Privatizing Social Security - Insanity or Genius?
The View from the Middle
In case there is any confusion about how I feel about our federal government, let me make my position perfectly clear. I believe it is a “waste, fraud and abuse” machine. During her presidential campaign, Carly Fiorina suggested that our government is too big, too costly, too complicated, too corrupt and too inept and that it is crushing the dreams and aspirations of our people. I’m a Carly Fiorina fan.
In the governmental world of $100 hammers, shrimps on treadmills and bridges to nowhere, what makes you think that it would be any more effective at managing your retirement funds? Social Security may have begun with good intentions, but as with anything connected to big government it has been perverted and mismanaged through the years. In the beginning, for example, SS funds were to be put in a “lockbox” and to be protected from the greedy hands of politicians in Washington. But in true government fashion, these funds have been spent leaving nothing but US treasury IOU’s behind.
Today, our government is spending those funds faster than they are coming in and has to admit that the SS trust fund will be insolvent by 2035. At that point, I predict that our federal government will simply raise taxes to cover the difference, not because it is right, but simply because they can.
If we really want the concept of “Social Security” to be recognized, why don’t we take these funds out of the greedy, unscrupulous hands of our government officials and put them in the hands of financially astute managers who can invest that money for the participants? Let me help you with that decision by making a comparison that our government is counting on no one making.
Let’s look at a Jane or John Doe who began working in 1970 at the age of 21, and retired at 66 in 2015 making America's median income every year. The Social Security trust fund will guarantee (not really – remember that this fund will be insolvent in 2035) a monthly income of $1,874. This is certainly not enough to live on unless you plan to live in a tent and eat PB&J sandwiches for the rest of you life. It is intended, however to supplement any personal savings or retirement programs you may have or be eligible for.
There are a number of flaws in this system. First of all, if Jane or John dies a month after their 66th birthday, he or she will have contributed to the trust fund for 44 years and received a whopping $1,874 in return. That kind of sucks! Even if they lived to age 79 (current life expectancy in US) SS would deliver only $292,279 in their lifetime.
Now, if they had made the same payments/investments (personal plus matching employer contributions) into an S&P 500 index fund, Jane or John would have retired with $935,978 given the 8.1% average return of the S&P 500 over their working lives. The benefits to this approach are abundant.
First, if you died the next month, your beneficiaries would inherit almost a million dollars vs. a big goose egg from the current SS plan. Next, that money could generate a monthly income for you. Let’s say that your investments continue to produce the same 8.1% return that it did for Jane and John’s lifetime, this would produce a monthly income of $6,318 or more than three times your Social Security payment PLUS you still have your $935,978!!! These are not projections. This is reality, and given this reality, who would choose less than a third of the monthly income and no nest egg vs. the simple privatized plan described above.
Let’s be honest, the government has totally perverted the idea of Social Security. First, by spending your hard earned money to buy votes instead of putting into the “lockbox” they promised to get the SS bill passed. Then Washington dramatically underperformed the private market and in effect stole hundreds of thousands of dollars from every American that has retired under their plan. If Washington were a person, it would be in jail fighting with Bernie Madoff for the title of “scammer of the century”.
If politicians really cared about the American people they would develop a program that could deliver the results I described above. They could provide the disciplined investing by taking the money out of all our paychecks every month as they already do (this may be the only thing the government is good at). They could also offer a few investment plans (high, low and medium risk) that we the citizens could choose from. Believe me, the financial industry would fiercely compete for the opportunity to manage these funds. Even a tiny fee of .25% (that’s a quarter of 1%) would yield them billions in profits every year.
I’m with Carly. Why would we trust a government that has proven itself to be both corrupt and inept (a deadly combination) when we could invest in America and create a retirement income with real buying power? If we can’t even call Washington on this con, there may be no hope for us until they take all of our dollars and they give us back 30 cents worth of services in return while THEY live in mansions, feast on $300 burgers (yes they do exist) and guzzle $1,000 bottles of wine. Have you seen The Hunger Games?
Monday, July 24, 2017
Friday, July 14, 2017
The Healthcare Debate
Here’s to Your Health
The View from the Middle
What if the government decided to make “free cars” to the list of unalienable rights listed in the Declaration of Independence? Of course, the government would have to become the sole provider of these cars and control production because they are so much smarter and more honest than we the citizens. The end result, in my opinion, is that everyone in the country would be driving a used Taurus, which our government would happily pay $100,000 for. Why, you ask, am I such a cynic?
The government loves the one thing that it is supposed to protect us from, and that is a monopoly. In a monopoly, there is no need for innovation. The shoppers have no choice. They have to come to the government for their free car. Why should the government offer choices? The cars are free! Take it or leave it. But why would they cost so much? A monopoly, which this would be, eliminates the incentive to be efficient, because there is no competition. Who needs to keep costs down? There’s only one choice, and we give the cars away for free (except for those pesky taxes they would have to take out of your paychecks every month).
And if you think a single payer health care system (which is what the Dems really want) would be any different, you are just kidding yourself. Costs would skyrocket. Patients wouldn’t care what tests are done. They wouldn’t care what those tests cost. After all, it’s free…isn’t it? And services would get worse. Doctors would be flooded with patient visits, because they’re free, right? Doctors would get paid less because they would have to accept whatever the government offers. This would cause these very smart people to choose other professions and eventually lead to a shortage of doctors.
I don’t know what is eventually going to be in the Republican healthcare bill, but I do have common sense and have talked to several doctors, so I have a strong opinion. First of all, it should allow people to choose what they are insured for or if they should even be insured at all. With Obamacare, for example, whether you are gay or 80 you must buy maternity care insurance. Really? Second, the government requires that you buy health insurance. Remember, in year one of Obamacare they made a big deal that the “fine/penalty/tax” for not buying was only $95 or 1% of your gross income, whichever was greater. Today, that fine can be as high as $5,000 for a person and $12,500 for a family. Who wants to bet that the “fine/penalty/tax” will eventually be higher than the insurance itself?
Next, we need to give our citizens the incentive to shop for services and doctors by giving them control of the money. Health Savings Accounts (HSA’s) are a great way to accomplish this. Medicaid and Medicare could put money into accounts for their participants that can be spent on health care or even other needs if they have a balance at the year’s end. This will cause people to think about how much a procedure costs or how much a doctor charges and to compare prices. This will drive competition up and prices down as consumers take ownership of their healthcare dollars. It would also stimulate the economy as left over dollars are spent in the open market.
Finally, we must provide coverage for what people want, and the reality is that some people only want catastrophic insurance. Let’s admit it that is what insurance is about anyway. People want to be protected from the impact of a cataclysmic disease or accident that could lead to financial ruin. However, we have perverted the concept of healthcare insurance into something that pays every penny of every procedure and every doctor’s visit. That kind of insurance conceives patients who don’t ask what treatments cost or if they are even necessary. It drives up costs, which someone will eventually have to pay for. Remember, there is no such thing as a free lunch and the government has NO money. The taxpayer eventually pays the piper.
When the details come out for this new bill, look for the presence of HSA’s and catastrophic coverage while eliminating the mandates. Tort reform may have to come later because of the limitations of reconciliation process, but ask any doctor about this aspect of health insurance and the tremendous impact it could have on costs. Doctors want to run tests that will actually help the patient, not just to protect themselves from litigation. In the end, common sense is the answer.
The View from the Middle
What if the government decided to make “free cars” to the list of unalienable rights listed in the Declaration of Independence? Of course, the government would have to become the sole provider of these cars and control production because they are so much smarter and more honest than we the citizens. The end result, in my opinion, is that everyone in the country would be driving a used Taurus, which our government would happily pay $100,000 for. Why, you ask, am I such a cynic?
The government loves the one thing that it is supposed to protect us from, and that is a monopoly. In a monopoly, there is no need for innovation. The shoppers have no choice. They have to come to the government for their free car. Why should the government offer choices? The cars are free! Take it or leave it. But why would they cost so much? A monopoly, which this would be, eliminates the incentive to be efficient, because there is no competition. Who needs to keep costs down? There’s only one choice, and we give the cars away for free (except for those pesky taxes they would have to take out of your paychecks every month).
And if you think a single payer health care system (which is what the Dems really want) would be any different, you are just kidding yourself. Costs would skyrocket. Patients wouldn’t care what tests are done. They wouldn’t care what those tests cost. After all, it’s free…isn’t it? And services would get worse. Doctors would be flooded with patient visits, because they’re free, right? Doctors would get paid less because they would have to accept whatever the government offers. This would cause these very smart people to choose other professions and eventually lead to a shortage of doctors.
I don’t know what is eventually going to be in the Republican healthcare bill, but I do have common sense and have talked to several doctors, so I have a strong opinion. First of all, it should allow people to choose what they are insured for or if they should even be insured at all. With Obamacare, for example, whether you are gay or 80 you must buy maternity care insurance. Really? Second, the government requires that you buy health insurance. Remember, in year one of Obamacare they made a big deal that the “fine/penalty/tax” for not buying was only $95 or 1% of your gross income, whichever was greater. Today, that fine can be as high as $5,000 for a person and $12,500 for a family. Who wants to bet that the “fine/penalty/tax” will eventually be higher than the insurance itself?
Next, we need to give our citizens the incentive to shop for services and doctors by giving them control of the money. Health Savings Accounts (HSA’s) are a great way to accomplish this. Medicaid and Medicare could put money into accounts for their participants that can be spent on health care or even other needs if they have a balance at the year’s end. This will cause people to think about how much a procedure costs or how much a doctor charges and to compare prices. This will drive competition up and prices down as consumers take ownership of their healthcare dollars. It would also stimulate the economy as left over dollars are spent in the open market.
Finally, we must provide coverage for what people want, and the reality is that some people only want catastrophic insurance. Let’s admit it that is what insurance is about anyway. People want to be protected from the impact of a cataclysmic disease or accident that could lead to financial ruin. However, we have perverted the concept of healthcare insurance into something that pays every penny of every procedure and every doctor’s visit. That kind of insurance conceives patients who don’t ask what treatments cost or if they are even necessary. It drives up costs, which someone will eventually have to pay for. Remember, there is no such thing as a free lunch and the government has NO money. The taxpayer eventually pays the piper.
When the details come out for this new bill, look for the presence of HSA’s and catastrophic coverage while eliminating the mandates. Tort reform may have to come later because of the limitations of reconciliation process, but ask any doctor about this aspect of health insurance and the tremendous impact it could have on costs. Doctors want to run tests that will actually help the patient, not just to protect themselves from litigation. In the end, common sense is the answer.
Saturday, June 24, 2017
Trump's First Budget
A Look at Trump’s Budget
The View from the Middle
While the lame stream media and the Democrat Party chase their “Russian collusion” tails and report one conspiracy theory after another that dominates nightly news coverage, I thought I would cover something of real importance, which has received about 15 seconds of collective coverage since it was released. Trump’s budget, which has been all but ignored by the media reveals much about Trump’s intentions, like them or not, for the country. And, I thought the best way to dramatize his new direction is to compare Trump’s budget to Barack Obama’s last budget.
Barack Obama’s budget increased government spending by 55% over 10 years from $4.1 trillion annually to $6.5 trillion. Total government spending over those 10 years was proposed to be $52.6 trillion. And Obama’s budget never balanced. In fact, annual deficits were proposed to increase every year after 2020 climaxing at almost $800 billion in 2026. In total, Barack Obama was planning to add $6.1 trillion to our debt and bring the total to just over $26 trillion in 2026. Remember, we are spending our children’s future as we accumulate this massive debt.
By comparison, Trump’s budget proposed only a 39% increase in annual government spending starting with $4.1 trillion in spending in 2018 and ending with only $5.7 trillion in 2027. That’s still a lot of money, but it is almost four trillion less than Obama’s ten year plan. And Trump’s budget actually does balance in ten years as annual deficits move from $440 billion in 2018 to a surplus of $16 billion in 2027. Again, that is still too much spending for my comfort, but it will reduce the proposed debt burden on our children by almost three trillion dollars compared to the Obama budget.
So, how does Trump propose to do this? First, he proposes to increase mandatory spending on things like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid by only 55% over those 10 years while Obama’s budget proposed a 66% increase over 10 years. The big question that the lame stream media is not asking is, “how does he plan to do that?” Is he going to “means-test” Social Security? Are reductions in Medicare and Medicaid reasonable? We don’t know because the lame stream media is too busy slurping their Russian vodka as they drool over their next collusion conspiracy theory.
Another component of Trump’s balance budget plan comes from an actual reduction in discretionary spending. Obama’s proposal increased annual discretionary spending by 9% over 10 years. Donald Trump plans to actually reduce that annual expenditure by almost 8%. And that all comes from non-defense spending like training, salaries and foreign aid since he proposes a modest increase in military spending.
Finally, Trump also plans to take in fewer receipts (taxes) over this ten year period and he suggests that our economy will grow slightly faster than the Obama proposal, so the American people seem to be much more well off.
There are legitimate questions that our lame stream media could be asking about Trump’s budget, but they aren’t. Directionally, as you might imagine, I am in favor of Trump’s budget. I prefer a smaller, less invasive, more efficient federal government and Trump’s proposal delivers that. Now if the media could get its collective heads out of its collective orifices we might learn a little more about how Trump plans to deliver this budget. Maybe the media and the Democrats are afraid that the answers might actually make too much sense.
The View from the Middle
While the lame stream media and the Democrat Party chase their “Russian collusion” tails and report one conspiracy theory after another that dominates nightly news coverage, I thought I would cover something of real importance, which has received about 15 seconds of collective coverage since it was released. Trump’s budget, which has been all but ignored by the media reveals much about Trump’s intentions, like them or not, for the country. And, I thought the best way to dramatize his new direction is to compare Trump’s budget to Barack Obama’s last budget.
Barack Obama’s budget increased government spending by 55% over 10 years from $4.1 trillion annually to $6.5 trillion. Total government spending over those 10 years was proposed to be $52.6 trillion. And Obama’s budget never balanced. In fact, annual deficits were proposed to increase every year after 2020 climaxing at almost $800 billion in 2026. In total, Barack Obama was planning to add $6.1 trillion to our debt and bring the total to just over $26 trillion in 2026. Remember, we are spending our children’s future as we accumulate this massive debt.
By comparison, Trump’s budget proposed only a 39% increase in annual government spending starting with $4.1 trillion in spending in 2018 and ending with only $5.7 trillion in 2027. That’s still a lot of money, but it is almost four trillion less than Obama’s ten year plan. And Trump’s budget actually does balance in ten years as annual deficits move from $440 billion in 2018 to a surplus of $16 billion in 2027. Again, that is still too much spending for my comfort, but it will reduce the proposed debt burden on our children by almost three trillion dollars compared to the Obama budget.
So, how does Trump propose to do this? First, he proposes to increase mandatory spending on things like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid by only 55% over those 10 years while Obama’s budget proposed a 66% increase over 10 years. The big question that the lame stream media is not asking is, “how does he plan to do that?” Is he going to “means-test” Social Security? Are reductions in Medicare and Medicaid reasonable? We don’t know because the lame stream media is too busy slurping their Russian vodka as they drool over their next collusion conspiracy theory.
Another component of Trump’s balance budget plan comes from an actual reduction in discretionary spending. Obama’s proposal increased annual discretionary spending by 9% over 10 years. Donald Trump plans to actually reduce that annual expenditure by almost 8%. And that all comes from non-defense spending like training, salaries and foreign aid since he proposes a modest increase in military spending.
Finally, Trump also plans to take in fewer receipts (taxes) over this ten year period and he suggests that our economy will grow slightly faster than the Obama proposal, so the American people seem to be much more well off.
There are legitimate questions that our lame stream media could be asking about Trump’s budget, but they aren’t. Directionally, as you might imagine, I am in favor of Trump’s budget. I prefer a smaller, less invasive, more efficient federal government and Trump’s proposal delivers that. Now if the media could get its collective heads out of its collective orifices we might learn a little more about how Trump plans to deliver this budget. Maybe the media and the Democrats are afraid that the answers might actually make too much sense.
Monday, June 5, 2017
The Paris Agreement - Just the Facts Ma'am
The Paris Agreement – Just the Facts, Ma’am
The View from the Middle
If you haven’t read the Paris Agreement, I recommend you do so. It’s only 25 pages long and the experience will allow you to cut through the hysterical rhetoric you’ve been hearing from the media and help you understand the upside and downside of our participation in it. There are very smart people on both sides of this issue so don’t let either side demonize you for your choice.
The View from the Middle
If you haven’t read the Paris Agreement, I recommend you do so. It’s only 25 pages long and the experience will allow you to cut through the hysterical rhetoric you’ve been hearing from the media and help you understand the upside and downside of our participation in it. There are very smart people on both sides of this issue so don’t let either side demonize you for your choice.
If you agree with Trump’s decision to withdraw from the agreement, “the left” will call you stupid, uncaring and greedy. They will probably accuse you of misogyny, homophobia, Islamaphobia, xenophobia and bigotry too, but I fail to see the connection. If you wanted to continue to participate in this agreement, “the right” (while less vocal) may accuse you of ignorance and blind loyalty. The truth is, as usual, somewhere in the middle. There are good reasons for withdrawal from or to support the agreement and Trump was going to get skewered no matter which way he went. If he decided to continue to support the Paris Accord, the media would have painted it as a broken campaign promise, but now he is just stupid, etc.
Make up your own mind, but let’s all deal with the facts, not apocalyptic projections. I’ve heard that the Marshall Islands will be underwater by 2070. Put that on your calendars for those of you who will still be alive by then. Of course the polar ice caps were supposed to be gone 10 years ago, but they stubbornly hang on, and millions of children are going to die of asthma attacks. Not that I am unsympathetic to asthma (my wife is a sufferer) but that is a claim that is easy to make but impossible to prove. Here is a fact – The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (some pretty smart folks) have projected that if all the provisions of the Paris Agreement are met, it will only result in a lowering of global temperatures by .2 degrees Celsius by 2100. That’s two tenths of one degree by 2100, and there are many assumptions built into that projection.
Let’s just deal with the facts. First fact – the Paris Agreement is non-binding. That means that all 175 countries can submit any grandiose plan they like, and if they don’t deliver on those plans there are NO consequences. In a group that includes Iran, Cuba and North Korea, I don’t have confidence in compliance. The United States, by contrast, does actually try to live up to it’s commitments, so let’s look at what exactly President Obama committed us to (remember, this was an executive action not passed through Congress. I wonder why?)
The first thing that the President committed us to is a 27% reduction in our greenhouse gas emissions by 2025. I don’t know about you, but that sounds like a lot, and how exactly are we going to do that? The short answer to that question is that we will have to convert energy we currently generate through fossil fuels to renewables. That sounds easy enough. Unfortunately, wind and solar combined only generate 3% of America’s energy today. Plus, when you take away government subsidies, they are much more expensive. This uncovers two problems. First, it is not practical to transition to renewables that quickly, AND if we tried, energy costs for the average American would “necessarily skyrocket”. Those are President Obama’s own words.
A side effect of this assault on our energy and manufacturing industries is going to be lost jobs. President Trump said that we could lose as many as 2.7 million jobs by 2025. That’s based on a study by insurance and risk management company NERA. I’m not sure if the job losses will be that great, but common sense should tell us that the disruption of our economy, increases in regulations and increased energy costs will kill jobs here.
The second thing Mr. Obama committed us to was money! By my count, the concept of transferring money from “developed” countries (us) to “developing” countries was mentioned 19 times in the Paris Agreement. Hillary Clinton said the US would coordinate a fund of $100 billion a year for this effort. The director of the Green Climate Fund, who would receive and distribute this money, suggested that the need would quickly rise to about $450 billion a year. BTW - I want the job of distributing that money. No threat of corruption there!! I looked at the leadership of that fund and you know what country is not represented? That’s right, The United States!! We’ll be the sugar daddy, of course, but will not be influential in the distribution of that sugar.
Since we are already running deficits here in the US, every penny of these new climate “goodie bags” will have to be borrowed. So, we will be borrowing money from China and giving it to – guess who? – China!! Another side note – of the 175 countries who signed the Paris Agreement, about 140 are considered “developing” countries that will receive funds from the “developed” countries, which I think means us. No wonder they received support from so many nations. BTW – Russia, India and China are all considered “developing” countries, thus eligible to receive these green funds.
I support Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. I’m not saying we should trash the environment. We should continue to research global warming to insure we understand the real causes and find solutions. I’m a big believer in solar power. Some day we will figure out how to harness it effectively and efficiently, but that day is not today. We don’t need the Paris Agreement to do that and we certainly don’t need to borrow any more money in the name of the American people. The other 174 countries can go ahead with their plans and America will do just fine, thank you. Or, they could come back and put together an agreement that will be better for the American people and pass it through Congress.
Thursday, June 1, 2017
Muller - This could work out
Mueller? This Could Work Out
The View from the Middle
If you have followed my blog, you could have probably guessed that I was against the appointment of a Special Counsel to investigate collusion by any Americans with the Russians in our elections. I took this position not because I feared what he or she would find, but because I felt this was an attempt by Democrats to drag this investigation out and thus thwart the administration’s attempt to pursue their agenda. I don’t believe that Trump himself had any connection with the Russians but I do believe that the primary motivation of Democrats is political. I have very little trust with anyone in Washington and right now the Democrats are at the bottom of my integrity list.
I also opposed a Special Counsel because I have confidence in the FBI. I did not have confidence in its Director, James Comey, but I did and still do support and respect the career law enforcement professionals there. Once Comey was gone, my hope for a thorough but expeditious investigation into this matter actually went up, so I would have been very happy to allow them to continue into their investigation and live with their findings.
Now, we have a Special Counsel and it is Robert Mueller. He is certainly qualified since he is former Director of the FBI and he has a reputation for being a thorough investigator. He is arguably above partisan politics since he was originally appointed to direct the FBI by George W. Bush and had his term extended by Barack Obama.
Personally, I think this is good news for Trump and bad news for Democrats. The Special Counsel’s investigation will take precedence over the House and Senate investigations, to which I say, “Hooray”. Neither party in these investigations is after the truth, but use their hearings to grandstand. Mueller should get to the truth and much faster than Congress would and even faster than a Comey-lead FBI, and that is what most Americans want.
But some Democrats could be caught in the Mueller crossfire. If Mueller is investigating Russian interference, will Bill and Hillary Clinton come under scrutiny? Bill was paid $500.000 for a speech by a Russian bank and millions flowed into the Clinton foundation while Hillary was Secretary of State and 20% of America’s uranium deposits were transferred to Russia.
Will Mueller also look into the murder of Democratic staffer, Seth Rich? Was his death really a robbery gone wrong or was it a political assassination? Was Seth Rich the real source of John Podesta’s emails to Wikileaks and not the Russians? Was Julian Assange actually telling the truth when he said that a “nation state” was not his source?
Most importantly for the country, could Robert Mueller just be an efficient investigator and complete this investigation before the midterms in 2018? While this would be the best thing for the American people, it is clearly not what the Democrat Party would like. Nancy Pelosi has already been quoted as saying, “A Special Prosecutor is the first step, but it cannot be the last” before Mueller has even started his investigation let alone announced any findings. She now wants an “independent outside commission”, whatever the hell that means. It is clear that Nancy Pelosi is not actually interested in truth or justice and certainly not expediency. Her only desire is to drag this investigation out for as long as possible to do political damage to Trump and the Republicans, even if the country has to suffer in the process.
The lesson for all of us is that our government is totally dysfunctional and the last thing we need is to make it bigger and allow more intrusion into our lives. Since we’ll never get a smaller government from the existing establishment politicians who are all part of the swamp, we need term limits for both Houses of Congress!!
The View from the Middle
If you have followed my blog, you could have probably guessed that I was against the appointment of a Special Counsel to investigate collusion by any Americans with the Russians in our elections. I took this position not because I feared what he or she would find, but because I felt this was an attempt by Democrats to drag this investigation out and thus thwart the administration’s attempt to pursue their agenda. I don’t believe that Trump himself had any connection with the Russians but I do believe that the primary motivation of Democrats is political. I have very little trust with anyone in Washington and right now the Democrats are at the bottom of my integrity list.
I also opposed a Special Counsel because I have confidence in the FBI. I did not have confidence in its Director, James Comey, but I did and still do support and respect the career law enforcement professionals there. Once Comey was gone, my hope for a thorough but expeditious investigation into this matter actually went up, so I would have been very happy to allow them to continue into their investigation and live with their findings.
Now, we have a Special Counsel and it is Robert Mueller. He is certainly qualified since he is former Director of the FBI and he has a reputation for being a thorough investigator. He is arguably above partisan politics since he was originally appointed to direct the FBI by George W. Bush and had his term extended by Barack Obama.
Personally, I think this is good news for Trump and bad news for Democrats. The Special Counsel’s investigation will take precedence over the House and Senate investigations, to which I say, “Hooray”. Neither party in these investigations is after the truth, but use their hearings to grandstand. Mueller should get to the truth and much faster than Congress would and even faster than a Comey-lead FBI, and that is what most Americans want.
But some Democrats could be caught in the Mueller crossfire. If Mueller is investigating Russian interference, will Bill and Hillary Clinton come under scrutiny? Bill was paid $500.000 for a speech by a Russian bank and millions flowed into the Clinton foundation while Hillary was Secretary of State and 20% of America’s uranium deposits were transferred to Russia.
Will Mueller also look into the murder of Democratic staffer, Seth Rich? Was his death really a robbery gone wrong or was it a political assassination? Was Seth Rich the real source of John Podesta’s emails to Wikileaks and not the Russians? Was Julian Assange actually telling the truth when he said that a “nation state” was not his source?
Most importantly for the country, could Robert Mueller just be an efficient investigator and complete this investigation before the midterms in 2018? While this would be the best thing for the American people, it is clearly not what the Democrat Party would like. Nancy Pelosi has already been quoted as saying, “A Special Prosecutor is the first step, but it cannot be the last” before Mueller has even started his investigation let alone announced any findings. She now wants an “independent outside commission”, whatever the hell that means. It is clear that Nancy Pelosi is not actually interested in truth or justice and certainly not expediency. Her only desire is to drag this investigation out for as long as possible to do political damage to Trump and the Republicans, even if the country has to suffer in the process.
The lesson for all of us is that our government is totally dysfunctional and the last thing we need is to make it bigger and allow more intrusion into our lives. Since we’ll never get a smaller government from the existing establishment politicians who are all part of the swamp, we need term limits for both Houses of Congress!!
Wednesday, May 10, 2017
Are There Any Safe Spaces for Trump?
The View from the Middle
It’s not very often that I have a news scoop for my readers, but I have it on good authority that Donald Trump just came out in support of puppies, apple pie, and moms all across this land. You would think that these positions would be relatively safe, but as you might expect, Democrats and the lame stream media were quick to criticize.
Chuck Schumer was the first to attack the President’s endorsement of puppies. He reminded the President, “don’t you know that puppies do tremendous damage to homes all across America. They chew up shoes and furniture and they often leave little fecal reminders of their presence everywhere.” He also suggested that “cat people” should be outraged. “This is a clear bias for dogs and against cats”, he said. When will the cat people stand up against this clear prejudice?”
Nancy Pelosi was quick to question the apple pie affirmation. “Does he have any idea how much sugar is in those things”, she posed. “Besides”, she added, “ why now? Pies have been around since before our founding. Why would the President come out in favor of apple pie now? This should make us all suspicious.” She also suggested that cherry and blue berry growers should be in a furor. “This kind of favoritism cuts against our fundamental values.”
You would think that advocating for mothers would be a pretty safe position, but CNN was quick to produce a two-hour special entitled “It Takes a Village”. They wondered, “what about fathers, neighbors, uncles, aunts, coaches, siblings and even politicians. Are mothers overrated? Isn’t 'mother’s day’ an outdated concept? Even women should be outraged since some women aren’t even mothers and all women should stand together.”
I guess I now understand the “resist, persist, insist, enlist, dismiss, blacklist and throw hissy-fits” strategy that has been laid out by Hillary Clinton. I hope Trump doesn’t try to do anything good for the country. That could get awkward.
The View from the Middle
It’s not very often that I have a news scoop for my readers, but I have it on good authority that Donald Trump just came out in support of puppies, apple pie, and moms all across this land. You would think that these positions would be relatively safe, but as you might expect, Democrats and the lame stream media were quick to criticize.
Chuck Schumer was the first to attack the President’s endorsement of puppies. He reminded the President, “don’t you know that puppies do tremendous damage to homes all across America. They chew up shoes and furniture and they often leave little fecal reminders of their presence everywhere.” He also suggested that “cat people” should be outraged. “This is a clear bias for dogs and against cats”, he said. When will the cat people stand up against this clear prejudice?”
Nancy Pelosi was quick to question the apple pie affirmation. “Does he have any idea how much sugar is in those things”, she posed. “Besides”, she added, “ why now? Pies have been around since before our founding. Why would the President come out in favor of apple pie now? This should make us all suspicious.” She also suggested that cherry and blue berry growers should be in a furor. “This kind of favoritism cuts against our fundamental values.”
You would think that advocating for mothers would be a pretty safe position, but CNN was quick to produce a two-hour special entitled “It Takes a Village”. They wondered, “what about fathers, neighbors, uncles, aunts, coaches, siblings and even politicians. Are mothers overrated? Isn’t 'mother’s day’ an outdated concept? Even women should be outraged since some women aren’t even mothers and all women should stand together.”
I guess I now understand the “resist, persist, insist, enlist, dismiss, blacklist and throw hissy-fits” strategy that has been laid out by Hillary Clinton. I hope Trump doesn’t try to do anything good for the country. That could get awkward.
Friday, May 5, 2017
Comey - Incompetent, Simpleton or Clairvoyant?
Comey, Incompetent, Simpleton or Clairvoyant?
The View from the Middle
There’s nothing like watching our government in action to make you want to ask for a refund on your tax bill. Yesterday the incompetence, corruption and entangled confusion of our government were on full display. Yah, it doesn’t get any better for your viewing pleasure than to watch one branch of our government interview another.
First, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the chairman of this oversight committee, may not have gotten a single question answered. Why, because James Comey, the Director of the FBI, refused to answer them in the public forum in which these questions were asked. Did Grassley forget that Comey couldn’t discuss classified information in a public setting? Shouldn’t the cameras have tipped him off? Of course, he’s only been in Washington for 36 years. The only thing that Chuck made clear yesterday was the need for term limits in the Senate and the House.
Next, we had Director Comey to remind us of his bumbled handling of the Hillary Clinton e-mail investigation. I don’t believe he made a single correct decision during this train wreck of a probe. On July 5th of 2016 he decided he needed to make a public statement about whether to indict Hillary Clinton for mishandling of her e-mails. This, of course, is not even his job, but he threw Attorney General Loretta Lynch under the bus for her meeting with Bill Clinton just a week before that decision was to be made.
He should have rejected Lynch’s request for him to make the indictment decision and presented his findings to the Justice Department for them to handle. Even after that, he could have simply announced his decision with a brief explanation and moved on. Instead, he went in front of cameras and prosecuted Hillary Clinton for 15 minutes before announcing that no reasonable prosecutor would indict her. This was followed by an army of lawyers and previous Attorneys General who disagreed with him.
The big defense of his decision was that he couldn’t prove “intent”, even though Hillary used “bleach bit” to destroy 33,000 emails after she had received a subpoena for all of them and destroyed her communication devices with hammers. Forgive me, but if that were you or I, we would be in jail today.
To compound this horrendous decision, he reopened the investigation publicly just 11 days before the election because he found 6,000 Clinton emails on Anthony Weiner’s computer. This had implications for both Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin. Then two days before the election, he announced that he was closing this investigation because there was nothing new in these e-mails. He didn’t explain, however, why Miss Abedin shouldn’t be indicted herself for sharing classified material with her husband, Anthony Weiner, who was himself under FBI investigation.
He later replayed his “intent” card and suggested that he couldn’t prove that Huma “intended” to break the law, although she actually did. Personally, it’s hard for me to believe that Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin, both very intelligent women, didn’t understand that they were breaking the law by destroying 33,000 emails under subpoena and sharing classified information with people, the likes of Anthony Weiner, who didn’t have the clearance to view it.
Yet this same James Comey, who couldn’t understand Hillary and Huma’s intent despite their wanton disregard for the law, turned clairvoyant yesterday and was glad to read Vladimir Putin’s mind in the DNC hacking incident last year. With confidence he posed that Putin favored Trump as President because he hated Hillary and thought he could deal more favorably with Donald Trump. This, of course, is ludicrous and implies that Vladimir Putin knew something that virtually no one else in the world knew. And that was that Donald Trump was actually going to beat Hillary Clinton for the Presidency of The United States.
Up until five o’clock on November 8th the political experts in this country were giving Hillary up to a 98% probability of winning. I have suggested that Putin did what he did (assuming he actually sponsored the hacking) for two reasons. First, John Podesta was stupid enough to use the word “password” as his email password. This made the DNC easier to hack than the RNC, which I’m sure he was trying to hack also. Second, he expected Hillary Clinton to win, but he intended to injure her in the process so that he could deal with a weakened American President.
I have presented this explanation before but offered it as speculation, since we will never actually know what Putin was thinking. James Comey should have either not speculated on what Putin thought or stated his theory as a hypothesis, not fact. This was just one more example of Comey’s poor judgment. Comey may be a very knowledgeable person, but knowledge is not the same as wisdom. In my opinion, he should resign tomorrow and save the country from any additional heartburn.
The View from the Middle
There’s nothing like watching our government in action to make you want to ask for a refund on your tax bill. Yesterday the incompetence, corruption and entangled confusion of our government were on full display. Yah, it doesn’t get any better for your viewing pleasure than to watch one branch of our government interview another.
First, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the chairman of this oversight committee, may not have gotten a single question answered. Why, because James Comey, the Director of the FBI, refused to answer them in the public forum in which these questions were asked. Did Grassley forget that Comey couldn’t discuss classified information in a public setting? Shouldn’t the cameras have tipped him off? Of course, he’s only been in Washington for 36 years. The only thing that Chuck made clear yesterday was the need for term limits in the Senate and the House.
Next, we had Director Comey to remind us of his bumbled handling of the Hillary Clinton e-mail investigation. I don’t believe he made a single correct decision during this train wreck of a probe. On July 5th of 2016 he decided he needed to make a public statement about whether to indict Hillary Clinton for mishandling of her e-mails. This, of course, is not even his job, but he threw Attorney General Loretta Lynch under the bus for her meeting with Bill Clinton just a week before that decision was to be made.
He should have rejected Lynch’s request for him to make the indictment decision and presented his findings to the Justice Department for them to handle. Even after that, he could have simply announced his decision with a brief explanation and moved on. Instead, he went in front of cameras and prosecuted Hillary Clinton for 15 minutes before announcing that no reasonable prosecutor would indict her. This was followed by an army of lawyers and previous Attorneys General who disagreed with him.
The big defense of his decision was that he couldn’t prove “intent”, even though Hillary used “bleach bit” to destroy 33,000 emails after she had received a subpoena for all of them and destroyed her communication devices with hammers. Forgive me, but if that were you or I, we would be in jail today.
To compound this horrendous decision, he reopened the investigation publicly just 11 days before the election because he found 6,000 Clinton emails on Anthony Weiner’s computer. This had implications for both Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin. Then two days before the election, he announced that he was closing this investigation because there was nothing new in these e-mails. He didn’t explain, however, why Miss Abedin shouldn’t be indicted herself for sharing classified material with her husband, Anthony Weiner, who was himself under FBI investigation.
He later replayed his “intent” card and suggested that he couldn’t prove that Huma “intended” to break the law, although she actually did. Personally, it’s hard for me to believe that Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin, both very intelligent women, didn’t understand that they were breaking the law by destroying 33,000 emails under subpoena and sharing classified information with people, the likes of Anthony Weiner, who didn’t have the clearance to view it.
Yet this same James Comey, who couldn’t understand Hillary and Huma’s intent despite their wanton disregard for the law, turned clairvoyant yesterday and was glad to read Vladimir Putin’s mind in the DNC hacking incident last year. With confidence he posed that Putin favored Trump as President because he hated Hillary and thought he could deal more favorably with Donald Trump. This, of course, is ludicrous and implies that Vladimir Putin knew something that virtually no one else in the world knew. And that was that Donald Trump was actually going to beat Hillary Clinton for the Presidency of The United States.
Up until five o’clock on November 8th the political experts in this country were giving Hillary up to a 98% probability of winning. I have suggested that Putin did what he did (assuming he actually sponsored the hacking) for two reasons. First, John Podesta was stupid enough to use the word “password” as his email password. This made the DNC easier to hack than the RNC, which I’m sure he was trying to hack also. Second, he expected Hillary Clinton to win, but he intended to injure her in the process so that he could deal with a weakened American President.
I have presented this explanation before but offered it as speculation, since we will never actually know what Putin was thinking. James Comey should have either not speculated on what Putin thought or stated his theory as a hypothesis, not fact. This was just one more example of Comey’s poor judgment. Comey may be a very knowledgeable person, but knowledge is not the same as wisdom. In my opinion, he should resign tomorrow and save the country from any additional heartburn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)