response to the questions that were asked.
It is clear the Hillary has tied herself to the Obama legacy. She is proud of the nuclear agreement she negotiated with Iran, will defend the Affordable Care Act even against Bernie's universal , one payer system. She is in agreement with Obama's actions in the middle east and would likely do more of the same.
The very fact of the debate shows that the DNC is now concerned with the Bernie Saunders rise in the poles and his crushing win in NH. Originally the Clinton forces wanted few debates. She had an overwhelming lead in the poles and there was no reason for her to confront her rivals for the nomination. Hillary is their choice and they will do everything they can to get her elected. Now we have four more debates scheduled.
It is clear that the Clinton machine was in full swing. The audience for the debate, which was held at the University, was heavily populated with Hillary supporters. Considering that the debate was held on a college campus, where Bernie has his greatest support, you would expect a different setting. But the Clinton organization marshaled their forces and the faithful were there in spades.
Hillary is a good debater. She has her facts and figures at her finger tips and can recall them at will. Her experience on that type of platform serves her well.
She clearly out shown Bernie on foreign affairs. She quoted all the agreements she negotiated for Obama and was well aware of the world situation, especially in the middle east. Her term as Secretary of State served her well in this arena.
Bernie seems to have the better of her on the domestic front, especially on those economic issues so close to the left wing of the party. Free health care, free college, forgiving student debt were all received well with the audience.
The moderators avoided asking the really tough questions that are at the heart of the opposition against Hillary. But, the format, because there were only two on the stage, allowed a much deeper and expansive description of the candidates position on their policies in response to the questions that were asked.
It is clear the Hillary has tied herself to the Obama legacy. She is proud of the nuclear agreement she negotiated with Iran, will defend the Affordable Care Act even against Bernie's universal , one payer system. She is in agreement with Obama's actions in the middle east and would likely do more of the same.
Sunday, January 31, 2016
The GOP and the Trumpless debate
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.
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.
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)