The Rebirth of the Blue Dog Democrat
The View from the Middle
As we look backwards at the results of special elections and look forward to the 2018 midterms, there is a storyline being pushed by Democrats and the mainstream media, but I will suggest to you that their narrative is off target. The bloodhound media has peppered its own trail to the real story and is just hoping that “we the people” won’t notice when the real story surfaces in November. The good news is that the real story, a shift to the center by both parties, will be good for the American people.
Let’s take a look at the first domino to fall – the election of Doug Jones in Alabama. The media would let you believe that Jones was an Elizabeth Warren supporting, Nancy Pelosi loving liberal Democrat. The real story was, first, Roy Moore was a poor, damaged, questionable candidate. Second, Doug Jones was a self-described gun owning, 2nds amendment supporter. He ran on lower taxes and a strong military and against undisciplined spending that leads to deficits. He sounded more like Trump than Hillary. After his victory, he proclaimed that he was NOT going to be a rubber stamp for the ultra-liberal platform in Washington. He’s not an idiot. He knew that he was going to have to run again in November and would probably not get another Roy Moore type candidate in this very conservative district.
Next, let’s look at Conor Lamb in Pennsylvania’s 18th District. He was a major in the Marine Corp and a formal federal prosecutor which would lead you to believe he is a real law and order guy. He also admitted that he would not pass the litmus test for the far left Democrats in DC. He ran as a pro-life, low tax candidate that supported Donald Trump’s tariffs on steel and aluminum. Again, he’s not stupid. He was running for Congress in steel rich Pennsylvania. Just to make sure that the people of Pennsylvania got the message, he insured them that he would not support Nancy Pelosi for the Speaker of the House if Democrats took over that House in the 2018 midterms.
Finally, let’s talk about Claire McCaskill who’s Senate seat in Missouri is up for grabs this fall. She recently denounced the statements Hillary Clinton made while on her recent trip to India. Hillary suggested the people in America, outside of California and New York, were backward, pessimistic and even feeble. PS to Hillary – You just insulted over 100 million people, including all of the people of Missouri. Later in this same speech Hillary also insulted half the women in the United States by suggesting that they have no minds of their own and just voted as their husbands directed. Claire not only condemned those statements, but admitted that she even understood why many people in her state voted for Trump. That’s not a bad thing to say in a state that Trump won by almost 20 percentage points.
THIS is the story that no one is reporting – the revival of the blue dog Democrat. But what is even more important is the move of the Trump administration to the center. Hopefully, he can drag the entire Republican to the middle with him.
From the beginning, Trump has supported the idea of a huge infrastructure package that most likely has more support from the left than from the right. Why this wasn’t the first legislative effort by his administration is still a mystery to me, but it should reminder all of us of Trump’s past connection to the Democrat party and his moderate potential.
Since he has been in office he has modified his position on both immigration and gun control. Who would have thought that just a year after taking office that Donald Trump would propose a path to citizenship for almost two million dreamers as part of his immigration plan. Not only does this plan triple the number of people covered by DACA, but it jumped right over legalization, a logical compromise position for the right, and offers an actual path to citizenship. My guess is that Democrats will not be able to ignore this offer much longer.
Finally, while Trump says he supports the 2nd Amendment, he has proposed a very moderate if not liberal plan on gun control. You could argue that his plan centers around hardening up soft targets like our schools, but it also proposes to increase in the age to buy a gun, expanded background checks, elimination of bump stocks and confiscation of guns prior to due process. I guess when the NRA and Democrat party are both criticizing a plan, it must be pretty close to perfect.
To me, all of these moves are positive. By November we will find out if my hypothesis is correct. If it is, we may see more compromise and progress in 2019 than ever thought possible. We can only hope that I am seeing something that everyone else is ignoring.
Wednesday, March 28, 2018
Wednesday, March 21, 2018
I Can Only Imagine
I Can Only Imagine
The View from the Middle
For those of you who have been following my blog, you would probably have to admit that I have become a cynic of Washington, politicians, our federal government and maybe even the world in general. I question whether we have been lured away from doing what is right by the pervasive and insidious temptation for self-absorption.
Just when I was bouncing on the bottom of the barrel of pessimism, I went to a movie that reminded me not only of the good in the world, but of the source of that goodness. If you have not seen “I Can Only Imagine” you must go and see this film immediately and take the people you care most about with you.
If the measure of a movie is its ability to arouse your emotions, this film may be the best movie ever made. J. Michael Finley, the actor who played Bart Millard, is amazingly versatile. His acting skills and powerful voice will surprise you, although they should not. He did play in Les Miserables on Broadway.
But make no mistake, the star of the movie is Dennis Quaid. Far from the tough guy, handsome lead parts he has played in the past, Dennis plays the completely hateable father of Bart Millard. He is detestable, pitiable and noble all in the same movie. If the Academy Awards actually rewarded great performances instead of condescending conformity, Dennis Quaid would walk away with the Best Actor award for 2018.
Please accept my counsel and go and see this film as soon as possible and tell everyone you care about to do the same.
After reading almost every one of my articles where I suggest that we need higher integrity in our politicians and media or smaller government in Washington, more personal responsibility and a higher level of civility in our discourse, my wife Brenda reminds me that there is really only one thing this world needs more of. This movie will remind you of what (who) that “one thing” is.
God bless, AND GO SEE THIS MOVIE.
The View from the Middle
For those of you who have been following my blog, you would probably have to admit that I have become a cynic of Washington, politicians, our federal government and maybe even the world in general. I question whether we have been lured away from doing what is right by the pervasive and insidious temptation for self-absorption.
Just when I was bouncing on the bottom of the barrel of pessimism, I went to a movie that reminded me not only of the good in the world, but of the source of that goodness. If you have not seen “I Can Only Imagine” you must go and see this film immediately and take the people you care most about with you.
If the measure of a movie is its ability to arouse your emotions, this film may be the best movie ever made. J. Michael Finley, the actor who played Bart Millard, is amazingly versatile. His acting skills and powerful voice will surprise you, although they should not. He did play in Les Miserables on Broadway.
But make no mistake, the star of the movie is Dennis Quaid. Far from the tough guy, handsome lead parts he has played in the past, Dennis plays the completely hateable father of Bart Millard. He is detestable, pitiable and noble all in the same movie. If the Academy Awards actually rewarded great performances instead of condescending conformity, Dennis Quaid would walk away with the Best Actor award for 2018.
Please accept my counsel and go and see this film as soon as possible and tell everyone you care about to do the same.
After reading almost every one of my articles where I suggest that we need higher integrity in our politicians and media or smaller government in Washington, more personal responsibility and a higher level of civility in our discourse, my wife Brenda reminds me that there is really only one thing this world needs more of. This movie will remind you of what (who) that “one thing” is.
God bless, AND GO SEE THIS MOVIE.
Wednesday, March 14, 2018
Trump's Terrible Tariffs
Trump's Terrible Tariffs
The View from the Middle
Before we even begin to discuss the potential impact of Trump's proposed tariffs on steel and aluminum, we need to understand the backdrop in front of which they must be judged. First, the media and opponents of Trump are going to be hyperbolic and reactionary. Remember Paul Krugman, the NY Times Nobel Prize winning economist? He predicted that the world would go into a global recession "with no end in sight" if Donald Trump became President. Not only was that forecast wildly extreme, it was dead wrong. Sweden may be calling to get his Nobel Prize back.
Nancy Pelosi said that the Trump tax cuts would be "Armageddon" for our economy and the US markets. Of course, just the opposite has happened. And we have all witnessed politicians in Washington predict that the "sky would fall" if our incredibly inefficient and corrupt government ever shut down. The Obama administration even tried to make the 2013 shutdown as painful as possible and we all know what happened. Nothing! The sky remained over our heads and the country's economy continued to plug along at its then mediocre at best pace. The point is, people will try to tell you that the world will end from a spiraling trade war that will ultimately drive us to a nuclear holocaust if we establish these new tariffs. Don't take the bait. The media and politicians have been wrong before, even when they predict cataclysmic results The only shocking thing is that no one holds them accountable for their "crazy as bat guano" prophesies.
The other thing to keep in mind is that Donald Trump is constantly negotiating. Remember the original corporate tax rate he suggested for his tax bill - 15%. Where did it end up? 21%. Look what he has offered in his immigration bill - a path to citizenship for 1.8 million dreamers. That is three times the relief that Obama offered with his DACA executive order. That's to get the other provisions he wants, like the wall. Unless you understand this about Trump you will constantly be missing the opportunity to negotiate back and get things done.
So, with this backdrop, let's do a realistic and sane analysis of what the Trump administration is proposing. Is he recommending the 25% tariff on steel and 10% tariff on aluminum for the jobs they will create? Not really. There are only 83,000 steel jobs in the US today, so even if we quadrupled that business, it would only deliver about 250,000 jobs. Now, those jobs would be good paying manufacturing jobs, but that is not a lot of jobs especially when it would take years to deliver them. I believe this is a national security concern for the administration.
In 1948 the US controlled 40% of the world wide steel production. Today, that share is down to just 5%. In 1972 we produce 32% of the global aluminum volume. Today, that number is down to just 4%. Is this an industry where we want to depend on countries like China, who currently controls about 50% of the world's steel, if something like war puts us in a desperate situation? I say no.
But we must consider the reaction of other countries to these tariff increases as we prepare to invoke them. Will this cause other countries to retaliate with import tax hikes of their own? I think that is unlikely. Currently, we not only have the world's largest economy, but we also have the largest trade deficit of any country at 800 billion dollars. Our exports to China represent about one half of one percent of our economy, while their exports to us represent over four percent of theirs. Virtually every developed country has much more to lose through retaliation than they have to gain.
Plus, our average tariff on goods imported into the US is about half the global average, which says we have plenty of room for increases to even catch up to the rest of the world's average. If we actually applied the concept of reciprocity to the taxation of US imports, we could double our taxes before we even rise to level of average! The likelihood of retaliation is small.
Finally, I believe the Trump is using this increase in tariffs as a negotiation tool, especially with Canada and Mexico. He has already suggested that we will exempt both of these friendly countries from these tariffs if they "treat us fairly" in the new NAFTA agreement, which they are currently in the final stages of developing.
Now, will the cost of goods go up as a result of these tariffs? Of course! Any tax will cause the American shopper to pay more for what they buy. But somehow we don't seem to care, or at least notice, when our federal government is the culprit like when we tax gasoline, cigarettes or large cokes. Even an increase in our federal income taxes will raise the cost of everything we buy (in effect) because it allows us to keep less of what we make. Even if prices don't change, everything is relatively more expensive because we have fewer dollars available to purchase things. We all need to be skeptical when our government taxes us as well as when it chooses to tax foreign governments.
The good news is that these new tariffs might raise the cost of a can of beer by about a penny and the cost of a car by only about $175. Is that too much to pay to insure a safer United States of America?
The View from the Middle
Before we even begin to discuss the potential impact of Trump's proposed tariffs on steel and aluminum, we need to understand the backdrop in front of which they must be judged. First, the media and opponents of Trump are going to be hyperbolic and reactionary. Remember Paul Krugman, the NY Times Nobel Prize winning economist? He predicted that the world would go into a global recession "with no end in sight" if Donald Trump became President. Not only was that forecast wildly extreme, it was dead wrong. Sweden may be calling to get his Nobel Prize back.
Nancy Pelosi said that the Trump tax cuts would be "Armageddon" for our economy and the US markets. Of course, just the opposite has happened. And we have all witnessed politicians in Washington predict that the "sky would fall" if our incredibly inefficient and corrupt government ever shut down. The Obama administration even tried to make the 2013 shutdown as painful as possible and we all know what happened. Nothing! The sky remained over our heads and the country's economy continued to plug along at its then mediocre at best pace. The point is, people will try to tell you that the world will end from a spiraling trade war that will ultimately drive us to a nuclear holocaust if we establish these new tariffs. Don't take the bait. The media and politicians have been wrong before, even when they predict cataclysmic results The only shocking thing is that no one holds them accountable for their "crazy as bat guano" prophesies.
The other thing to keep in mind is that Donald Trump is constantly negotiating. Remember the original corporate tax rate he suggested for his tax bill - 15%. Where did it end up? 21%. Look what he has offered in his immigration bill - a path to citizenship for 1.8 million dreamers. That is three times the relief that Obama offered with his DACA executive order. That's to get the other provisions he wants, like the wall. Unless you understand this about Trump you will constantly be missing the opportunity to negotiate back and get things done.
So, with this backdrop, let's do a realistic and sane analysis of what the Trump administration is proposing. Is he recommending the 25% tariff on steel and 10% tariff on aluminum for the jobs they will create? Not really. There are only 83,000 steel jobs in the US today, so even if we quadrupled that business, it would only deliver about 250,000 jobs. Now, those jobs would be good paying manufacturing jobs, but that is not a lot of jobs especially when it would take years to deliver them. I believe this is a national security concern for the administration.
In 1948 the US controlled 40% of the world wide steel production. Today, that share is down to just 5%. In 1972 we produce 32% of the global aluminum volume. Today, that number is down to just 4%. Is this an industry where we want to depend on countries like China, who currently controls about 50% of the world's steel, if something like war puts us in a desperate situation? I say no.
But we must consider the reaction of other countries to these tariff increases as we prepare to invoke them. Will this cause other countries to retaliate with import tax hikes of their own? I think that is unlikely. Currently, we not only have the world's largest economy, but we also have the largest trade deficit of any country at 800 billion dollars. Our exports to China represent about one half of one percent of our economy, while their exports to us represent over four percent of theirs. Virtually every developed country has much more to lose through retaliation than they have to gain.
Plus, our average tariff on goods imported into the US is about half the global average, which says we have plenty of room for increases to even catch up to the rest of the world's average. If we actually applied the concept of reciprocity to the taxation of US imports, we could double our taxes before we even rise to level of average! The likelihood of retaliation is small.
Finally, I believe the Trump is using this increase in tariffs as a negotiation tool, especially with Canada and Mexico. He has already suggested that we will exempt both of these friendly countries from these tariffs if they "treat us fairly" in the new NAFTA agreement, which they are currently in the final stages of developing.
Now, will the cost of goods go up as a result of these tariffs? Of course! Any tax will cause the American shopper to pay more for what they buy. But somehow we don't seem to care, or at least notice, when our federal government is the culprit like when we tax gasoline, cigarettes or large cokes. Even an increase in our federal income taxes will raise the cost of everything we buy (in effect) because it allows us to keep less of what we make. Even if prices don't change, everything is relatively more expensive because we have fewer dollars available to purchase things. We all need to be skeptical when our government taxes us as well as when it chooses to tax foreign governments.
The good news is that these new tariffs might raise the cost of a can of beer by about a penny and the cost of a car by only about $175. Is that too much to pay to insure a safer United States of America?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)