Closing Gitmo, Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp

Close Gitmo to Save Money?  Really?

The View from the Middle

Over the weekend I heard the President make the case for closing GITMO (The Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp) with a financial argument, which should make us all chuckle or at least scratch our heads.  Frankly, it was a ridiculous scene because of who was making the rationalization and because of the actual merits (or lack there of) of the argument.  Let’s talk about the “who” first.

This President has spent more money than any other President in the history of the United States and will incur more debt than all previous Presidents combined by the time he leaves office.  Having Barack Obama lecture anyone on fiscal responsibility is like having Iran lecture us on women’s rights (like planned Parenthood instructing us on the protection of the unborn, like John Belushi educating us on moderation, like Wilt Chamberlin teaching us the benefits of monogamy, pick your own ridiculous analogy).  President Obama has no credibility in this area so having him deliver a message on financial responsibility is feeble if not laughable.

Now, before we get into the merits of the argument, let’s take a few seconds to review a few basic math facts.  First, everyone in America sort of understands how many a “million” is.  It is the measure that most people connect with being rich.  If a person is a millionaire, they are set for life.  I actually don’t think that’s true anymore (a million dollars isn’t what it used to be), but a million dollars sounds like a lot of money to most people.

The fact is, the government hiccups a million dollars about every eight seconds.  Politicians today don’t even blink an eye until you start talking billions of dollars.  So what is a billion?  A billion is a thousand million.  A thousand million!!!  And, you can barely get a politician to stay awake for spending A THOUSAND MILLION DOLLARS.  Our President asked for about a trillion dollars for his failed stimulus program.  So how much is a trillion?

A trillion dollars is a thousand billion dollars.  Or said another way, it’s a million million dollars.  If you took dollar bills and laid them end-to-end, a trillion dollars would stretch to the moon…and back…twenty times.  Now, that’s a lot of money, and our government spends about four trillion dollars a year.  Wow!

So how much do we spend on Gitmo?  If I round up, Gitmo costs us about $400 million dollars a year.  That’s a lot of money to you and me, but it’s a drop in the bucket to Washington.  Remember, I said that politicians in Washington wouldn’t even wake up for less than a billion dollars.  The fact is, $400 million represents about one hundredth of one percent of our federal budget.  Even if we were able to eliminate all of the expenses we now spend on Gitmo, which we couldn’t, it wouldn’t even put a scratch in our annual deficit.

If the President was really interested in bringing some fiscal sanity to the federal budget there are many more obvious and appropriate targets.  The Department of Education, for example, costs us about $70 Billion a year.  Since our children’s SAT and ACT scores have actually gone down since it’s creation in 1979, I think we can eliminate that department and send 90% of that money to the states for their use in education and still save enough money to run about 20 Gitmo’s every year.

Our Defense Department costs us about $500 Billion a year, and there’s no waste there, right?  A one percent cut in defense spending would save us five billion dollars or enough money to run about 12 Gitmo’s every year.  Plus, do we really need the Departments of Labor, Interior, Commerce, Transportation and HUD?  Could we disperse their responsibilities and eliminate a couple of these Departments and save the taxpayers 20 or 30 billion dollars a year?  Enough to run 50 or 60 Gitmo’s!

Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security combined are approaching two Trillion dollars a year in our federal budget.  Reforming these programs, like means testing Social Security, could deliver at least a one percent savings (I would argue more like 5%), but a one percent savings would save about $20 Billion, enough to run 50 Gitmo’s every year.

My point is, if we can find a more inexpensive way to deliver the benefits of Gitmo, I’m all for it, but cost savings should probably be a secondary argument at best.  We would want to insure that we keep these prisoners of war separated from our general prison population.  We should also be concerned about keeping our citizens safe and secure.

So, Mr. President, if you are looking for an opportunity for cost savings, you can hardly take a step in Washington without tripping over one more significant than closing Gitmo.  I’m all for spending less, but let’s start with some big-ticket items like the elimination or consolidation of some Cabinet Departments or reform of Welfare, Social Security and Medicare!!

Obama & the Iran Nuclear Deal

Obama’s Iran Deal, The Art of Misdirection

The View from the Middle

The debate is on concerning whether the Iran deal is good for us or just for Iran.  Is the breakout time for Iran to create a nuclear weapon long enough?  It is currently just three months, and now with this deal it is a year.  Doesn’t sound significant to me, but we can debate that.  Are the inspections tough enough?  The President originally talked about 24-7 access but the deal now allows up to 24 days between request and inspection, and Iran is on the panel that decides the timing.  While 24-7 and 24 days have the same numbers in them, there’s a huge difference to me, and not a good one. 

There are other issues like the development of ballistic missiles and the purchase of conventional weapons by Iran, but I’m going to resist the temptation to discuss them.  That is exactly what the Obama administration wants.  Most of Congress and the entire nation of Israel would say these concessions are insane and we got nothing for them.  But as the world discusses these issues, we all fall for the Obama misdirection, again.

Misdirection is a strategy this administration has employed often during its tenure.  With Obamacare, they had us debating provisions when we should have been asking why this law was even passed – without a single Republican Party vote in either house of congress.  On Benghazi, it was, “look at this terrible filmmaker” not our embassy security or the fact that Chris Stevens shouldn’t have even been there at all.  With ISIS it was, “what would Reagan have done once ISIS exploded into Iraq”, not why did we screw up the SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement) which allowed them access in the first place.

And now they’re at it again.  As we debate the number of centrifuges and enriched uranium we allow, we’re not talking about why we are negotiating with these guys at all!  There are two huge reasons why we shouldn’t be at the table with Iran.

The most important thing to consider before entering negotiations with anyone is: what is the likelihood that I can trust this person (or country) to honor their commitments?  The Quran actually encourages Muslims to lie to their enemies or infidels (we are both) in order to defeat them. 

The Iranian leaders can commit to virtually anything.  They have every intention of violating this compact at their convenience and feel fully justified in doing so.  What Iran wants is the $100 billion in frozen assets we have agreed to release and the suspension of trade sanctions which will further enrich them.  Once the assets are released and trade begins, it will be impossible to “snap (them) back”, and the Ayatollahs know it.

Side note – the actual negotiations were really amusing.  Once Iran figured out that Obama would do anything to get a deal for his legacy, they couldn’t help themselves from asking for outrageous concessions.  They have no intention of living up this agreement, but this deal will cause them to have to cheat less.

So, reason #1 on why we shouldn’t negotiate with Iran – WE CAN’T TRUST THEM!  Anyone remember North Korea?  Can you say Déjà vu?

The second reason we shouldn’t even be talking to these thugs is that the sanctions were working.  The world should shun and isolate countries that act like sociopaths, and the results will be negative in the short term, but positive in the long term.  In the short term, the people of that country will suffer, but it is this suffering that will inspire them to overthrow their government so that they can rejoin the world community and enjoy the benefits that come with that. 

Even Hillary Clinton agrees that the sanctions were working.  She said this is what brought Iran to the negotiating table.  To Hillary, I say – see reason #1.  If anything, we should strengthen the sanctions until we get a new government to negotiate with.  Iran needs the world more than the world needs Iran.  Wait until Iran has a leadership that doesn’t chant, “death to American and Death to Israel.”  So, reason #2 – IF SOMETHING IS WORKING, KEEP DOING IT.

Unfortunately, we are where we are.  Approval of the deal is racing through the UN before our Congress even gets to vote on it.  This pressures our Congress to do what looks good instead of what is right.  Iranians are dancing in the streets (still chanting death to us) and Israel is having a national migraine.  Who do you think got the best deal?

In closing, don’t fall for the misdirection.  Don’t debate the details of the deal.  Press for the big answer.  Why did we even go the negotiating table with a deceitful regime that was struggling to maintain power as a result of our sanctions and is the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism?  I predict that Iran will begin to violate this agreement before this President leaves office and this administration will call it “bumps in the road”.  I also predict a very bumpy road when Iran gets to full strength.  Bumpy for us, existential for Israel.

Donald Trump, a dilemma

The Trump Dilemma

The View from the Middle

The country is “abuzz” about Donald Trump these days.  He has come out of the proverbial “blue” and is actually leading all Republican primary candidates in the most recent USA Today poll.  The questions most Americans are asking are, “why has he surged?  Can he actually win?  And, what are the ramifications of his participation in this political process?”  Let’s talk about “why” first.

“The Donald”, as he was dubbed by his first wife Ivana, has great name recognition, which most politicians would kill for.  He is a flamboyant character, who has been in the headlines since the 1970’s when he joined and then led his father’s real estate company.  While his publicity has not always been positive (his corporations have declared bankruptcy four times), he always seems to emerge from each escapade as a hero and an example of the American dream.  He was ranked the 6^th most admired man in the world by Gallup in 2011 and is still in the top 20 today.  Now, that’s long-term name recognition.

Mr. Trump has also tapped into a conservative base with his views and current statements.  He is pro-life, as are many other Americans, and doesn’t apologize for standing up for the unborn.  His 1-5-10-15% federal income tax proposal is simple, less crippling and yet is progressive, and will appeal to many on both sides of the political spectrum.  He is for tougher trade negotiations with the likes of China, which could include some fairly high tariffs on their goods.  The unions should love that stance, but even I am in favor of getting tougher on China.

Now, let’s talk immigration.  While he may have spoken ineloquently, Mr. Trump has touched on some fundamental truths.  Certainly no one believes that every illegal alien is a murderer or rapist or felon of some other kind.  Most of the people who come across our southern border illegally are hard working, honest folks who are just looking for a better life for themselves and for their children than their home country can provide.

But we all must admit that some of these people were felons in Mexico or elsewhere already and others have committed terrible crimes here in the states since they slipped in.  No one wants these kinds of people here.  It is obvious, however, that our border is pitifully porous when a seven-time felon can enter to this country illegally six times before finally killing an absolutely innocent young women here.  And, it’s not as if she would have been killed anyway by some other criminal.  The fact is, if Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez had not been in San Francisco, Kate Steinle would still be alive today. 

So, The Donald has brought up the issue of border security, which is something we must do more than just discuss.  We must solve it.  Then we can move on to the question of a path to citizenship for those good people we wouldn’t mind keeping here. 

THIS is what Mr. Trump will be good for.  He could force substantive discussions on issues like immigration, tax reform, international trade and abortion.  These discussions will be good for the Republican Party and the country, especially if Washington develops solutions to these issues as a result.

But in my opinion, that is all The Donald is good for.  He is not electable.  He is not a politician as witnessed by the recent maelstrom caused by his misstatements on immigration.  Politics is about getting people with different points of view to work together.  If you are looking for an example of this political compromise, just look back to a convention held in Philadelphia in 1787.  That gathering delivered a masterpiece in world history known as the American Constitution.  Donald would not be able to just “fire” the other side, and that, unfortunately, is what he is used to doing. 

So while he is not electable, he can have a very positive impact on the debate in this election.  But, there is one thing he can do that would absolutely guarantee the results of the 2016 election.  He could run as an independent.

He would be crushed, of course, but virtually every vote that he gained would come straight from the Republican base.  He would become the 2016 version of Ross Perot, who ran as an independent in 1992 and took most of his votes from George H. W. Bush who lost that election to his Democrat foe.  And who was that Democrat candidate?  Bill Clinton!  To quote the famed philosopher / baseball player, Yogi Berra, “It would be like Deja vu all over again.”

Membership Drive

I've decided to start a membership drive for my blog site and decided to start with you, my most likely group to join.  My goal is to get to 100 followers and you can get me well on the way to that goal.  Now, you should know that if you "join" my site, there will be no meetings or membership dues.  You will just automatically get my posts which only run about one or two a month, and I'm going to make it easy for you to join.

Just click on the link below.  When you get to my blog site, go to the right hand side and you should see a light blue box with the words "Join this site".  Just click on that box, and you are in.  Thanks in advance for your support in getting me to 100 followers.  Here's the link:

http://kevincanfield.blogspot.com

Kevin Canfield

Hot Topics

All,
I'm trying something new.  I'm asking you what to write about.  What are you most concerned about?  What is really bugging you?  What would you like me to research and write about?  Let me know, and I'll let you know the results and I'll write the article.

Thanks in advance for your input,

Kevin Canfield

View from the Middle: The Real Obama Scorecard

View from the Middle: The Real Obama Scorecard: The fake Obama Scorecard went viral, let's make the real one go viral too.

The Real Obama Scorecard

The Real Obama Scorecard

The View from the Middle

Recently I saw a list of Barack Obama’s “accomplishments” on the Internet that reminded me that truth is not a requirement for publication there.  In an attempt to educate anyone who also read this list, I have repeated it below and then laid out the real facts so the readers can judge its validity and make an educated judgment on the President’s job performance.  Here is the list.  It is entitled “Obama’s Scorecard”:

         -Unemployment cut in half

         -Uninsured rate cut in half

         -Dow Jones nearly tripled

         -Deficits cut by two thirds

         -Historically low inflation

         -Automakers booming, and finally,

         -Clean energy doubled

Let’s first look at the claim that Barack Obama has cut unemployment in half.  We must first remember that he drove it up to over 10% in late 2009.  This was after he promised it would never get to 8% if we gave him a paltry $832 billion stimulus package to fling about the country like some sort of monetary sprinkling system.  Claiming that he cut unemployment in half is the equivalent of a retailer doubling its prices one day and having a half off sale the next.

Next, they claim that Obama is personally responsible for nearly tripling the Dow Jones Average.  In reality, Barack Obama has been the least business-friendly President in my lifetime.  His administration has increased regulations (the federal register is at an all time high of 80,000 pages), added the complexity of Obamacare to a struggling business environment and we still have the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world.  He hasn’t even tried to relieve taxes on money being repatriated to the US.  The stock market has rebounded because it was oversold and people had no other investment options.  Remember, interest rates are practically at zero.  Just because something happens while he was President, doesn’t mean he had anything to do with it.  The Dow rebounded in spite of the efforts of Barack Obama.

They also claim the Barack Obama cut the deficits by two thirds.  That is actually true, but it was from the artificially high deficit, which he created in his first year in office through his reckless spending and the failed stimulus.  In his first year, our deficit was $1.4 trillion.  That is three times the size of our worst deficit under George W. Bush.  In the next two years we added $1.3 trillion to our debt each year.  In his eight years in office he will have added eight trillion dollars to our national debt (do the math, that’s a TRILLION dollars a year), so to try to paint him as some sort of austerity President is ludicrous. 

He has governed during historically low inflation rates.  That is true, but that is also an area that Presidents have the least control.  Inflation often runs low during economic downturns (it was even negative during the great depression).  As wages have gone down under Obama, so has inflation, so maybe he should get some credit here after all. 

Next, clean energy has doubled during Obama’s reign.  My answer to that is “big deal, and at what cost?”  Wind and Solar combined only represent 2% of our national energy consumption, and the government has spent $150 billion over the last five years to get it there.  Without the subsidies and forced acquisition programs, none of the solar and wind power generated would be practical.  I’m all for developing wind and solar, but not at any cost.  There are other ways to get there, but lavishing money all over things like Solyndra isn’t the way.  Does the left ever look at the price tags?

The most flagrant lie in this list of half-truths is that the uninsured rate has been cut in half.  According to Gallup, who just started tracking this in 2008, 14.4% of Americans were uninsured just before Obama took office, and the latest number is 13.4% in mid 2014.  That is hardly cut in half.  Also, according to other national surveys done by sources like The Department of Health and Human Services, there were at least eight times since 1978 when our uninsured rate was lower.  In fact, in 1978 and 1980 that number was 12%.  The US uninsured rate did rise to 18% in 2013 under the Obama Administration in anticipation of the role out of Obamacare.  This rise was certainly driven by the millions of people who were forced off their plans because of Obamacare’s requirements.  Remember the lie of the year – “If you like your plan, you can keep it (caveat – if it still exists).  This is another example of the Obama Administration making the situation worse and then taking credit for bringing it back to normal.

And finally, this list claims that the auto industry is “booming”.  I guess that depends on how you define “booming”.  Industry experts will concede that revenues and profits have returned to pre-recession levels, but they will also admit that “considerable uncertainty about the future remains.”  Is that how you define “booming”?  The other question is, would we be in the same place if we had allowed market forces, like restructuring or bankruptcy, to run their courses. And lastly, who lost in the auto bailout?  First of all, you and I, the taxpayers, lost $9.26 billion according to the Treasury Department’s final tally.  And, if you asked the bondholders or the employees of Delphi (non-UAW workers) they would have suggested a different solution.  They lost big time!

The lesson we should all learn from this garbage list of fabrications, exaggerations and distortions is covered by two age-old adages – “don’t believe everything you read” and “Figures don’t lie, but liars figure”.  Actually, this list validates my understanding of The Obama Doctrine, which I published a couple of years ago.  To the best of my ability to cut through the political BS, this is what I perceive the Obama Doctrine to be:

1.    First, do nothing.

2.    Second, Stuff happens, because there are other forces at work in the world.

3.    Third, take credit for the good stuff and blame the bad stuff on someone else.

(preferably George Bush)

Finally, remember the rules of cause and effect.  Just because the rooster crows in the morning and then the sun rises, that doesn’t mean that the rooster “caused” the sun to rise.  Just because something happened in the last six years, doesn’t mean that Barack Obama “caused” it to happen.  Read through the crap to get to the truth, and this list is an example of that crap.