China Trade Deal Phase I, An Honest Review
The View from the Middle
Here’s a great Presidential Debate question – What country represents the greatest geopolitical threat to America? Remember, this question was asked of Mitt Romney in 2012 and he answered, Russia. You probably remember Barack Obama’s answer even better. He told Romney that “the 1980’s wanted their foreign policy back”. While this was a cute, clever taunt by then President Obama, recent history has proven Romney to be more on-target than our then Commander in Chief. Today, if that question was asked, I would hope that both candidates would agree that the answer is – China.
Newt Gingrich has recently written an excellent book called Trump vs. China. Don’t be fooled by the title. It probably should have been entitled The USA vs. China. It confirms that China’s long-term plan is to replace us as the single global power (the middle kingdom as they would call it) and to do so in a very short order (probably even in my lifetime and certainly in the lifetime of the millions of millennials and Generation X’s and Z’s). And the consequences of this authoritarian, communistic state surpassing us economically and militarily are chilling.
Newt helps his readers understand how we got to where we are today. You see, for many years, from at least Reagan through Clinton, it was our national policy to build China up economically and militarily to reduce Russia’s influence on them. During those years China played the poor, helpless, 3rd world country card and gladly lapped up our financial aid, intellectual capital and even our military assets and technology. Somewhere in the early 2000’s however, China began to hit their stride and employed a strategy of lying, cheating and stealing to reach their eventual goal, which is to see them return to their rightful position in the world – the middle kingdom.
Trump, to his credit, did at least recognize and begin to address one area of China’s plan, their economy. You see, China has been cheating everyone in the world for years in this area. They manipulate their currency to give their products an advantage in every marketplace. They have obstructed participation in the Chinese market by forcing companies to acquire Chinese partners in their ventures and requiring that those partners maintain a 51% control of those businesses. This, of course, accomplished another goal of the Chinese government, and that was the forced transfer of intellectual capital into Chinese hands. And where this technique to forcefully attain the secrets of each business’ success (their processes, their techniques and technology), their government has looked the other way as Chinese companies stole from their competitors and partners alike. All of this has contributed to the $621 billion annual deficit in goods and services experienced by the US with China as reported by The Department of Commerce in 2018.
The phase one deal with China does at least address these issues and that is why the markets have responded so well to it. First, China has promised to buy an additional $200 billion in goods and services from the US over the next two years. This will mostly come in the form of manufactured goods, agricultural products and energy. Second, China has agreed to allow investment firms, asset management companies and insurance firms to be wholly owned by foreign companies by April 1st, 2020. Additionally, China has agreed to expand their laws and increase penalties for IP (Intellectual Property) theft and to participate in conflict resolution to settle allegations levied by US companies. Finally, China has promised not to manipulate their currency to disadvantage the US and other countries and agreed to follow International Monetary Fund rules on macroeconomic policies.
This indeed was a good first step, but of course, the Chinese have made similar promises in the past. What gives us any hope that China will not ignore their own promises yet again? In other words, what is to keep China from lying and cheating again, just as they have in the past?
The answer is that Trump holds the sword of tariffs over China’s head thus positioning himself as the judge if China violates any of their vows. He just canceled an increase in tariffs from 25% to 30% on $250 billion in Chinese imports into the US market (their exports). He also reduced tariffs on $112 billion of their exports from 15% to 7.5% as part of this phase one deal. That’s a $20 billion hammer that Trump can slam down if China decides to renege on their promises.
This still does not guarantee that China won’t try to squirm out of their agreement just as they have in the past, but Trump’s ability to punish them quickly (a great negotiating technique) gives me hope. And don’t we all HOPE this actually works?
Thursday, January 23, 2020
Thursday, January 9, 2020
Promises Made, Promises Kept
Promises Made, Promises Kept
The View from the Middle
One of the big debates across the country today is about whether President Trump is a genius or a crazy man. Actually, I could defend either side of this argument as there is ample evidence either way. He is, on the genius side, a very successful business man who has amassed a multi-billion dollar fortune by anyone’s measure. He also orchestrated, arguably, the most amazing political upset in American history in his only run for political office. He spent half the money Hillary did and yet captured almost 80 more electoral college votes than she. And, in the short three year period since his election, his policies have delivered record unemployment, a thriving economy and relative peace in the world, especially as measured by US military casualties.
On the other hand, Trump can be erratic (some would say this is actually one of his strengths), he can be rude or crude (take your pick) and can even get in the way of his own successes. He certainly in not politically correct and has decided to do his own dirty work instead of farming it out like Bill Clinton famously did with James Carville and as Barack Obama did with an army of attack dogs. Some say this is crazy while his avid followers suggest it is part of his genius. I guess we’ll all find out in 2020 who’s theory is correct.
But there is one thing that sets this President apart from almost every politician and virtually every President in my lifetime. He actually keeps his promises. Remember what Donald Trump ran on. He said he was going to lower taxes, and he did for every American business and 80% of individuals. The only people who did not experience a tax break are those who live in high tax states who aren’t able to deduct those high state taxes from their gross incomes, the SALT (state and local taxes) provision.
Candidate Trump promised to reduce regulations, and he has done so. He had a stated goal of eliminating two regulations for every one that was added, and he has smashed that goal. In the first two years of his Presidency he has eliminated 124 regulations while adding only 17, a seven to one ratio. This deregulation has saved the country tens of billions of dollars no matter who’s estimate you accept.
He also ran on building a wall between the US and Mexico, and despite tantrum-style resistance from Democrats, he has managed to build over 100 miles of that wall since 2017. Much of that wall has replaced old, ineffective and dilapidated existing walls, but that was also part of the plan from the beginning. A wall by itself is not the answer to controlling illegal immigration, but I believe it is an important component. And finally he made a list of potential Supreme Court Justices he might appoint, and he has stuck to that list. You may disagree with some these policies or his Supreme Court picks, but any thinking person (this does not include the lame-stream media) would have to admit that Trump is delivering on his promises.
He has also kept his promises on the foreign policy front. First, he moved the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. This was promise made by at least two previous Presidents (Bush and Obama) and resulted in none of the violence promised by his opponents. Trump promised to get out of NAFTA and to strike a new deal with our two largest trading partners, Mexico and Canada, and he is well on his way in delivering the USMCA despite the childish foot-dragging by Nancy Pelosi. He has also crafted a new deal with Japan and will soon strike a new deal with Great Britain.
Trump has also made good on his threats (another version of promises) against our adversaries. He told President Assad of Syria that he would take action if Assad used chemical weapons on his own people, a violation of the Geneva Convention of 1929 and the CWC (Chemical Weapons Convention) of 1993. Unlike President Obama, who erased his red line when Assad employed chemical weapons in 2013, Trump sent 59 cruise missiles into Syria when Assad did the same thing in 2017. This apparently got Assad’s attention, since he has not repeated that mistake.
President Trump has also made promises to Iran. During the campaign, he promised to get out of the Iran Nuclear Deal, which he did almost immediately after he was elected, a move I totally support. He also made a promise to retaliate if Iran killed Americans. Then, on December 27th of 2019, an American contractor, Nawres Hamid, was killed in an attack by an Iranian backed militia in Iraq. President Trump did not go back on his word. A week later he had our military take out the conductor of Iran’s murdering, terrorist proxy forces, Qassim Soleimani. Promises made, Promises kept!
Right now, it appears that Iran has gotten the message and is standing down and I hope our actions will lead to a changed Iranian attitude. No more “death to America” and “death to Israel” as we give them $150 billion and another $1.7 billion in cash. I hope that Iran decides to join the family of nations and starts to make decisions that are in the best interest of their people, but only time will tell. I believe, however, that appeasement of evil did not work prior to World War II and appeasement of evil will not work today. Difficult decisions must be made and only a united America can make the world a safer place. I would not encourage any politician to take the side of a nation that is the world’s largest sponsor of terror or a monster like Soleimani over the United States.
The View from the Middle
One of the big debates across the country today is about whether President Trump is a genius or a crazy man. Actually, I could defend either side of this argument as there is ample evidence either way. He is, on the genius side, a very successful business man who has amassed a multi-billion dollar fortune by anyone’s measure. He also orchestrated, arguably, the most amazing political upset in American history in his only run for political office. He spent half the money Hillary did and yet captured almost 80 more electoral college votes than she. And, in the short three year period since his election, his policies have delivered record unemployment, a thriving economy and relative peace in the world, especially as measured by US military casualties.
On the other hand, Trump can be erratic (some would say this is actually one of his strengths), he can be rude or crude (take your pick) and can even get in the way of his own successes. He certainly in not politically correct and has decided to do his own dirty work instead of farming it out like Bill Clinton famously did with James Carville and as Barack Obama did with an army of attack dogs. Some say this is crazy while his avid followers suggest it is part of his genius. I guess we’ll all find out in 2020 who’s theory is correct.
But there is one thing that sets this President apart from almost every politician and virtually every President in my lifetime. He actually keeps his promises. Remember what Donald Trump ran on. He said he was going to lower taxes, and he did for every American business and 80% of individuals. The only people who did not experience a tax break are those who live in high tax states who aren’t able to deduct those high state taxes from their gross incomes, the SALT (state and local taxes) provision.
Candidate Trump promised to reduce regulations, and he has done so. He had a stated goal of eliminating two regulations for every one that was added, and he has smashed that goal. In the first two years of his Presidency he has eliminated 124 regulations while adding only 17, a seven to one ratio. This deregulation has saved the country tens of billions of dollars no matter who’s estimate you accept.
He also ran on building a wall between the US and Mexico, and despite tantrum-style resistance from Democrats, he has managed to build over 100 miles of that wall since 2017. Much of that wall has replaced old, ineffective and dilapidated existing walls, but that was also part of the plan from the beginning. A wall by itself is not the answer to controlling illegal immigration, but I believe it is an important component. And finally he made a list of potential Supreme Court Justices he might appoint, and he has stuck to that list. You may disagree with some these policies or his Supreme Court picks, but any thinking person (this does not include the lame-stream media) would have to admit that Trump is delivering on his promises.
He has also kept his promises on the foreign policy front. First, he moved the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. This was promise made by at least two previous Presidents (Bush and Obama) and resulted in none of the violence promised by his opponents. Trump promised to get out of NAFTA and to strike a new deal with our two largest trading partners, Mexico and Canada, and he is well on his way in delivering the USMCA despite the childish foot-dragging by Nancy Pelosi. He has also crafted a new deal with Japan and will soon strike a new deal with Great Britain.
Trump has also made good on his threats (another version of promises) against our adversaries. He told President Assad of Syria that he would take action if Assad used chemical weapons on his own people, a violation of the Geneva Convention of 1929 and the CWC (Chemical Weapons Convention) of 1993. Unlike President Obama, who erased his red line when Assad employed chemical weapons in 2013, Trump sent 59 cruise missiles into Syria when Assad did the same thing in 2017. This apparently got Assad’s attention, since he has not repeated that mistake.
President Trump has also made promises to Iran. During the campaign, he promised to get out of the Iran Nuclear Deal, which he did almost immediately after he was elected, a move I totally support. He also made a promise to retaliate if Iran killed Americans. Then, on December 27th of 2019, an American contractor, Nawres Hamid, was killed in an attack by an Iranian backed militia in Iraq. President Trump did not go back on his word. A week later he had our military take out the conductor of Iran’s murdering, terrorist proxy forces, Qassim Soleimani. Promises made, Promises kept!
Right now, it appears that Iran has gotten the message and is standing down and I hope our actions will lead to a changed Iranian attitude. No more “death to America” and “death to Israel” as we give them $150 billion and another $1.7 billion in cash. I hope that Iran decides to join the family of nations and starts to make decisions that are in the best interest of their people, but only time will tell. I believe, however, that appeasement of evil did not work prior to World War II and appeasement of evil will not work today. Difficult decisions must be made and only a united America can make the world a safer place. I would not encourage any politician to take the side of a nation that is the world’s largest sponsor of terror or a monster like Soleimani over the United States.
Thursday, December 19, 2019
17 Mistakes, Omissions & Deliberate Deceptions
17 Mistakes, Omissions & Deliberate Deceptions
The View from the Middle
I worked for Procter & Gamble for 37 years, a company that made “the one-page memo” famous. Richard Deupree, P&G CEO from 1930 to 1947, championed this idea to make communications thoughtful, concise, compelling and easy for the receiver of to understand. Our government’s philosophy on written communications seems to be the very antithesis of the one-page memo. Their reports are so long and tedious and cumbersome that they actually discourage “We the People” from even reading them.
The latest example is the Inspector General, Michael Horowitz’s, report on the FISA abuses by the FBI with respect to their investigation collusion with the Russians by the Trump campaign. This report is 434 pages long written in legalese, loaded with acronyms and with more footnotes than pages. I estimate that less than one percent of the American people with even read the Executive Summary, which is almost 20 pages long. Consequently, I felt a need to translate and simplify this governmental jibber-jabber for my readers and focus on the real essence of Mr. Horowitz’s report - the 17 inaccuracies, omissions and deliberate deceptions. Read my “one-page memo” on these 17 examples of gross incompetence and or absolute deceit below and make your own judgements.
1) The FBI omitted information obtained from another governmental agency that Carter Page was a cooperating “operational contact” working with our government and providing information on Russian intelligence officers.
2) They asserted that Christopher Steele’s prior reporting had been “corroborated and used in criminal proceedings” which overstated Steele’s past reporting. This violated the FBI’s “Woods Procedures” which requires facts in a FISA request to be “scrupulously accurate” and verified.
3) They omitted information relevant to the reliability of a key Steele sub-source, namely that Steele himself had called him a boaster and egoist who may engage embellishment and that the FBI had opened an investigation on this person before the FISA application had been filed.
4) The FBI lied when they asserted that Steele did not provide the press information for September 23rd Yahoo News article.
5) They omitted Papadopoulos’s statements in September of 2016 denying that anyone associated with the Trump campaign was collaborating with Russian or with any outside group like Wikileaks in the release of emails.
6) They omitted Carter Page’s statement in September of 2016 that he had “literally never met” or “said one word to” Paul Manafort, and that Paul Manafort had not responded to nay of Page’s emails.
7) They omitted statements from Page that were inconsistent with the FBI’s theory, including denying having ever met Igor Sechin or Igor Divyekin (two allies of Vladimir Putin) or even knowing who Divyekin was.
8) They omitted the fact that Steele’s primary sub-source had made statements in January of 2017 raising significant questions out the reliability of allegations included in the FISA applications.
9) THIS IS A BIG ONE – The OGC (Office of General Counsel) Attorney altered an email from another agency to state that Carter Page was “not a source” for the other agency, when the memo confirmed that he actually was!!
10) Omitted information from reliable sources that suggested Steele “demonstrates a lack of self-awareness (and) poor judgement”. Also, that Steele “pursued people with political risk but no intelligence value” and that Steele didn’t always exercise great judgement” and it was “not clear what he would have done to validate” his reporting.
11) Omitted information from Bruce Ohr about Steele’s reporting, including A) Steele’s reporting was going to the Clinton campaign B) Glen Simpson of GPS was paying Steele to discuss his reporting to the media, and C) Steele was “desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being the US President”.
12) They failed to update the description of Steele after information became known that provided greater clarity on the political origins of Steele’s reporting, including that Simpson was hired by someone associated with the Democratic Party and / or the DNC.
13) They failed to correct the assertion in the first FISA application that the FBI did “not” believe that Steele directly provide information to the reporter who wrote the September 23rd Yahoo News article.
14) They omitted the finding by the FBI that Steele’s past contributions had been found to be “minimally corroborated” and instead continued to assert that Steele’s reporting had been “corroborated and used in criminal proceedings”.
15) Omitted Papadopoulos’s statements in late October of 2016 denying that the Trump campaign was involved in the circumstances of the DNC email hack.
16) They omitted Joseph Misfud’s denial that he supplied Papadopoulos with the information he shared with the FFG (Friendly Foreign Government) suggesting the campaign received an offer of assistance from Russia).
17) They omitted information indicating that Page played no role in the Republican platform change on Russia’s annexation of Ukraine, which was inconsistent with a factual assertion relied upon to support probable cause in all four of the FISA applications.
Michael Horowitz suggested that he “found no documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivations influenced the FBI’s decisions”, which simply means that no one confessed to bias verbally or in writing. He also admitted that he, “did not receive satisfactory explanations for the errors or problems (h)e identified.”
Thankfully, this is America and we have the right and privilege to make a judgement and decide for ourselves what was driving this abundance of errors, omissions and deliberate falsification of evidence. Unfortunately, our only choices are gross negligence, incompetence or political bias. All would leave a horrible stain on the FBI for years to come, but there are two factors that keep bringing me back to the fact that bias was the motive. First, if the FBI was just incompetent, errors would have been made equally for and against the Trump campaign. The odds that all 17 errors, etc. would be made randomly in one direction (like 17 straight coin flips coming up heads) are one in 131,072 or .000763%. No thinking person needs documentary or testimonial evidence to conclude that these particular FISA applications reeked of political bias.
The View from the Middle
I worked for Procter & Gamble for 37 years, a company that made “the one-page memo” famous. Richard Deupree, P&G CEO from 1930 to 1947, championed this idea to make communications thoughtful, concise, compelling and easy for the receiver of to understand. Our government’s philosophy on written communications seems to be the very antithesis of the one-page memo. Their reports are so long and tedious and cumbersome that they actually discourage “We the People” from even reading them.
The latest example is the Inspector General, Michael Horowitz’s, report on the FISA abuses by the FBI with respect to their investigation collusion with the Russians by the Trump campaign. This report is 434 pages long written in legalese, loaded with acronyms and with more footnotes than pages. I estimate that less than one percent of the American people with even read the Executive Summary, which is almost 20 pages long. Consequently, I felt a need to translate and simplify this governmental jibber-jabber for my readers and focus on the real essence of Mr. Horowitz’s report - the 17 inaccuracies, omissions and deliberate deceptions. Read my “one-page memo” on these 17 examples of gross incompetence and or absolute deceit below and make your own judgements.
1) The FBI omitted information obtained from another governmental agency that Carter Page was a cooperating “operational contact” working with our government and providing information on Russian intelligence officers.
2) They asserted that Christopher Steele’s prior reporting had been “corroborated and used in criminal proceedings” which overstated Steele’s past reporting. This violated the FBI’s “Woods Procedures” which requires facts in a FISA request to be “scrupulously accurate” and verified.
3) They omitted information relevant to the reliability of a key Steele sub-source, namely that Steele himself had called him a boaster and egoist who may engage embellishment and that the FBI had opened an investigation on this person before the FISA application had been filed.
4) The FBI lied when they asserted that Steele did not provide the press information for September 23rd Yahoo News article.
5) They omitted Papadopoulos’s statements in September of 2016 denying that anyone associated with the Trump campaign was collaborating with Russian or with any outside group like Wikileaks in the release of emails.
6) They omitted Carter Page’s statement in September of 2016 that he had “literally never met” or “said one word to” Paul Manafort, and that Paul Manafort had not responded to nay of Page’s emails.
7) They omitted statements from Page that were inconsistent with the FBI’s theory, including denying having ever met Igor Sechin or Igor Divyekin (two allies of Vladimir Putin) or even knowing who Divyekin was.
8) They omitted the fact that Steele’s primary sub-source had made statements in January of 2017 raising significant questions out the reliability of allegations included in the FISA applications.
9) THIS IS A BIG ONE – The OGC (Office of General Counsel) Attorney altered an email from another agency to state that Carter Page was “not a source” for the other agency, when the memo confirmed that he actually was!!
10) Omitted information from reliable sources that suggested Steele “demonstrates a lack of self-awareness (and) poor judgement”. Also, that Steele “pursued people with political risk but no intelligence value” and that Steele didn’t always exercise great judgement” and it was “not clear what he would have done to validate” his reporting.
11) Omitted information from Bruce Ohr about Steele’s reporting, including A) Steele’s reporting was going to the Clinton campaign B) Glen Simpson of GPS was paying Steele to discuss his reporting to the media, and C) Steele was “desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being the US President”.
12) They failed to update the description of Steele after information became known that provided greater clarity on the political origins of Steele’s reporting, including that Simpson was hired by someone associated with the Democratic Party and / or the DNC.
13) They failed to correct the assertion in the first FISA application that the FBI did “not” believe that Steele directly provide information to the reporter who wrote the September 23rd Yahoo News article.
14) They omitted the finding by the FBI that Steele’s past contributions had been found to be “minimally corroborated” and instead continued to assert that Steele’s reporting had been “corroborated and used in criminal proceedings”.
15) Omitted Papadopoulos’s statements in late October of 2016 denying that the Trump campaign was involved in the circumstances of the DNC email hack.
16) They omitted Joseph Misfud’s denial that he supplied Papadopoulos with the information he shared with the FFG (Friendly Foreign Government) suggesting the campaign received an offer of assistance from Russia).
17) They omitted information indicating that Page played no role in the Republican platform change on Russia’s annexation of Ukraine, which was inconsistent with a factual assertion relied upon to support probable cause in all four of the FISA applications.
Michael Horowitz suggested that he “found no documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivations influenced the FBI’s decisions”, which simply means that no one confessed to bias verbally or in writing. He also admitted that he, “did not receive satisfactory explanations for the errors or problems (h)e identified.”
Thankfully, this is America and we have the right and privilege to make a judgement and decide for ourselves what was driving this abundance of errors, omissions and deliberate falsification of evidence. Unfortunately, our only choices are gross negligence, incompetence or political bias. All would leave a horrible stain on the FBI for years to come, but there are two factors that keep bringing me back to the fact that bias was the motive. First, if the FBI was just incompetent, errors would have been made equally for and against the Trump campaign. The odds that all 17 errors, etc. would be made randomly in one direction (like 17 straight coin flips coming up heads) are one in 131,072 or .000763%. No thinking person needs documentary or testimonial evidence to conclude that these particular FISA applications reeked of political bias.
Thursday, December 12, 2019
Intent is in the Eye of the Beholder
Intent, I Guess, is in the Eye of the Beholder
The View from the Middle
You may have noticed that every time the Democrats bring up the fact that President Trump asked President Zelensky of Ukraine to do him a favor and look into the Bidens, they also attach a motive to it. They say that he asked for this favor solely to disparage one of his political rivals in the upcoming 2020 elections. They never make the first claim without adding the suggested intent of the investigation that he was requesting. You see, they must convince you that the President did this purely for personal political gain. Have you asked yourself why that is?
First, they MUST make the request sound illegitimate, irresponsible and possibly illegal. So, they must suggest that they can read Donald Trump’s mind and are absolutely certain of what his motive was when he made this request of Zelensky. It seems that whenever the media or Democrats, but I repeat myself, read Trump’s mind, they find the worst of intentions. Yet, when they (Comey and the media) read Hillary Clinton’s mind, when she destroyed 30,000 emails under subpoena, they gave her the benefit of the doubt and claimed that she had “no intent” to violate the law. It’s amazing to me that when the media and Democrats resort to “mind reading” they consistently exonerate Democrats and condemn Republicans. Interesting, isn’t it.
So, Democrats MUST attach this slimier motive to Trump’s request just to make it SEEM inappropriate, but what if that was not the reason for Trump’s request. Certainly, the President of the United States has the right, even the duty, to investigate potential corruption in a country to which we are about to give millions, even billions, of dollars in aid. It’s not President Trump’s fault that Joe Biden and his son Hunter got involved with one of the most corrupt companies in one of the most corrupt countries in the world. So, if Trump’s motivation was to root out corruption in Ukraine, and Joe Biden was tangled up in that corruption, this request was not only not improper, it was noble!
Remember, even President Obama was concerned about Hunter Biden’s appointment to the board of Burisma, one of the most corrupt companies in Ukraine. Hunter had no experience in the energy industry and had no expertise in the Ukrainian language or culture. This “no show” job paying up to a million dollars a year smacked of impropriety at a minimum since Hunter’s father, Joe, was the point man for Ukraine for the Obama administration. Even now, David Axelrod, Obama’s campaign manager, recommends that Joe Biden should just, “admit that this was wrong” and try to move on. When you add the fact that Joe boasted that he coerced Ukraine to fire the prosecutor, who was investigating his son’s company, and he did so by threatening to withhold over a billion dollars of American aid, this investigation sounds not only more reasonable but essential.
But since we’re talking about intent or motives, let’s take a look on the other side of the political divide. What if the Democrats have been harassing this President and dividing this country for three years, just for personal, political gain. What evidence, you may ask, is there that this persecution has been deliberate and malicious? Remember how the Democrats reacted to the Trump election. They said they were going to “resist” and “obstruct” everything this President pursued. Within 20 minutes of his inauguration, they were calling for his impeachment. For what? From the beginning they were intent on impeaching him (ask Al Green and Maxine Waters) and their only goal was to find something, anything to accuse him of. Did they do this for personal political gain? Of course they did. So which act to you find more offensive? Asking Ukraine to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden to find out if there was any corruption at Burisma, or polarizing our entire country for your own political gain?
While I have you, let’s talk a little about the articles of impeachment just announce by Nancy Pelosi and Jerry Nadler. The first was “abuse of power”. I must admit that I agree that there has been an abuse of power in this impeachment process. I agree with Constitutional scholar, Johnathan Turley, that the Democrat majority in the House have abused their power by redefining “high crimes and misdemeanors” in a way that would have had every past President impeached. The Founders would truly be rolling over in their grave.
Second, Democrats have charged “obstruction of Congress”. Note that “quid pro quo” and “bribery”, the original accusations that started this entire inquiry, are not even mentioned as an article of impeachment. So, in effect, Nancy Pelosi and Jerry Nadler are saying that even though President Trump did not commit the crimes he was accused of, he did vigorously resist being hung (politically) for it.
Both of these charges are so nebulous and weak that it should make us all irate that the Democrat majority wasted our time and tried to turn Americans against each other for literally – nothing. These articles were so weak that Nancy Pelosi had to announce her support for USMCA (our trade deal with Mexico and Canada) within two hours of their announcement. This is legislation that she has been holding for almost a year, but she just happened to finally support it within two hours of their impeachment announcement. This distraction from their pathetic impeachment efforts would be laughable if it weren’t so obvious.
The View from the Middle
You may have noticed that every time the Democrats bring up the fact that President Trump asked President Zelensky of Ukraine to do him a favor and look into the Bidens, they also attach a motive to it. They say that he asked for this favor solely to disparage one of his political rivals in the upcoming 2020 elections. They never make the first claim without adding the suggested intent of the investigation that he was requesting. You see, they must convince you that the President did this purely for personal political gain. Have you asked yourself why that is?
First, they MUST make the request sound illegitimate, irresponsible and possibly illegal. So, they must suggest that they can read Donald Trump’s mind and are absolutely certain of what his motive was when he made this request of Zelensky. It seems that whenever the media or Democrats, but I repeat myself, read Trump’s mind, they find the worst of intentions. Yet, when they (Comey and the media) read Hillary Clinton’s mind, when she destroyed 30,000 emails under subpoena, they gave her the benefit of the doubt and claimed that she had “no intent” to violate the law. It’s amazing to me that when the media and Democrats resort to “mind reading” they consistently exonerate Democrats and condemn Republicans. Interesting, isn’t it.
So, Democrats MUST attach this slimier motive to Trump’s request just to make it SEEM inappropriate, but what if that was not the reason for Trump’s request. Certainly, the President of the United States has the right, even the duty, to investigate potential corruption in a country to which we are about to give millions, even billions, of dollars in aid. It’s not President Trump’s fault that Joe Biden and his son Hunter got involved with one of the most corrupt companies in one of the most corrupt countries in the world. So, if Trump’s motivation was to root out corruption in Ukraine, and Joe Biden was tangled up in that corruption, this request was not only not improper, it was noble!
Remember, even President Obama was concerned about Hunter Biden’s appointment to the board of Burisma, one of the most corrupt companies in Ukraine. Hunter had no experience in the energy industry and had no expertise in the Ukrainian language or culture. This “no show” job paying up to a million dollars a year smacked of impropriety at a minimum since Hunter’s father, Joe, was the point man for Ukraine for the Obama administration. Even now, David Axelrod, Obama’s campaign manager, recommends that Joe Biden should just, “admit that this was wrong” and try to move on. When you add the fact that Joe boasted that he coerced Ukraine to fire the prosecutor, who was investigating his son’s company, and he did so by threatening to withhold over a billion dollars of American aid, this investigation sounds not only more reasonable but essential.
But since we’re talking about intent or motives, let’s take a look on the other side of the political divide. What if the Democrats have been harassing this President and dividing this country for three years, just for personal, political gain. What evidence, you may ask, is there that this persecution has been deliberate and malicious? Remember how the Democrats reacted to the Trump election. They said they were going to “resist” and “obstruct” everything this President pursued. Within 20 minutes of his inauguration, they were calling for his impeachment. For what? From the beginning they were intent on impeaching him (ask Al Green and Maxine Waters) and their only goal was to find something, anything to accuse him of. Did they do this for personal political gain? Of course they did. So which act to you find more offensive? Asking Ukraine to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden to find out if there was any corruption at Burisma, or polarizing our entire country for your own political gain?
While I have you, let’s talk a little about the articles of impeachment just announce by Nancy Pelosi and Jerry Nadler. The first was “abuse of power”. I must admit that I agree that there has been an abuse of power in this impeachment process. I agree with Constitutional scholar, Johnathan Turley, that the Democrat majority in the House have abused their power by redefining “high crimes and misdemeanors” in a way that would have had every past President impeached. The Founders would truly be rolling over in their grave.
Second, Democrats have charged “obstruction of Congress”. Note that “quid pro quo” and “bribery”, the original accusations that started this entire inquiry, are not even mentioned as an article of impeachment. So, in effect, Nancy Pelosi and Jerry Nadler are saying that even though President Trump did not commit the crimes he was accused of, he did vigorously resist being hung (politically) for it.
Both of these charges are so nebulous and weak that it should make us all irate that the Democrat majority wasted our time and tried to turn Americans against each other for literally – nothing. These articles were so weak that Nancy Pelosi had to announce her support for USMCA (our trade deal with Mexico and Canada) within two hours of their announcement. This is legislation that she has been holding for almost a year, but she just happened to finally support it within two hours of their impeachment announcement. This distraction from their pathetic impeachment efforts would be laughable if it weren’t so obvious.
Wednesday, December 4, 2019
Political Intrigue Fatigue
Political Intrigue Fatigue
The View from the Middle
I think I can speak for the vast majority of Americans when I say that I am exhausted by the three-year impeachment investigation that has been sucking all of the oxygen out of Washington and the country. Sure, Adam Schiff will try to convince you that the impeachment inquiry just started a few weeks ago, but he is just part of the elaborate drama that has been playing in Washington since President Trump was elected.
In fact, the Washington Post called for the President’s impeachment only 19 minutes after his inauguration. Man, that must have been a terrible 19 minutes. What exactly had he done to deserve impeachment? And House Democratic Representatives Al Green, from Texas, and Maxine Waters, from California, picked up the mindless cult chant shortly after that.
Then there was the Mueller investigation that desperately looked for “collusion” with Russia by the Trump campaign for nearly two years and found that not only has Trump not colluded with Russia (which, by the way is not a crime) but that no American colluded with or coordinated with Russia to interfere with the 2016 elections. This, of course, is despite the fact that Adam “full of” Schiff promised that there was tons of evidence in plain sight. I guess you needed Adam Schiff’s double vision, double standard glasses to see it.
Just a side note here. Who was President of the United States during the 2016 elections, and didn’t he say publicly that there was nothing to the Russian meddling?
For the last three weeks we have been subjected to the Adam “full of” Schiff show, which has bored America from start to finish. The viewership for the first day of the Adam Schiff show was only 13 million people, which is about half the ratings of the Republican debates, starring Donald Trump, back in 2016. That audience declined every day until it finished with an audience just over 11 million.
Of course we are desperately awaiting (not really) the findings of this inquiry which will be released later today. We’re all on pins and needles. Dear me, what will they conclude? As if we don’t already know. Would it surprise anyone to find out that this final report was written before the inquiry even heard its first witness, just like Comey’s exoneration of Hillary Clinton back in 2015. Just humor me here. Is “Adam Schiff’s Intelligence Committee” an oxymoron?
All of this endless investigation has sucked the life out of the American people and apparently Congress too, which can’t seem to get anything done. While Nancy Pelosi claimed that she can “walk and chew gum”, nothing of any meaning is passing The House despite some tremendous bipartisan agreement. For example, the USMCA (our trade agreement with Canada and Mexico) will add billions to our economy and create nearly 200,000 jobs has tremendous support from both sides of the aisle. Nancy Pelosi, however, will not bring it to a vote because she doesn’t want President Trump to get a win, even if it means depriving the American people from its benefits.
Both parties also agree on the need for an infrastructure bill to help repair our country’s roads, bridges and airports, and as you might imagine, there is bipartisan support for a prescription drug bill to help our senior citizens. I believe that there is even room to come together on some immigration legislation. Trump has already shown interest in offering a path to citizenship for the DACA kids / Dreamers in exchange for some border security spending. There is much that can be accomplished if Congress decided to focus on “We The People” instead of searching for impeachment in all the wrong places. By the way, is “I just don’t like the guy” grounds for impeachment?
Worst of all for Democrats, they are losing the public relations fight. The percent of the country that supports impeachment and removal from office continues to decline, and that’s while they are in charge of this charade in the House. Wait until (if) the Senate takes control.
Finally, the Democrat debates are taking a hit. The first debate boasted 18.2 million viewers, about 25% less than a Republican debate including Trump. This viewership has dropped steadily until the last debate on MSNBC hit rock bottom with an audience of only 6.6 million viewers. This may be a blessing in disguise, however, since the policies that these candidates support (Medicare for all, guaranteed income, free college and free everything else) are delusional at best.
The fact is, the country is exhausted. We’ve turned off our television news coverage and tuned into Nick at Night. We want a distraction from all of this distraction. We just want Washington to get back to work for the American people. Is that too much to ask?
The View from the Middle
I think I can speak for the vast majority of Americans when I say that I am exhausted by the three-year impeachment investigation that has been sucking all of the oxygen out of Washington and the country. Sure, Adam Schiff will try to convince you that the impeachment inquiry just started a few weeks ago, but he is just part of the elaborate drama that has been playing in Washington since President Trump was elected.
In fact, the Washington Post called for the President’s impeachment only 19 minutes after his inauguration. Man, that must have been a terrible 19 minutes. What exactly had he done to deserve impeachment? And House Democratic Representatives Al Green, from Texas, and Maxine Waters, from California, picked up the mindless cult chant shortly after that.
Then there was the Mueller investigation that desperately looked for “collusion” with Russia by the Trump campaign for nearly two years and found that not only has Trump not colluded with Russia (which, by the way is not a crime) but that no American colluded with or coordinated with Russia to interfere with the 2016 elections. This, of course, is despite the fact that Adam “full of” Schiff promised that there was tons of evidence in plain sight. I guess you needed Adam Schiff’s double vision, double standard glasses to see it.
Just a side note here. Who was President of the United States during the 2016 elections, and didn’t he say publicly that there was nothing to the Russian meddling?
For the last three weeks we have been subjected to the Adam “full of” Schiff show, which has bored America from start to finish. The viewership for the first day of the Adam Schiff show was only 13 million people, which is about half the ratings of the Republican debates, starring Donald Trump, back in 2016. That audience declined every day until it finished with an audience just over 11 million.
Of course we are desperately awaiting (not really) the findings of this inquiry which will be released later today. We’re all on pins and needles. Dear me, what will they conclude? As if we don’t already know. Would it surprise anyone to find out that this final report was written before the inquiry even heard its first witness, just like Comey’s exoneration of Hillary Clinton back in 2015. Just humor me here. Is “Adam Schiff’s Intelligence Committee” an oxymoron?
All of this endless investigation has sucked the life out of the American people and apparently Congress too, which can’t seem to get anything done. While Nancy Pelosi claimed that she can “walk and chew gum”, nothing of any meaning is passing The House despite some tremendous bipartisan agreement. For example, the USMCA (our trade agreement with Canada and Mexico) will add billions to our economy and create nearly 200,000 jobs has tremendous support from both sides of the aisle. Nancy Pelosi, however, will not bring it to a vote because she doesn’t want President Trump to get a win, even if it means depriving the American people from its benefits.
Both parties also agree on the need for an infrastructure bill to help repair our country’s roads, bridges and airports, and as you might imagine, there is bipartisan support for a prescription drug bill to help our senior citizens. I believe that there is even room to come together on some immigration legislation. Trump has already shown interest in offering a path to citizenship for the DACA kids / Dreamers in exchange for some border security spending. There is much that can be accomplished if Congress decided to focus on “We The People” instead of searching for impeachment in all the wrong places. By the way, is “I just don’t like the guy” grounds for impeachment?
Worst of all for Democrats, they are losing the public relations fight. The percent of the country that supports impeachment and removal from office continues to decline, and that’s while they are in charge of this charade in the House. Wait until (if) the Senate takes control.
Finally, the Democrat debates are taking a hit. The first debate boasted 18.2 million viewers, about 25% less than a Republican debate including Trump. This viewership has dropped steadily until the last debate on MSNBC hit rock bottom with an audience of only 6.6 million viewers. This may be a blessing in disguise, however, since the policies that these candidates support (Medicare for all, guaranteed income, free college and free everything else) are delusional at best.
The fact is, the country is exhausted. We’ve turned off our television news coverage and tuned into Nick at Night. We want a distraction from all of this distraction. We just want Washington to get back to work for the American people. Is that too much to ask?
Wednesday, November 13, 2019
Socratic Wisdom
Whether you have been called a misogynist or a xenophobe or bigot or worse, or if your argument consists of these insults, this wisdom from Socrates is for you.
While it is impossible to prove whether Socrates made this specific statement or not, since he virtually never wrote things down, this is certainly consistent with his known sentiment. When you resort to name-calling, whether you are Hillary or Trump, you have lost the real intellectual debate and have shut down the discussion instead of enriching it. When you hear the vilification, share this logic from Socrates and maybe we can turn the debate to reason, facts and civility on a national scale.
While it is impossible to prove whether Socrates made this specific statement or not, since he virtually never wrote things down, this is certainly consistent with his known sentiment. When you resort to name-calling, whether you are Hillary or Trump, you have lost the real intellectual debate and have shut down the discussion instead of enriching it. When you hear the vilification, share this logic from Socrates and maybe we can turn the debate to reason, facts and civility on a national scale.
Tuesday, November 5, 2019
Debt and Deficits
Background:
The US running debt clock is just a few ticks below $23 trillion, which the entire group agreed was a concern. This total debt ranks the US number eight in the world in terms of debt to GDP ratio at 107%. This is a top ten club that we should not want to be a part of, and puts us in the same league as Japan (unique economic model) as well as Greece, Italy, Portugal and Venezuela.
One of our members pointed out that given today’s low interest rates, this level of debt is not a huge problem right now. The service on our debt is only about $400 billion and represents just under 10% of our budget. While $400 billion is a lot of money and could fund many needed governmental programs, it is the future that is of concern to the entire group.
While Republicans criticized the nearly $10 trillion in debt accumulated under the Obama administration, the out of control spending has continued under President Trump. Last year’s deficit, for example, was nearly $800 billion and next year’s projection is for another $900 billion deficit. If this out of control spending continues and interest rates ever return to historic levels like five or six percent, service on the debt could easily top a trillion dollars and become the largest single element of our country’s budget.
Finally, the group understands that balancing the budget will require some difficult decisions. The combination of mandatory spending, like Social Security and Medicare, plus spending on the military, which is actually a discretionary expense, and service on the debt, which cannot be ignored, represents 86% of our budget. On the revenue side, we understand that every dollar taken in by the government takes money out of the economy and that we can’t get it all just from the rich. Taxing the top 1% at 100%, which will never happen, will only bring $600 billion into the government coffers. Revenue should come from a more balanced approach and by growing the economy so that it delivers higher revenues even at current rates.
Spending and Revenue Solutions:
1. Social Security must be restructured or it will be insolvent by 2034. Addressing its shortcomings offer both spending and revenue opportunities.
a. We should increase the age of eligibility for SS from 62 to 65 or 66. When SS started, back in 1940, life expectancy in the US was 62, today life expectancy is 79. We believe this change should apply to those age 49 and lower, as these people still have a chance to change their plans for retirement.
b. The above change would also affect the contributor / beneficiary ratio which was 16.5 to one even back in 1950. Today that ratio is 2.8 to one and by 2030 it will be 2.4 to one unless these changes are made. This is just not manageable.
c. We would also suggest that we increase the current limit on SS taxed income, which is only $128,000 today. We would suggest that all income, including capital gains, should be subject to SS taxes up to a million dollars a year.
2. The group was also very interested in a balanced budget amendment for the federal government as most state governments currently have.
a. This amendment to the constitution would have to make allowances for emergency situations like wars or economic catastrophes.
b. This amendment could also be tied to a Debt to GDP ratio for the total debt. It could suggest, for example, that the budget should balance if the total debt is higher than 70 or 80% of GDP. Currently our debt represents 107% of GDP
3. We would recommend that Congress reshuffle the tax cuts they voted in last year. We believe that a 25% corporate tax rate would keep us more than competitive on a global basis and that we should use all the increased revenue to lower the individual tax rates. While this would be a wash in terms of projected revenue, we believe it would create a positive “demand side” boost to the economy, thus increasing job creation and tax revenue from new tax payers.
4. While we all have great respect for our military, we all agreed that there are probably ways to reduce this huge (over $700 billion a year) element of the budget. For example, we have bases in over 80 countries in the world that are in those countries at great expense. Do we really need all of these bases in a world where we have the fire power available on our aircraft carriers and submarines? We believe a 10% cut in military spending is possible without endangering our country’s safety. Our spending would still be almost three times that of China.
5. We would recommend a reduction in cabinet level departments. President Lincoln had seven cabinet positions, but today we have 15. With each department comes its own level of complexity and expense. I would suggest that we totally eliminate the Department of Education since the country’s SAT and ACT scores have actually fallen since it was created and we continually fall farther behind other countries in our math and science scores. Give some of the $70 billion we spend on this department to the states and put the rest towards reducing out debt. Commerce and Labor Departments could be combined as well as Agriculture and Interior. Efficiency should be the motto and savings should be used to reduce the deficit.
6. Our group also thought a move to put America first would help stimulate the economy and recognize some savings. We should certainly push to source products from companies from this country, but there was also a suggestion to penalize products made outside America and especially countries who do not have a reciprocal trading relationship with us, like China.
Benefits from these recommendations:
Our group was very focused on both the revenue and spending sides of this issue, but we also kept the economy in mind as we made these suggestions. While the suggestions for the Social Security Trust Fund are mostly designed to save that program for future generations, we thought that all the other suggestions would actually stimulate the economy through the supply or demand side. So, in addition to the actual savings attached to each idea above, we would expect revenues to go up through higher general employment and higher corporate and small business profits which would both result in higher absolute taxes paid.
Our group unanimously agreed with these solutions, which should signal the likely approval of the vast majority of Americans of both sides of the ideological spectrum. I believe that a plan that would incorporate these planks would not only work to resolve many of the problems we face today, but would also gain support of the vast majority of the American people.
The US running debt clock is just a few ticks below $23 trillion, which the entire group agreed was a concern. This total debt ranks the US number eight in the world in terms of debt to GDP ratio at 107%. This is a top ten club that we should not want to be a part of, and puts us in the same league as Japan (unique economic model) as well as Greece, Italy, Portugal and Venezuela.
One of our members pointed out that given today’s low interest rates, this level of debt is not a huge problem right now. The service on our debt is only about $400 billion and represents just under 10% of our budget. While $400 billion is a lot of money and could fund many needed governmental programs, it is the future that is of concern to the entire group.
While Republicans criticized the nearly $10 trillion in debt accumulated under the Obama administration, the out of control spending has continued under President Trump. Last year’s deficit, for example, was nearly $800 billion and next year’s projection is for another $900 billion deficit. If this out of control spending continues and interest rates ever return to historic levels like five or six percent, service on the debt could easily top a trillion dollars and become the largest single element of our country’s budget.
Finally, the group understands that balancing the budget will require some difficult decisions. The combination of mandatory spending, like Social Security and Medicare, plus spending on the military, which is actually a discretionary expense, and service on the debt, which cannot be ignored, represents 86% of our budget. On the revenue side, we understand that every dollar taken in by the government takes money out of the economy and that we can’t get it all just from the rich. Taxing the top 1% at 100%, which will never happen, will only bring $600 billion into the government coffers. Revenue should come from a more balanced approach and by growing the economy so that it delivers higher revenues even at current rates.
Spending and Revenue Solutions:
1. Social Security must be restructured or it will be insolvent by 2034. Addressing its shortcomings offer both spending and revenue opportunities.
a. We should increase the age of eligibility for SS from 62 to 65 or 66. When SS started, back in 1940, life expectancy in the US was 62, today life expectancy is 79. We believe this change should apply to those age 49 and lower, as these people still have a chance to change their plans for retirement.
b. The above change would also affect the contributor / beneficiary ratio which was 16.5 to one even back in 1950. Today that ratio is 2.8 to one and by 2030 it will be 2.4 to one unless these changes are made. This is just not manageable.
c. We would also suggest that we increase the current limit on SS taxed income, which is only $128,000 today. We would suggest that all income, including capital gains, should be subject to SS taxes up to a million dollars a year.
2. The group was also very interested in a balanced budget amendment for the federal government as most state governments currently have.
a. This amendment to the constitution would have to make allowances for emergency situations like wars or economic catastrophes.
b. This amendment could also be tied to a Debt to GDP ratio for the total debt. It could suggest, for example, that the budget should balance if the total debt is higher than 70 or 80% of GDP. Currently our debt represents 107% of GDP
3. We would recommend that Congress reshuffle the tax cuts they voted in last year. We believe that a 25% corporate tax rate would keep us more than competitive on a global basis and that we should use all the increased revenue to lower the individual tax rates. While this would be a wash in terms of projected revenue, we believe it would create a positive “demand side” boost to the economy, thus increasing job creation and tax revenue from new tax payers.
4. While we all have great respect for our military, we all agreed that there are probably ways to reduce this huge (over $700 billion a year) element of the budget. For example, we have bases in over 80 countries in the world that are in those countries at great expense. Do we really need all of these bases in a world where we have the fire power available on our aircraft carriers and submarines? We believe a 10% cut in military spending is possible without endangering our country’s safety. Our spending would still be almost three times that of China.
5. We would recommend a reduction in cabinet level departments. President Lincoln had seven cabinet positions, but today we have 15. With each department comes its own level of complexity and expense. I would suggest that we totally eliminate the Department of Education since the country’s SAT and ACT scores have actually fallen since it was created and we continually fall farther behind other countries in our math and science scores. Give some of the $70 billion we spend on this department to the states and put the rest towards reducing out debt. Commerce and Labor Departments could be combined as well as Agriculture and Interior. Efficiency should be the motto and savings should be used to reduce the deficit.
6. Our group also thought a move to put America first would help stimulate the economy and recognize some savings. We should certainly push to source products from companies from this country, but there was also a suggestion to penalize products made outside America and especially countries who do not have a reciprocal trading relationship with us, like China.
Benefits from these recommendations:
Our group was very focused on both the revenue and spending sides of this issue, but we also kept the economy in mind as we made these suggestions. While the suggestions for the Social Security Trust Fund are mostly designed to save that program for future generations, we thought that all the other suggestions would actually stimulate the economy through the supply or demand side. So, in addition to the actual savings attached to each idea above, we would expect revenues to go up through higher general employment and higher corporate and small business profits which would both result in higher absolute taxes paid.
Our group unanimously agreed with these solutions, which should signal the likely approval of the vast majority of Americans of both sides of the ideological spectrum. I believe that a plan that would incorporate these planks would not only work to resolve many of the problems we face today, but would also gain support of the vast majority of the American people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)