Author: publius911

6/1/19

President Trump as threatened Mexico with escalating tariffs if they do not take steps to stem the tide of migrants crossing our border. The outcry for the impact on our economy has been deafening. They cite the billions that will be added to the price of products that come from Mexico. What they don’t include is the cost of accepting the hundreds of thousands of migrants. Food, health care, shelter, education and ultimately, their entire dependence on a social welfare net intended for citizens. As Jefferson said, you can’t have open borders and a welfare state. The obvious outcome is people will flock to the benefits that cannot be sustained. The result is chaos.

Are tariffs appropriate to affect change? Only in this charged political environment where power seekers have not regard for the citizens do penalties like tariffs have to be employed. The disregard for we citizens and focus on the plight of illegal immigrants by Democrats lays bare their strategy to obtain and hold power. Create another subclass of people beholden to the welfare state created by Democrats. Black Americans should be very fearful of losing their place in line as Hispanics replace them as the favored ethnic group.

How Much are You Worth?

Democrats want to get a hold of President Trump’s financial records for one thing; embarrass him. They know they can spin any part of the records to their benefit. If he’s rich, he’s one of the 1% they have vilified for years. If he’s poor, it’s proof of the lying braggadocio man they have described. If they find he used a tax credit, even though legal, they’ll tarnish him with having used “loopholes” that contributed to depriving some child of her food. The President knows this is what the Democrats want and he’s decided to fight them all the way rather than capitulate and have to fight them even more later.

As with most of the other hypocrisy that is endemic with politicians of any stripe, none will offer up their own finances voluntarily. Tax returns don’t do justice to the wealth these elected officials have and amass as a result of us catapulting them into the limelight. In the revolving door of DC, it’s very rare that  a former Congressman won’t already have or won’t be able to earn enough money to live a life of luxury that most of us only dream about. Salary for Representatives and Senators is $174,000 which is not out of line with mid level executive pay in the private sector. Living in DC is expensive and many maintain residences in their home districts. They are banned from any other income that “can influence their work”. So how do they end up so wealthy?

Here’s what I propose. Anyone running for elected office at the Federal level must submit a net worth analysis both at the time of their filing for being placed on the ballot and on the day they leave the office for which they were elected. Let’s find out who really runs up against an emoluments clause. If you couple this with restrictions on allowing former Congressman access to the Capitol and lobbying, I think you will find we get a whole new cast of citizen legislators. Ones that are more concerned with we citizens than their own pocketbooks and power.

That would be you, the person who thinks Facebook and Twitter are reputable news agencies. You’re the one who thinks that $160,000 worth of ads placed by Russians tilted the entire 2016 election. You don’t know a thing about Benghazi (no, it’s not a shoe designer), or care about some 30,000 missing emails or keeping your doctor if you like him. You’re an educated person who still doesn’t know how to handle your own finances.  Having racked up student loan debt you now cast your lot to anyone who will relieve you of that account. It’s easy to do that when they also throw in you won’t even have to work.

Your compassion is beyond reproach until you have to act on it. Millions of illegal immigrants are hunkered down in this country but not a one of them lives in your house. You know for a fact that the oceans are going to overrun Florida in 12 years but you’re certainly not going to stop taking vacations requiring planes or cruise ships. You like heating and air conditioning and darn it, aren’t they a right not a privilege?

Taxing the rich is only logical. As Willie Horton would say, “That’s where the money is.” It’s not stealing if the law says they must pay, right? Of course, you want to be rich too someday but you’ll deal with that when it happens. You’ve grown up coddled at every turn thinking it’s the government who is your benefactor when in fact, it was all those taxpayers; you know, the 50% of people who actually pay income taxes.

You think that socialism is a utopian societal construct, well, because that’s what your professor told you. You skipped world history so you don’t know the real story about socialism.  You may have missed the part about how governments are responsible for more murders of their own citizens than all the wars combined. Look up Stalin or Mao Tse Tung for a primer on what is to come should we become a socialistic state. Not here you say? With people like you voting, I wouldn’t dismiss it. You certainly weren’t paying attention to American history in high school. Our Founding Fathers put their lives on the line so you can speak ill of our country. You feel just as willing to keep someone from speaking and, gee, isn’t that the same thing?

I encourage you to actually think for yourself and seek information that truly informs. I have hope that if you do, you will form your own opinions, not parrot those of your peers or some phony “journalist” and certainly not fall prey to social media tabloids. Time to grow up kid. Democracy takes work and you’re on the clock.

I’ve come to the realization that the crux of many of our problems come from a bastardization of our representative government. Instead of elected officials that are  beholden to their constituents, we find politicians beholden to themselves. They have rigged the rules for entering the political arena including how to get on a ballot, who and how one gets to vote, the financing of campaigns and even the design of the districts. Having been in power for many years, even decades, current members of Congress have locked out any sense of competition in most of our Congressional Districts. Indeed, they now turn their focus on the Presidential election by trying to remove the Electoral College and lowering the voting age.

If citizens are to take back control from the entrenched power moguls now in Congress, the first order of business must be an impartial and mathematical drawing of Congressional districts. In order to do that, laws these very same people passed must be reviewed and modified if not, overturned. They include the Voting Rights act that mandates districts give weight to minority voters. If every vote counts, why do minority voters get a nod? We have long passed the day where it was necessary for carve outs for any particular group. Identity politics taken to their ultimate end would have us start drawing districts by the number of “fill in the group” ex. Transgenders. Gerrymandering lies at the heart of uncompetitive districts where, once elected, the person can act with impunity and disregard of some the people he/she was supposed to represent.

Getting on a ballot should be facilitated and encouraged. Rather than having to get so many signatures, how about a simple, you pay for the cost of adding your name to the ballot? For campaign finance, a simple, anyone who can vote for that office can give as much money or in-kind donations that they want…but publically! That is, name an address attached to the amount and made public at the time of the donation. Others need not apply including Corporations and Unions.

I don’t have answers but I know one thing for sure. Leaving the rules of engagement to the very people in power assures those attempting to pierce the veil of political influence will find their path strewn with impediments.

While the words move on has been co-opted by a leftist organization, they don’t heed their own name. You would think that having proven that neither our President, nor anyone associated with him, nor any American at all, had colluded with a foreign power to mess up our election, would be a good thing. Indeed some of my liberal friends have actually said they are glad it wasn’t true. But alas, the country is being fed the resistance line, “but what about that obstruction?” The media just can’t get out of its own way to find another way to make money. CNN tried to keep the Malaysian jet story going for months so don’t expect them to drop the “let’s get this President out of office” attacks anytime soon. MSNBC will continue to smirk and issue statements with a “but what about” included.

No one was fired despite their continued predictions. The President didn’t use executive privilege to thwart any request for information. Every piece of requested information was turned over and all in spite of the always known, there was no collusion. BUT the media will not let go nor will the members of Congress who can act with impunity because they are in uncompetitive districts where their hold on their power is assured. It’s time we demand our Representatives get on with the people’s work.

Bernie Sanders had his hands flying in the town hall on FOX last night (4/15/19). With an audience that was balanced by political persuasion, Bernie felt it necessary to start the evening castigating FOX. Moderator Brett Baer politely reminded Bernie they invited him and he accepted.

That said, I tried hard to hear his policies throughout the town hall. The apparent supporters in the audience appeared to have figured out early that they can keep him from getting put on the spot by applauding at his every utterance to a pointed question. I thought the questions would have given him an opportunity to lay out some level of specifics about “Medicare for all”, a reduced defense budget, a tax policy that addresses the inequality and the corporate greed he says is “not American” etc. I got nothing on what he would do but a lot on what is wrong.

Q: Should we send the hoards on our southern border here illegally to sanctuary cities? A: Immigration is a problem that needs a solution. Q: Do you agree with the Green New Deal? A: Climate change must be addressed. Q: How to pay for Medicare for all? A: Your deductibles and co-pays will be free and insurance companies are raking in “billions and billions” of profits. Q: Yes, but won’t taxes go up? A: Yes. Health care is not free. (Finally some truth.) Q: Your tax return indicates you are part of the 1%. You advocate for a 52% tax rate for the wealthy. Why not just pay that voluntarily? A: Why don’t you ask Trump that? Martha, you make a lot of money why don’t you do that?

Bernie: We know Trump is a “pathological” liar and this economy was well on its way to prosperity under Obama. Trump is the most dangerous President we’ve ever had but if that is all we run on, we’ll lose.

Well Bernie, if all you have to run on is pap for your ill-informed supporters, you should lose. Your unwillingness to share your policies shows how shallow and poorly thought out they must be.

Knowing that nothing will satisfy Democrat Congressman Hell bent on taking down this President, Attorney General Barr gave them a head start. By color coding the redactions according to the 4 criteria he defined, he keeps them from asking on each one of the redactions what is behind the blackout. That way they can move right along to some other inquest item. Simple for simple minds.

Unable to get President Trump on collusion, they are turning their attention to Barr who will now suffer the slings and arrows that go along with anyone who does not act on their whims. They may have found the worst thing to happen to them since naming strict Constitutionalists to the Supreme Court; a person who actually follows the laws they passed!

The slide back to serfdom started with Woodrow Wilson and went hyper with FDR. The Turbulent 60’s cemented the progressive policies that are now the bane of the free society our Founders left us. Beginning with Wilson’s turn to globalism and “one world”, through the explosion of controls over our lives with the “New Deal”, and continuing with programs intended to “right the wrongs of the past” like the War on Poverty and the Civil Rights laws that have come to pit one group against another, the state now finds itself the nurturer of tens of millions (still working with HUD and other programs to get real numbers) who are solely dependent upon them. But in a sign that all may not be lost, both sides of the aisle are working on changes to retirement laws that have elements of returning a little more control to us citizens.

Nearly every person in the country knows that both Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid are eating up an increasing proportion of the federal budget. These behemoth programs (part of the New Deal and War on Poverty) have crowded out many other necessities like roads and bridges and the defense of our country. The Senate has introduced changes to private individual retirement accounts that allow for more people to address their own retirement, thus returning SOME of the responsibility for your own well-being back to you. The changes are minor, but at least I read them as token acknowledgment that we better start taking baby steps to address the elephant in the room; our growing entitlements problem. Pollyanna? Perhaps, but until we insist that our Representatives fully right the sinking fiscal ship we are all on, these small changes by our “leaders” are to be encouraged and fostered.

Seems like everyone has an idea for how to fix the “health care system”. I’m not sure what they include in their health care system. Some of these ideas talk about making sure everyone has health insurance, others access to health care and most point to affordability especially on prescription drugs. The dividing line is once again, state run versus the free market.

I contend the health care system has been bastardized and put in peril by the state. Instead of letting free market economics prevail, the state has intervened on a regular basis and to our detriment. Hospitals are required to serve anyone who presents themselves regardless of ability to pay. The unintended consequence is some use the hospital like a primary physician and have that cost born by others. Rather than allow for different levels and increased numbers of care providers, training and licensing requirements limit them. Fewer numbers of providers ultimately contribute to higher cost. The ultimate intervention, the falsely titled, “Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act”, aka Obamacare, tried to eliminate private health insurance. One of its most egregious planks was requiring comprehensive and consistent insurance policies. It resulted in 80 year old women having to pay for maternity coverage.

So here is my idea and yes it does require some state intervention. First is review all education and licensing requirements for health care providers and align them with the services now being demanded by patients. Some states are awakening to this and you see nurse practioners and anesthetists, physicians’ assistants, and other positions permitted to perform procedures previously limited to accredited physicians. Next is requiring hospitals and other licensed facilities (ex. testing companies) to post their prices for goods and services. (How much was that aspirin you just gave me?) Revise tax laws to give a dollar for dollar tax credit for donations to health care providers that care for the indigent. Finally, establish high risk pools, as is done in the Property and Casualty insurance business, to provide insurance coverage for those with pre-existing conditions when they cannot obtain insurance in the free market.

I don’t feel informed enough on pharmaceuticals to offer any suggestion but I’m all ears!

The Supreme Court has accepted a case looking at how Congressional districts are drawn. How it is being approached highlights for me just how out of whack our judicial system has become and how far from the Constitution we have let the courts distance themselves. First indication is how every case is reported with a liberal vs. conservative justice score. For some reason, we have let the courts become political with judges and justices now of either one or the other persuasion. We label them by who placed them in office. So much for blind justice.

Any effort to interpret the Constitution as it is written is met with scoffs by the left. For them, it is a living document that is to be interpreted in the light of today’s society. Claiming to know better than the framers, they make it mean anything to fit their desired outcome. In the case of district mapping, Article 1 of the Constitution (“The Legislative Branch”) says nothing about how they are to be drawn. Some Justices are saying it’s up to the states because of this absence of direction. Other Justices think they should determine how it should be done because….well, they want to?

As for the issue of gerrymandering, I know one thing for sure. Leaving anything up to the persons who benefit from the outcome of their decisions is a recipe for disaster. Add campaign finance and voting laws to this item and you have the means to throttle any semblance of a real democracy.