Author: publius911

In my first blog I wrote that, for the good of the country, President Trump should announce that he would not run for re-election. At that time, I felt his decision to withdraw from Syria was misguided and indicated his unwillingness to listen to his military advisers. I also felt that not running again would encourage those intent on sabotaging his presidency to stop and work with him to better our country. I was wrong.

Since then, President Trump relented on the decision to withdraw from Syria in accordance with his military advisers. Instead of working with this President, those seeking to undermine him have been persistent and emboldened with support from the mass media. These last days, following mass shootings in Dayton and El Paso, have clearly shown the left will not stop at anything to hurt this president. The constant drumming of Democrat politicians and their sycophant media claiming the President is a racist, misogynist, Russian puppet etc. will likely not stop until he is dead. With no basis in fact, these losers continue to use their bully pulpits in the mass and social media to foment the anger and divisiveness for which they admonish this President. In a “pot calling the kettle black” manner, these out of control seekers of perpetual power will not ease up on their quest to remove the duly elected President Trump.

I was wrong to think that they might allow this President to succeed in advancing the lives of Americans more than he already has. I was wrong to think Democrats would pivot to addressing the critical needs of our country and the people they took an oath to serve. Instead, their unabashed pursuit of perpetual power has them more concerned with stocking the pond with potential voters beholden to them, than caring for the ones they already have. Let’s hope the 2020 electorate sees through their strategy to negate the fundamentals that made our country the best one in the history of the world.

With the passing of this 2019, two year budget agreement increasing the debt limit, Congress has once again kicked the debt can down the road. In 2011, Congress passed a bill that was supposed to rein in deficit spending. That bill called for reductions in spending tied to increases in the debt ceiling. A joint commission was supposed to find spending cuts of trillions over 10 years including defense and discretionary spending. Instead, we see a bill on the President’s desk today that increases spending $320,000,000,000. Our current annual deficit is over $1,000,000,000,000 and total debt over $22,000,000,000,000. Unfunded liabilities add another $100,000,000,000,000. (Put your weekly take home pay against these numbers.)

Here’s an incomplete recent history of failures to rein in deficit spending.

• Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control aka Gramm-Hollings-Rudman 1985 – Intended to “balance the budget”.
• Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1987 – amended Gramm-Hollings-Rudman and allowed for larger debt ceiling to pay for social programs. (So much for the ’85 bill!)
• Simpson-Bowles 2010 – Commission that spelled out critical changes in order to address debt. (Ignored)
• Budget Control Act (Sequestrations) 2011 – (Blew through set limits)

Expecting people, whose income and power is derived from spending other people’s money, to limit how much money they spend, is fruitless. A balanced budget amendment in our Constitution is not worth the paper it’s written on given the track record of these scoundrels ON BOTH SIDES. “Balance” can be achieved by increasing revenue and therefore, the spending can continue unabated. Rather, a strict limit on the size of the federal budget is needed. Currently Federal spending accounts for 22.5% of GDP. This is historically high and growing. Limiting the Federal budget to 18% of GDP forces officials to find ways to increase the overall economy if they want to spend more. No doubt, the language of such an amendment will have to be tight in order to have any chance of actually working. Without attention now to out-of-control spending, our very survival as a county is at risk.

We’re going to hear hybrid plans for health care from some of the 20 Democrats still running for the Presidency. There is still the “Medicare for All” plan touted by socialists Sanders and Warren, but now entering the ring is the, “if you like your plan, you can keep it” crowd lead by Biden. That is, some combination of private and public health care plans. The reason these plans have little chance of success is simple; the government can always print more money to cover its losses while a public company must rely on its own moxie to remain solvent.

Most Democrat candidates know that Medicare for All/Single Payer is a tough sell to the majority of voters right now. Incremental change is always better when you’re talking about disruptive policies. If you’ve followed any governmental program, they all start modestly and then end up gargantuan. Social Security crowded out individual attention to retirement. Medicare has overtaken private health insurance for seniors. Suggesting that a hybrid public/private health insurance plan won’t do the same is folly and the Democrats know it. The whole idea is to build on Obamacare and continue to crowd out private health insurance.

The way it is done is to undercut private health insurance rates even though they are actuarially unsound. Again, with no insurance department to check whether rates are sufficient to cover costs and certainly no regard for tapping taxpayers when there is a need to refill the coffers, public insurance will always win over private insurance. Once decimated, private insurance will not be able to recover and eventually be out of business. The result is the desired goal; single payer government provided health care.

Welcome to socialist medicine. You may want to talk to your friends in Canada or England about their experiences with their systems.

If you think the southern border represents a breakdown in our country’s security, just wait for the cracking that accompanies the crushing debt service we are amassing. The trade-offs between the proverbial guns or butter, will eventually lead to a severe deterioration of the country’s defenses AND its social net. Despite this dire outcome, we have politicians of all stripes continuing to preserve their power through doling out “candy to we children”.

The point of deteriorating defenses and inability to satisfy just the current social network is upon us. Entitlements are eating up nearly 70% of the current budget and growing. That huge amount crowds out the single most important thing the Federal government is supposed to do according to our Constitution; provide for the common defense! What are current “leaders” doing? They are adding to the problem and ignoring the obvious solutions because they suspect the fixes will threaten their hold on power.

We have brought this upon ourselves. Every group seems to have their hand out and the politicians are only too happy to throw dollars at them…in return for that almighty vote. If reported accurately, our esteemed Senator McConnel commented, “No one was ever thrown out of office for spending money.” Every one of the people in Congress knows the problem. They also know that they don’t have to deal with it because they can continue to send the issue further into the future by extending yet more credit.

Until we demand corrective actions on entitlements, we will continue to braid the rope that will hang us, our children, our grandchildren and now, even our great grandchildren. Ideas that have already been vetted include:

• Increase retirement age for those still able to make lifestyle changes.
• Allow for more tax exemptions for money set aside for retirement outside of Social Security.
• Increase the allowance for tax exempt money to be set aside for health care
• Limit, not expand, the numbers of people eligible for Medicare/Medicaid.

It’s up to us to get change including electing real leaders.

Short Version

The 7/21/19 Sunday edition of The Hartford Courant encapsulates the state of the 4^th estate. The Courant, like so many other newspapers, is no longer a “newspaper” but rather an aggregator of other’s “news”. Think of a print Drudge Report. The front section of the 7/21 paper had only 4 out of the 16 headlined articles written by Courant “reporters”.

In the reprint of an Associated Press article, “’Dumbfake’ videos pose deep threat”, the authors raise the issue of altered videos and the potential for viewers to be fooled. The second article is a reprint of the Washington Post article “Lord of the Wings”.  That article’s secondary headline reads, “Mulvaney builds ’an empire for the right’…”  Here we have an example of the hardcore investigative reporting that permeates today’s “news”.

The article starts with a recounting of a meeting between Mulvaney and then Secretary of Labor, Acosta that they say ‘“became known inside the West Wing as “the woodshed meeting”’. That is, according to “advisers and a person close to the White House”. It uses this accounting of a meeting to say it “…illustrates the growing influence wielded by Mulvaney, a former Tea Party member…”. The full-page article then goes on to say, “this account of Mulvaney’s rising power is based on interviews with 32 White House Aides, current and former administration officials, lawmakers, and legislative staffers, some (italics added) of whom requested anonymity to speak candidly.” They did not speak with Mulvaney directly.

Most of the article’s points were obtained from, “Advisers say”, “White House Aides”, “senior administration officials”, “Trump Advisers”, “other advisers”, people familiar with the matter”, and “GOP aides”.  Even a “private conversation with Senator Lyndsey Graham” is not confirmed by either party.

No one spoke directly to his “building an empire” as the authors would have you believe in their secondary headline.

The continued use by reporters who hide behind anonymous sources only adds to the suspicion of discerning readers and the growing mistrust of what should be our eyes and ears into governance.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

The Full Version

The 7/21/19 Sunday edition of The Hartford Courant encapsulates the state of the 4^th estate. The Courant, like so many other newspapers, is no longer a “newspaper” but rather an aggregator of other’s “news”. Think of a print Drudge Report. The front section of the 7/21 paper had only 4 out of the 16 headlined articles written by Courant “reporters”. Of the 4, 2 writers wrote or contributed to 2 of the stories, and of those front-page stories, one was an obituary and the other on the heat wave. So much for hard core, front-page, investigative reporting.

In the reprint of an Associated Press article, “’Dumbfake’ videos pose deep threat”, the authors raise the issue of altered videos and the potential for viewers to be fooled. New technology can make it very easy to alter videos in ways that cannot be discerned by the uneducated. The second article is a reprint of the Washington Post article “Lord of the Wings”.  That article’s secondary headline reads, “Mulvaney builds ’an empire for the right’…”  Here we have an example of the hardcore investigative reporting that permeates today’s “news”.

The article starts with a recounting of a meeting between Mulvaney and then Secretary of Labor, Acosta that they say ‘“became known inside the West Wing as “the woodshed meeting”’. The article suggests that Acosta finally acted on the “blunt” instructions Mulvaney gave him. That is, according to “advisers and a person close to the White House”. It uses this accounting of a meeting to say it “…illustrates the growing influence wielded by Mulvaney, a former Tea Party member…”. The full-page article then goes on to say, “this account of Mulvaney’s rising power is based on interviews with 32 White House Aides, current and former administration officials, lawmakers, and legislative staffers, some (italics added) of whom requested anonymity to speak candidly.” They did not speak with Mulvaney directly.

The Washington Post reporters are, Seung Min Kim, Lisa Rein, Josh Dawsey and Erica Werner. Most of the article’s points were obtained from, “Advisers say”, “White House Aides”, “senior administration officials”, “Trump Advisers”, “other advisers”, people familiar with the matter”, and “GOP aides”.  Even a “private conversation with Senator Lyndsey Graham” is not confirmed by either party. When they do quote someone, you’re left with no context.  They quote Charmaine Yoest who once served “senior roles” in the Trump White House who said, “You have a chief of staff with a professional commitment…”. A story about him forcing out people was disputed by a quoted person, HHS spokesperson, Caitlin Oakley. Senator Shelby was asked if Mulvaney is a positive force. They wrote, he “paused for 10 seconds”. ‘“Shelby eventually said Mulvaney was “engaged” …’ Senator Tester thought a reach out to him by Mulvaney was so that Mulvaney could get on TV. Senator Cramer is reported to praise Mulvaney for his performance. Even the one quote attributed to Mulvaney was “according to two White House officials”. No one spoke directly to his “building an empire” as the authors would have you believe in their secondary headline.

If you think videos can fool you, just think how these so-called investigative reports can have you believe whatever it is the author wants. If by “some” people you mean MOST don’t want to talk on record, then say it. Reporters need to ask themselves how to corroborate what these reluctant interviewees say rather than to leave us to trust their judgement on its validity. The continued use by reporters who hide behind anonymous sources only adds to the suspicion of discerning readers and the growing mistrust of what should be our eyes and ears into governance

We often hear those running for office of their meager beginnings. I’m reminded of Steve Martin’s movie “The Jerk” who intoned at the beginning, “It was never easy for me. I was born a poor black child.” So how is it that many politicians end up being in the often vilified “1%”?

While Congressman/woman make a decent salary, the cost of living in DC is high. They also maintain home district residences so it’s hard to see how their salary alone gets them to the 1% group. It appears that book sales and speaking engagements are the path to amassing wealth.  Once there, foundations allow them to keep what they made and pass it along to their heirs.

You would think some investigative reporter would be on this path of poor to rich that so many politicians seem to walk. Harry Reid had some land deal in Nevada, Clinton’s Whitewater, Bernie and now the Biden’s book deals thrust them into the 1% group from meager beginnings. Who is buying all those books? Who is paying six figures for giving a 45-minute speech? Is this a back door way of gaining influence with these people who hold the power to make significant impacts on their lives?

Once they have the money, creating a “charitable” foundation that manages the money is in vogue. The Clinton’s have amassed tens of millions from both domestic sources and foreign governments in their foundation. They use that tax advantaged foundation to pay themselves, their family and those loyal to them hefty salaries. Why isn’t someone looking at these foundations to see if they are in fact, using tax advantages to shelter ill-gained money?

Now that the canard of looking at Trump’s hotel for breaking the emoluments clause is over, perhaps someone will look at how other politicians go from “poor me” to rich.

There was no crisis at the southern border. Now there is a crisis but it’s not that hundreds of thousands have and are still crossing our border illegally, but it’s the conditions of their containment. The Democrats have this game down. Make a crisis, let it get worse and then blame the current administration for it. Any misstep is blown up to apply to the entire process denigrating the vast majority of what is going right.

You would think that this observation is widely held by most Americans. If they saw the caravans, heard the numbers of illegal crossings, understood the current laws regarding asylum, treatment of families with children and those unaccompanied, how could they not hear the President when he says Congress has done nothing but allow this crisis to grow and grow.

Ari Fleischer succinctly captured the current Democratic party’s strategy.

“1) Decriminalize illegal border crossings 2) Provide illegals with drivers licences 3) Provide illegals with free health care 4) Watch illegal immigration soar 5) Create a path to citizenship 6) Win elections.”

When all but one Democrat candidate for the Presidency in the recent debate raised their hand when asked if there should be free health care for illegals, that had to lay bare for those watching just how much the party has devalued being an American citizen. Should they win, the only thing citizenry will be good for is paying more taxes and getting vilified in the process.

Woe to our country should they take the Presidency and/or both houses of Congress. Its back to bondage and a rapid decline of freedom and prosperity. Sad state of affairs on this fourth of July.

I watched little of the two Democratic debates. (I felt that I had a good idea of their positions and, after seeing most in lock step, I left not wanting to watch the “food fight”, as Kamala pointed out.)  One of my impressions was that the moderators acted as if they were the participants, especially Jose Diaz-Balart. I didn’t hear one hard-hitting question, so here is my list of what we should be asking these candidates and perhaps even some Republicans running for federal offices.

You advocate that a woman should be able to control her own body. Wouldn’t Medicare for All relinquish control over one’s body to the government who would determine what health care you would receive?

Do you believe that the state should fund abortions?

You have said that no one is above the law. How do you plan on addressing those illegally entering our country and how do you plan on dealing with those here illegally already?

What is the arithmetic for paying for 1) Medicare for All, 2) student loan forgiveness, 3) free college, and have you considered the secondary impacts of how these would be paid for?

What experiences in your life prepare you for dealing with those world leaders you have deemed “despots”? How would you prevent Iran and North Korea from obtaining nuclear weapons?

Do you believe the electoral college needs to be eliminated and, if so, what do you say to the rural communities that would not have much say in the Presidential election?

Who is on your list of next Supreme Court Justice(s)?

I’m sure some real journalists will eventually come around to asking these and more. At least we can hope!

It is so hard these days to find fact-based truth. Much has been said about the role of mass and social media and their contributions to the lack of veracity in reporting. Today we are confronted with how truth, finally coming to bear, can overturn our deepest held notions.

I told a friend last Martin Luther King Day, that I did not hold the Doctor in as much regard as the general public. The reason being, he was a serial womanizer. My friend having never heard that before was quick to label my reason as fake news. I tried to explain that it was a known fact but had been kept under wraps for fear of diminishing the good things King had done.

The day of reckoning is now coming closer as we have a biographer, David Garrow, writing of Doctor King’s dalliances in graphic detail. (The WSJ reports that his article was published in Britain because American publishers turned it down.) These accounts will not fade under the test of accuracy and will certainly be upheld once recordings of events come to light in 2027, when FBI tapes of certain events are released.

With so much being bantered about regarding what may or may not have occurred with President Trump’s campaign and administration, we can only hope that, in the end, we have a true and accurate accounting of what happened. Was the full force of the US government used to subvert a political candidate and duly elected President? If so, who did what? Will people, like my friend in this instance, choose to ignore information that counters their deeply held notions?  When the truth does come to light, what are the implications for our society and political norms? Will the truth really set us free?

We are going to hear the term “American Values” more and more as the 2020 election nears. It seems that everyone loves the term, but I have yet to hear the politicians who spout it define them. My esteemed Senator Blumenthal has repeatedly used the term in many of his innumerable moments in the klieg lights. After hearing him cite, “American Values”, I have written him for his definitions multiple times, with no response. Dictionaries define values as “principles, a set of standards of behavior, a judgement of what’s important in life” or “something intrinsically valuable”. What are “American Values”? In order to answer this question, we must look to how America came to be.

Our forefathers came here for the very real and distinct reason of religious freedom. The church of England was a government sponsored religion. Many chafed under this mandate and sought a place where they could practice their faith as they see it. American value number one is the ability for Americans to practice their faith in God as they want, up to and including the ability to eschew all faith in God.

Freed from the yoke of mandated religion, the settlers enjoyed the ability to seek their own fortune by relying solely on themselves. Individual contribution led to individual success or failure. Rather than the state, each person owned their labor and the fruits it bore. The individual, instead of the collective, was elevated introducing individual freedom as a fundamental value in our new country.

Once the individual was placed above the collective, it was apparent that any suppression of the collective over the individual had to be eliminated. The ability to govern one’s self was codified in the Constitution. The power of the people was instituted, and the state made subservient to the will of the people. Government was to do as little as necessary to assure the ability of the people to attain their manifest destiny. No government was to throttle the ability of the individual to seek their fortune and happiness. The “Bill of Rights” (the first 10 amendments to the Constitution) captures the specific rights that are born from the value of individualism over the collective.

For me, hearing people say this or that does not fit with American values must be challenged. So often, we hear programs or policies do or do not fit our values. Well, which value is that? We may hear that those who wish to lead our government don’t in fact hold true “American Values”. For example, as more laws are passed, the more the freedom to seek one’s own outcomes is diminished. I for one would like to know how that squares with our individual rights?