About Me

In writing the "About Me" portion of this blog I thought about the purpose of the blog - namely, preventing the growth of Socialism & stopping the Death Of Democracy in the American Republic & returning her to the "liberty to abundance" stage of our history. One word descriptions of people's philosophies or purposes are quite often inadequate. I feel that I am "liberal" meaning that I am broad minded, independent, generous, hospitable, & magnanimous. Under these terms "liberal" is a perfectly good word that has been corrupted over the years to mean the person is a left-winger or as Mark Levin more accurately wrote in his book "Liberty & Tyranny" a "statist" - someone looking for government or state control of society. I am certainly not that & have dedicated the blog to fighting this. I believe that I find what I am when I consider whether or not I am a "conservative" & specifically when I ask what is it that I am trying to conserve? It is the libertarian principles that America was founded upon & originally followed. That is the Return To Excellence that this blog is named for & is all about.

Sunday, November 10, 2019

Ruinous Democrat Tax Proposals Versus Supply Side Economics

click on image to enlarge
Above is a pictorial of the famous Laffer Curve drawn on a cocktail napkin by Arthur Laffer in 1974 to explain to Jude Wanniski, Dick Cheney, & Don Rumsfeld that there is a sweet spot on the tax rates axis that will yield the maximum tax revenue for the government.  This sweet spot is paradoxically @ a lower rate than what many politicians instinctively think it should be.  Lower marginal income tax rates, especially @ the highest level as shown on the Laffer Curve, are part of the economic principles known as supply side economics.
Now I have always had a problem with the Laffer Curve because its proponents, including Art Laffer, emphasize the part about "the maximum tax revenue for the government" – the curve shows the government how to get the most money possible from an income tax system but by so doing provides politicians an open invitation to spend even more money than they normally would – give them more money & they will spend it.  Many of us remember that in the 1980s the branch of supple side economics known as Reagonomics lowered the income tax rates & the tax revenues increased only to find that spending increased also & large deficits continued & interest on the national debt grew.  See data below, in millions of dollars, taken from OMB Historical Table 1.1 entitled Summary of Receipts, Outlays, & Surpluses or Deficits (-): 1789 to 2024.
click on table to enlarge                           
The most successful president who practiced supply side economics was Calvin Coolidge in the 1920s.  The income tax, ratified by the 16th Amendment in 1913, was supposed to be a flat tax with a single rate of 4% but it quickly changed to a graduated tax of 1% to 7% with the income brackets determined by the ability to pay.  By 1921 Congress had raised the top marginal rate from 7% to 73%.   President Coolidge was the only president to follow all of the supply-side economic principles:  1) the reduction of the size of government and its claims on earned income, 2) a lower marginal tax rate for the highest income earners, & 3) sound-money policies – the gold standard.  Silent Cal reduced the top 73% income tax rate to 25% by 1925, reduced the national debt, & balanced the budget – a budget that actually was smaller when he left office than when he took office.  Federal spending was 3% of GDP in 1928 – it is 21.3% today.
Now none of the current Democrat presidential candidates are proposing anything like the supply side economic principles listed above that bring prosperity, dignity, strength, & liberty to the American people.  In fact the Dems' proposals bring weakness & government dependence through higher & more taxes & increased federal government spending on one welfare program after another.  The Dems' plans are no more than redistribution of wealth schemes designed to buy votes from the recipients of the welfare programs.
For starters virtually all the Democrat candidates for president would not only repeal the Trump tax cuts of 2017 but would actually reverse them by increasing the top federal marginal income tax rates for individuals to 70% to 90% & corporations to 25% with the mistaken notion that this would start to finance their myriad new Democrat welfare programs.
Elizabeth Warren, the current front runner, would impose an annual 2% wealth tax on households with a net worth above $50 million & Warren's plan originally proposed taxing households with a net worth above $1 billion @ 3% of their wealth annually. 
But after pressure from her fellow Democrat presidential candidates to reveal how her Medicare for All universal single payer healthcare plan would be financed by the federal government Warren released the details that included an increase in her wealth tax, which is a minor part of Warren's overall healthcare financing plans.   
First, employers, other than the smallest businesses, would pay a new "employer Medicare contribution" to the federal government that will start just below what employers pay now in employee healthcare premiums – currently $8.8 trillion over ten years.  These contributions would increase to a national average over time. 
Second, Warren would raise the federal corporate tax rate back to 35% from 21% under Trump & require U.S. companies to pay the 35% rate on their worldwide profits – specifically, & most pointedly including money earned outside the U.S. that is subject to foreign taxation – instead of the minimum tax rates instituted in Trump's 2017 tax cut bill. 
Third, Warren would lengthen depreciation schedules that also reverses an investment incentive tenet from the 2017 tax cut law.
Fourth, Warren's wealth tax has been revised to tax the households of billionaires @ 6% annually on their net worth - twice the original 3% proposed rate. 
And fifth, Warren would employ Oregon Senator Ron Wyden's mark to market tax plan on capital gains that would require people in the top 1% wealth category to pay capital gains taxes on their asset increases each year whether they sell them or not.  Wyden's plan exempts primary residencies & 401(k) plans & would apply to the top 0.3% of taxpayers.  Wyden would increase the capital gains tax rate to ordinary income tax rates.  Democrat presidential candidate Julian Castro endorses Wyden's plan for the top 0.1% of taxpayers.
Prior to Warren's wealth tax rate revision, but not to be outdone, Bernie called for an annual tax on the wealth of couples with a net worth of $32 million ($16 million for individuals) starting @ 1% & increasing to 8% per year for couples with a net worth of $10 billion - thereby proposing a bigger drag on the economy in this regard than Warren.  Bernie also calls for imposing an exit tax of up to 60% on the assets of wealthy people who renounce their U.S. citizenship.  There is no freedom in Bernie's proposals – only tyranny.
Warren has also proposed giving every current & future Social Security recipient an additional $2,400 a year permanent benefit increase to help lift senior citizens out of poverty – that would be financed by additional taxes of 14.8% on high-earners income, capital gains, & dividends.  Warren's plan provides no additional benefits to the high-income earners footing the bill so it is a pure redistribution of wealth to a welfare scheme.
Naturally Biden likes to preach continuation of BO's policies & his tax plan calls for repealing the "stepped up basis" for capital gains in the death tax laws.  Biden would have heirs pay capital gains taxes on realized or unrealized increases based on the original purchase price of an inherited asset @ double the current capital gains rate for taxpayers with incomes of $1 million or more.  And Biden masquerades as a moderate?
All of the above taxes are needed to finance the gargantuan spending programs that Democrats have in mind that dwarf the current level of federal government spending that totaled $4.45 trillion in FY 2019 that ended September 30.  For instance, previous posts have detailed the cost of AOC's Green New Deal @ $93 trillion over the next ten years.  Warren calculated that the federal government will spend just under $52 trillion over the next ten years on her Medicare for All plan – to be funded by the wealthy & corporations.
Specifically, virtually all of the remaining 16 Democrat presidential contenders want, or can easily be led to support, people of substance paying for Medicare for All, a guaranteed federal jobs program, free public college or trade school, reparations for slavery, & a Green New Deal that includes switching electricity & transportation to 100% renewables by 2030, including the trading in of fossil fuel powered vehicles for new electrical vehicles, a regional high speed rail system, school & transit buses being replaced with electric buses, & truckers replacing diesel powered tractor trailers.  Democrat presidential contenders would ban fracking, ban drilling offshore & on federal lands, ban imports & exports of fossil fuels, & cancel oil pipelines already being built.  Federal tax money would be used to help small businesses & families weatherize & retrofit buildings to be energy compliant.
Now all of the above projects will overwhelm the money of corporations & millionaires & billionaires in the top 1% as detailed below.
Long time readers will remember the excellent video posted on January 3, 2012 (see reference post below) entitled Eat The Rich of Bill Whittle going through every day of the year marking a calendar, starting @ 12:01 AM on January 1, to show just how far money goes, @ a time of much less federal spending than being considered today, from the following sources: confiscated profits from the Fortune 500 companies, the combined salaries of professional athletes in the four major sports plus the total winnings on the PGA tour & NASCAR, every penny of people's annual earnings above $250,000, the money funding the Iraq & Afghanistan wars, proceeds from selling everyone's homes in Beverly Hills after evicting them, money confiscated from Bill Gates, Warren Buffet & the other 398 billionaires in the Forbes 400 plus another 100 for good measure, money from the elimination of all foreign aid, & to round out the year to midnight on December 31 add in $40 contributed by every man, woman, & child in the country – except illegal aliens (my opinion).
The above video is very enlightening & instructional in that you will never again fall for the false claim that the top 1% can pay for everything politicians propose to people who think they deserve everything.  One year wipes out the millionaires & billionaires & gives corporations no reason to exist – one & done.
Wealth taxes & high income taxes on the wealthy are the worst taxes of all.  When you tax the rich normal people get hurt the most when they lose their jobs.  The rich invest their money after covering living expenses while the average person pays bills if they have a job @ all.  High income tax rates & wealth taxes take money from the most productive Americans & give it to the least productive through the 126 welfare programs identified by the Cato Institute.
Supply side economics as practiced by Coolidge, JFK, & Reagan show that tremendous economic growth & prosperity result when low top marginal income tax rates unleash human ingenuity, innovation, enterprise, & genius that encourage productive investment by corporations & the wealthy.
BTW - our glorious Constitution protects us from wealth taxes that are direct taxes that have to be apportioned among the states on the basis of population per the decennial census specified in the Constitution (Article I, Sections 1 & 9) & that are in violation of the Takings Claus of the Fifth Amendment.  Of course these principles have no effect if we don't have a Constitution & a country left if Warren, Sanders, Biden or any of the others come to power.
Reference Post:  One & Done

Sunday, October 27, 2019

Fuel Mixture Quiz

Several years ago my friend Anne Neal, former President of ACTA, told me that people love quizzes.  I never found this to be truer than when I checked the audience of RTE one night recently & found 2,875 people had clicked on to the website that day.  First of all I was astonished @ the number – far & away an all time high for one day.  But upon further checking I found that this high activity was virtually all on quizzes in that eight of the top ten posts that day were quizzes – Water Bucket Quiz, Salt Deduction Quiz, Buffalo Quiz, Birthday Quiz, Rockefeller Center Christmas Store Quiz, Stock Market Quiz, & Compound Interest Quiz – long time readers will remember these quizzes because these good sports participated in all of them – & like me learned a lot.
Just think of the popularity of Tucker Carlson's weekly quiz on FNC to get a grip on the grip quizzes have on people.
The subject quiz of this post is a real life question from a charter member of this blog involving a WWII era generator, shown below, that was used to recharge batteries in military air fields.  The generator had been given to our subscriber – who loves this sort of thing - & after all the years of the equipment sitting idle he made substantial maintenance upgrades to it in his garage.  He made a new gas tank from a stove pipe & soldered in copper end caps & salvaged the original gas cap and shut off valve.  The old tank had a inch of gunk in the bottom, & the top of the tank looked like Swiss cheese when tested with water.  It rusted out from moisture collecting on the top half of the tank. The carburetor also had gunk and needed cleaning.  And after all this corrective work he told me that "after a few pulls" the generator was functional again.  After working with him in the engineering – construction business for twenty years I can well believe he made this relic work.
The problem that our expert mechanic presented to me pertained to fine tuning the right fuel mixture so that the generator would not smoke – it is 2 cycle (oil & gasoline).
He asked me – "Could you calculate the proper mixture?  Instructions: Mix ½ pint of oil to each gallon of gasoline.  What is the mixture for one quart of fuel?"
Please let me know how you work the problem reducing the specified proportions of oil & gasoline for a gallon of gasoline to a quart of gasoline.  Specifically, how many fluid ounces of oil should be added to each quart of gasoline for this generator?  I will post all correct answers or alternatively will send the solution I calculated privately to anyone who requests it if no one gets the right answer.

Sunday, October 13, 2019

The Failure Of The Peaceful Transfer Of Power & Its Effect On 2020 Senate & Presidential Races

The last post focused on both the headwind & the opportunity involved with the GOP trying to take back control of the House in 2020.  The headwind is due to the sheer number of House seats needed to be won to replace Pelosi as speaker.  The opportunity is replacing the many House Republican retirees who have Democrat-like failing liberty scores with Representatives who are more in tune with liberty & adherence to the Constitution.  Since the last post two more House Republicans have retired – Chris Collins of NY (F @ 35%) & Mac Thornberry of Texas (F @ 36%) bringing the total to 20 House Republicans retiring to six Democrats.
The Senate presents a different problem – one of trying to hold on to control of the Senate but doing so while electing Members who will be more faithful to their oaths than the retiring senators & those facing primary challengers.  The Senate portion of the makeup of the 116th Congress is 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats, an Independent (King of Maine), & an Independent Socialist (Bernie).  King & Bernie caucus with the Democrats.
Republicans will be defending 23 Senate seats in 2020 while Democrats will defend 12.  These figures include the 33 Class II senators up for reelection in 2020 & two special elections in Arizona (caused by McCain's death) & Georgia (caused by Isakson's retirement @ the end of 2019 due to poor health).  Four Republican senators are not running for reelection in 2020 & one Democrat incumbent is not seeking reelection – Tom Udall in NM. 
The biggest surprise is that Susan Collins (R,ME) has not made her intentions known regarding seeking another term.  Collins won her last Senate election by 36.2% but since then gave an impassioned speech in favor of Bret Kavanaugh, who won his Supreme Court seat 50 to 48, & also voted for Trump's December 2017 tax cuts that did away with the individual ObamaCare mandate – two votes of questionable appeal in Maine.  Collins has a liberty score of F @ 12% joining the other 3 Members of the Maine delegation who are all graded F.
Defending two Senate seats in Georgia will be extra hard for the GOP in a state that has indications of turning blue with the latest indication being the closeness if the 2018 gubernatorial election in which a Republican squeaked out a victory.
Republicans can lose three Senate seats & still control the Senate if Trump wins but confirming Supreme Court Justices is dicey even now because some current Republicans are not reliable votes – like Lisa Murkowski (F @ 27%) of Alaska who opposed Kavanaugh.  The most difficult races in 2020 are in Arizona, Colorado, North Carolina, & Georgia where, as mentioned above, two seats are being defended.  Texas poses a special problem if presidential candidates Beto O'Rourke or Julian Castro or Castro's twin brother Texas Congressman Joaquin Castro decide to run for the Senate.  O'Rourke lost the 2018 Senate race to Ted Cruz by a narrow 3% so the seat could be in play again in 2020.  John Cornyn is the Republican incumbent with a liberty score of F @ 31%.
Martha McSally narrowly lost the 2018 Senate race in Arizona to Kyrsten Sinema but was shortly thereafter appointed to fill McCain's open seat until the 2020 special election.  McSally has a liberty score of D @ 60% & is not strong on opposing Red Flag laws so many conservatives in the state are not pleased with her.  Businessman Daniel McCarthy is planning a primary challenge – the type of challenge that hurt McSally in 2018.  The Democrat opponent is most likely former astronaut Mark Kelly, whose wife, former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, was shot in an assassination attempt in 2011 so a debate on gun policy or allowing families & law enforcement to remove guns from people deemed dangerous under Red Flag laws will be very sensitive.  Could be a no-win for Republicans either way.  Trump has endorsed McSally.
In Colorado Cory Gardner won his last election by 1.9% & has a liberty score of F @ 49%.  His most likely opponent is former Democrat presidential candidate John Hickenlooper who already has won two statewide elections as governor in addition to winning two terms as mayor of Denver.  Hickenlooper is a very formidable opponent.
In North Carolina Thom Tillis won his last election by 1.5% & has a liberty score of F @ 38%.  Tillis faces a primary challenger in businessman Garland Tucker who believes that Tillis has not supported Trump sufficiently.  Trump formally endorsed Tillis in June.  Many readers will recall the post North Carolina Patriots Help Influence Senator's Vote from last March when two very dear friends, who live in NC, shared their positive experience with Tillis after writing to him. 
Kansas has an open Senate seat with the retirement of Pat Roberts who has a liberty score of F @ 42% – so Republicans have a chance to make a real improvement.  Kris Kobach, former Kansas secretary of state (SOS), lost his gubernatorial bid in 2018 despite Trump's endorsement so many are trying to tempt Mike Pompeo to leave his national SOS position & run for the Senate representing Kansas.  Pompeo could secure this seat for the GOP which could be very pivotal especially regarding the confirmation of Supreme Court Justices.
One bright spot for the GOP is Alabama where Democrat Doug Jones (F @ 11%) won the seat vacated by Jeff Sessions in a special election when Sessions took the job as Attorney General in 2017.  Alabama is one of the most conservative states in the country & retaking this seat is highly likely if Judge Roy Moore, who lost to Jones, does not win the Republican nomination.  Moore was inundated with sexual misconduct charges involving teenage girls that he could not overcome in the 2017 special election.
The above analysis shows that the Senate is up for grabs, if not stacked against the Republicans maintaining control.
click on image to enlarge
The above image shows the electoral college win of Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton in 2016.  In essence, all other things being equal, Wisconsin (10 electoral votes) brought Trump to the 270 electoral vote total necessary to win the presidency.   Pennsylvania (20) & Michigan (16) provided the increase in electoral votes to 306.
But even @ that the victory was very fragile – by a total of less than 80,000 votes combined in all three of these states.  Razor thin.  BO could have mustered up more than the ten thousand votes Trump won Michigan by in Detroit alone.  Trump won Wisconsin by 22,748 votes statewide & Hillary received 43,000 less votes in 2016 than BO did in 2012 in Milwaukee alone.
And of course the popular vote tally, that is of no consequence in the electoral process, is a foregone Democrat conclusion.  Since 1988 Republicans have won only one popular vote total in the last seven presidential races.  With Hillary's 4.48 million vote advantage in California & 1.73 million vote advantage in New York it will be hard enough for any Republican to win the electoral college in the foreseeable future let alone the meaningless popular vote.
If you discount California (55) & New York (29) Trump had a 3,134,432 popular vote plurality in 2016 over Hillary in the combined other forty eight states – 55,686,707 to 52,552,275 – so even spotting the Democrat nominee 84 electoral votes in 2020 still gives Trump a chance in the electoral college.
Please note that Hillary did not win the popular vote in 2016 – when the votes were certified in all fifty states Hillary had not received a majority of the popular vote.  She led with a plurality of 2,868,519 votes (65,853,625 – 62,985,106) or 48.0% versus 45.9%, as the polls had indicated.  The polls were not wrong in their polling data – they were wrong in erroneously projecting Hillary as the next president.  Hillary did receive 2.1% more of the popular vote than Trump as the polls correctly forecast.
So with many of Trump's advisers correctly worried about his losing Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, & Michigan in 2020 Trump has set his sights on four other states just in case any or all of these three fall back into Democrat hands – New Mexico (5 electoral votes), Minnesota (10), New Hampshire (4) & Nevada (6) total 25 electoral votes if all four states are swept by Trump, enough to win the electoral college if all things remain the same as in 2016 except Trump loses WI, PA, & MI.  The electoral college totals, in that case, would show Trump winning 285 to 253.
At his September 16 KAG rally outside Albuquerque Trump touted that New Mexico leads the nation in job & wage gains under his administration – Nevada is second on this list.  Trump is counting on this type of prosperity growth meaning something to these people.  But we have little or no reason to believe it does with the socialist mentality in the country exemplified by the share of prime-age Americans (25 to 54) seeking or holding jobs being less than it was when the great recession started in December 2007 – 83.1% versus 82.6% last month accordingly to the Bureau Of Labor Statistics.  The labor force participation rate of people in their prime working years has dropped by 1.9 percentage points from 1998 to the present begging the question how important are jobs to these people in their prime working years.  In 2016 Trump lost New Mexico 48% to 40% in a 62% turnout election with Hillary not putting a foot in NM to campaign – but the former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson received 9% of the vote as the Libertarian candidate.  Hispanic voters comprise almost 40% of NM's electorate.  Based on all this Trump thinks NM is in play. 
Trump lost MN to Hillary in 2016 by 1.5% in a 75% turnout election - MN has not voted for a Republican since 1972.  Reagan lost it to Mondale in 1984 by 0.2%.  Trump lost Nevada by 2.4% in a 77% turnout election – the third time in a row that NV has voted for the Democrat nominee.  Trump lost NH by 0.40% in 2016 in a 75% turnout election – the second closet state election after MI.  NH last voted Republican in 2000.
The close high turnout loses in 2016 do provide some credibility for Trump's NM, MN, NV, NH strategy especially if the turnout drops off which is highly unlikely.  Low turnouts always favor Republicans.
But even a sweep of the seven states mentioned above by Trump does not mean he is home safe.  Georgia (16), Texas (38), Arizona (11), North Carolina (15), Florida (29), & Ohio (18) all look to be in play to some degree & are worrisome.  Trump is underwater in his approval ratings in both AZ & NC & a loss in those two states would wipe out any gain from Trump's four new targeted states that he thinks are in play.
But getting back to WI, PA, & MI - Trump's job-approval rating is currently @ or below 45% in WI & MI.  It is below 40% in PA.  A Marquette University poll conducted August 25 to 29 showed Biden beating Trump in Wisconsin by 9 points.  Democrats have no state with more reason to beat Trump than WI – they still can't believe Hillary never put a foot in the state in 2016.  The Democrat National Convention will be held in Milwaukee in 2020.  In 2018 longtime popular governor & former Republican presidential candidate Scott Walker lost his reelection bid to Democrat Tony Evers.
More recent polls than the above mentioned Marquette poll from several states show Biden beating Trump in eight key swing states.  Warren trails Trump in five of the eight.  The latest national poll shows Biden winning 51% to 44% & Warren winning 48% to 46% – the same plurality that Hillary had in 2016.
Based on this post & the last there is much reason to believe that the electoral process in 2020 is stacked against Republicans & especially against Trump. 
Free market capitalists will have 11 months of angst waiting for the debates to start.  The debates provide the best chance for Trump to directly & unfiltered expose the decadent destructive plan of ruin for America that Democrats are prepared to implement.  For a few hours on maybe two occasions one of the uninspiring Democrat socialist presidential candidates, who take their marching orders from AOC to a large extent, will have emerged to stand on a stage with Trump - a man of stature & unlimited energy.  This appears to be such a mismatch that I would not be surprised if Democrats make up a reason to not participate in the presidential debates. 
The Democrat presidential nominee will have to explain to the nation on national TV:
Why he or she is more worried about transgender bathrooms than sanctuary cities that harbor illegal aliens, why they think illegal aliens have more rights than you & me, why they propose decriminalizing illegal border crossings, why they plan to hand out reparation money to Blacks & homosexuals, why they want to eliminate our borders & ICE, why they want to expand welfare programs @ taxpayers' expense including a federal jobs guarantee & free public college & trade school, why you need to show ID for virtually everything except to vote, why there was a wall with armed guards around the Democrat convention center in Milwaukee last summer but Democrats are against a wall to protect America @ our southwest border;   
Why they want to vacate the Second Amendment & eliminate the electoral college, why they believe universal single payer government healthcare is a human right that depends on someone else (i.e., doctors) providing that right @ their expense, why they plan to make employer provided healthcare insurance illegal for over 150 million American workers, why their policies amount to a gigantic give away of the citizenry's life's savings to the poorest least educated unskilled people in exchange for their expected votes that will keep the socialist Democrat elites in power for the rest of their lives @ our expense – including extending healthcare insurance to illegal aliens, why taxpayers should be on the hook for the forgiveness of all student loans, why they won't admit that the Green New Deal, that calls for the end of the use of fossils fuels by 2030 thereby eliminating all the jobs of people employed in coal & fracking, is the largest expansion of government since LBJ's Great Society & is
more about AOC's economic agenda
for America & less about eliminating carbon emissions;
Why they honor thugs as heroes while vilifying policemen who bring them to justice, why they do not condemn illegal aliens who have been deported six times & are free to walk a pier & fire the gun that killed Kate Steinle, why bakers, florists, pizza store owners, & photographers have to prove they are "religious enough" to avoid discrimination lawsuits after not participating in homosexual marriage ceremonies, &
why the Democrat socialist policies attract caravans of illegal aliens to America, who turn out to be fraudulent asylum seekers @ rates of over 75%, thereby making U.S. citizens wonder if it is worth it to work, or even to look for work, (there are 102 million Americans working full time year round & 108 million Americans receiving some portion of the 126 welfare programs identified by the Cato Institute – source Dick Morris Power Grab, Page 48).
Trump will counter the above sick anti-American Democrat ideas by pointing out he has been securing our borders against an onslaught of people intent on violating our sovereignty @ their pleasure & our expense, building our economy (lowest U-3 unemployment rate since December 1969 @ 3.5%, the lowest U-6 rate since 2000 @ 6.9%, the lowest unemployment rate for high school drop outs @ 4.8% since the labor department started keeping such records in 1992, a 3.9% Hispanic unemployment rate & the lowest jobless rate for Hispanic men on record @ 3.0% going back to 2003), strengthening our military as opposed to the Dems no-first-use nuclear policy that means the United States under a Democrat president would be willing to see major cities on either coast wiped out by a nuclear strike before responding in kind, protecting & supporting Israel, reducing taxes & regulations on businesses, protecting the unborn, & eliminating unfair trade even @ his own personal short term political disadvantage.
Trump can counter Democrat's tremendous bias against the well off & corporations by pointing out that the general public owns stocks & bonds outright as well as through pension funds & 401(k)s.  How many million people work for corporations? – corporations are not the enemy they are our employers.
Trump can ask why his Democrat opponent favors failing government schools where teachers' unions call the shots rather than allowing the growth of charter schools that caring parents want their children to attend because of the higher learning achievements especially for blacks & Hispanics.  Democrats & teachers' unions have a personnel interest in not fixing the education problems of this country & Trump must make this clear.
While on the subject of education, the August Jobs Openings & Labor Turnover Summary (JOLTS) issued by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) on October 9 showed there were 7.1 million job openings in America on the last business day of August, a figure exceeding the number of unemployed people who are actively looking for a job by over 1.2 million.  See graphic below that shows job openings over 7 million & new hires under 6 million.  There have been more job openings than unemployed people looking for work since March 2018.  Trump has unleashed an economy that cannot find enough qualified workers & poor education & lack of training is the essential reason.  The relationship to this bottleneck has to be hammered home.
click on graphic to enlarge
Trump can use the Dems own words to show they will reverse the Tax Cuts & Jobs Act of 2017 & institute 70% to 90% top marginal income tax rates on individuals, raise the capital gains & corporate tax rates, & implement wealth taxes. 
But worst of all for our Republic, the Democrats have been in a constant impeachment mode since the day after the election of 2016 when they were stunned to realized that Trump had won the presidency.  Prove this for yourself by clicking on the following montage that starts in November 2016 & goes to the present without a month missed in between.
Democrat hopes for a basis for impeachment were placed on Robert Mueller's investigation that, after two years of wasting time & money (two terms I hate), did not prove Trump colluded with Russia or obstructed justice.  How do I know? – because Dems unceremoniously dropped Mueller & moved on to put the next worm on the hook after the last one fell off without a whimper meaning bring the fake Ukraine story front & center.  In between we had claims regarding Stormy Daniels & Trump's tax returns, both of which still float around the media in case they catch on.  Dems aren't choosy which basis for impeachment they use just as long as they can find one.
It is important for the electorate to recognize just how long this impeachment obsession has gone on – the Mueller investigation @ least partially masked the obsession because it took almost two years to conduct & came up with nothing.  
Trump's impeachment onslaught has been relentless as the above video montage proves without the hostile anti-American media's least bit of suspicion or interest regarding Hillary's campaign hiring Christopher Steele & paying for Steele's phony dossier, Bill Clinton's large speaking fees following Hillary's state department trips, & contributions to the Clinton Foundation from foreign actors - or Joe Biden bragging on national TV about his getting the prosecutor fired while investigating Burisma Holdings Limited, a Ukrainian natural gas company doing business with Joe's son Hunter Biden, or Hunter Biden's compensation & contract execution that wreak of nepotism @ the U.S. vice presidential level.  The hostile anti-American media sees no possible perception of any of these Clinton or Biden dealings being wrong or worthy of any investigation.
We have descended past the point where we can have free elections & peaceful transfers of power because it would undo all the work the socialist Democrats have done to brainwash our children starting with primary education & running through elementary & secondary schools & college.   This brainwashing has far too many of the citizenry, especially the young, willing to throw away their heritage of liberty, as they become enemies of capitalism in favor of a government-dependent socialist life, after graduating from college with tens of thousands of dollars of student loan debt & no viable or visible gainful employment.
It should be obvious that the Democrats hatred of Trump shows that Democrats cannot tolerate the peaceful transfer of power from BO to Trump where the power of the people, as a result of an election, is given to the person chosen to lead the U.S.  Such a peaceful transfer, if allowed to happen without constant & intentional harmful interference, would start to reverse years of socialist brainwashing in the kindergarten through college government school system – a system Neal Boortz called "more dangerous to America than al Qaeda" - as people see for themselves the benefits of replacing government dependence with limited government, personal responsibility, & free enterprise.
Before Trump, Democrats thought they had the country on a glide path to socialism.  After Trump won, Dems had to resort to attacking free market speakers on college campuses & people dining or wearing MAGA hats.  Tactics of tyranny designed to intimidate & shut up any opposition have been regularly used since Hillary lost the election of 2016.
But the current belligerent antagonistic state of affairs has progressed way past the peaceful transfer of power from BO to Trump.  It is now something that half of the country just cannot stand or tolerate.  We will keep this up until we destroy ourselves & one of God's two great gifts to the world – America.  The Democrat socialists cannot afford to let Trump govern, without their constant interference, so that people see the fruits of free market capitalism after BO expanded every government program he could find during his eight years in office.
This predicament is important enough that one reader sent me the following message after the last post  – "I remind people even if having heart surgery go & vote first."

Sunday, September 29, 2019

House GOP Drop Outs & Democrat Debate Set The Stage For 2020 Election

Congrats to Republican Dan Bishop for winning the special election earlier this month in North Carolina's ninth congressional district (NC-09).  It was a hard fought victory – in fact too hard fought & that is the problem.
The race was the last unresolved House race for the 2018 midterm election.  The special election was ordered after the previous Republican candidate was charged with fraud for tampering with absentee ballots after apparently winning by 900 votes.
Bishop beat his opponent Democrat Dan Macready by 2 percentage points 50.7% to 48.7% or 3,937 votes – a razor thin margin when you consider that 189,363 votes were cast.  But still a low one third turnout – source Kyle Peterson on JER. 
This is not a case of a win is a win.  This win comes with some baggage. 
NC-09 has been represented in the House by a Republican since 1963.  Both Trump & Mitt won the district by 12 percentage points.  Trump & Pence each campaigned, all in, for Bishop the day before the election period closed, election day, with Trump holding a standing room only KAG rally on that Monday night.  Bishop & Republican groups spent over $6 million to get this election result.
The problem is that Bishop's margin of victory in NC-09 did nothing to "convince House Republicans undecided about seeking reelection in 2020 that they're in a position to win back the majority" said Dave Wasserman of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report who added it "is still bad news for the House GOP overall."
House Republicans need to win a net 19 seats to retake the House majority & remove Nancy Pelosi as Speaker.  There are 35 GOP-held House seats that are less favorable than the staunchly Republican NC-09.  Democrat incumbents only represent four districts where Trump won by more than the 12 points he did in NC- 09 (MN-07 by 31%, NY-22 by 15%, OK –05 by 14%, & SC –01 by 13%).
In addition, 2020 is a year that the Constitution requires the federal government to complete a census from which reapportionment - the reallocation of congressional seats - will take place.  Some states will lose seats & some will gain seats.  Both parties will go all out to control the redistricting (gerrymandering) process that shapes congressional & state legislative districts for the next ten years.
The one bright spot from the NC-09 special election is the result from Cumberland County – a county with a 35% black population.  Trump lost Cumberland County by 20,000 votes in 2016 but Bishop actually won it by 0.3%.  As of August black & Asian unemployment rates are all-time record lows & the Hispanic unemployment rate tied its previous all-time low – source Bureau Of Labor Statistics.  The black unemployment rate narrowed in August to the smallest gap ever with the white unemployment rate.  The type of black voter turnaround in NC- 09 would be stunning if carried over nationally to the presidential race in 2020 & Hispanics & Asians followed suit.  
But let's not get ahead of ourselves.
It was late July when the slew of House Republican retirements began coming in that started worrying Republicans & many conservatives – especially since so many of these politicians who suddenly wanted to spend more time with their families were from Texas – a state that looks to be in the process of turning blue.
But a detailed look @ the record of these GOP retirees shows that virtually all of them have been little or no help to Trump & definitely none to our Republic & the Constitution they took an oath to support & defend.
Texas congressmen Pete Olson (F @ 46%), Mike Conaway (F @ 42%), Will Hurd (F @ 20%), Bill Flores (F @ 51%), & Kenny Marchant (D @ 67%) are all retiring.  Their grades & liberty scores, shown next to their names, are indicative of the majority of incumbent Republicans - they are little better than Democrats, everyone of which is an F.  Other than Conway, who won 80% to 20% in his last election, & Flores, who won 58% to 42% in his last election, the other three retiring Texas GOP drop outs won their last election by less than 5 percentage points meaning they foresaw the losing electoral writing on the wall in 2020.  The results of the NC-09 special election only confirmed the correctness of their decision to drop out.
Other well known early House Republican drop outs were Rob Bishop of Utah (F @ 46%), Martha Roby of Alabama (F @ 52%), & Susan Brooks of Indiana (F @ 30%).  In the ultimate of ironies Susan Brooks is the NRCC's recruitment chairwomen – an F @ 30% is the Republican recruitment chairwomen?  Oh, please.
Then, @ the end of August, Wisconsin congressman Sean Duffy announced his retirement the day after appearing on FNC for an hour with Steve Hilton acting, as always, as a constitutional & fiscal conservative.  Duffy is graded F with a liberty score of 56%.
Finally, another Wisconsin congressman, Jim Sensenbrenner, the second longest serving House member, announced his retirement.  Sensenbrenner is graded C with a 78% liberty score which is remarkable after 40 years in Washington. 
The liberty scores of the above list of GOP retirees, & the knowledge that all but a handful of Republican incumbents are equally poor, shows why people who vote Republican are more often than not frustrated.  Republicans can talk a good game from time to time but then don't deliver once in office – think not repealing ObamaCare or cutting spending.  Democrats stick together because every one of them are graded F with the highest liberty scores in the 20s.
Democrats try to pass legislation that will destroy America while Republicans are very weak & fragmented really standing for nothing & just about all of the drop-outs so far resemble this picture.
Republican debates & town halls have American flags clearly displayed around the facilities & on the lapel pins of the speakers - for what it is worth.  At the Houston Democrat Party primary debate earlier this month there was no American flag visible on stage during the debate & only Biden & Yang wore American flag lapel pins & Yang had his on the wrong side of his jacket according to the U.S. Flag Code Section 8(J).  Bernie wore a lapel pin but not an American flag lapel pin.
Though not televised – it was live streamed only - the national anthem was sung prior to the aforementioned debate by Breanna Lindsey, a 20 year old student @ Texas Southern University – a large public historically black university (HBCU) where the debate was held.  The American flag was visible on the side of the auditorium during Breanna's fine rendition but not on the stage behind the debaters.  See photo below.
 click on photo to enlarge.
The flag was not seen by the television audience once the debate started.
Now not wearing lapel pins & not displaying the flag of a group of people you are trying to control are the type of silly mistakes that Saul Alinsky warned against in Rules For Radicals.  Alinsky taught that a community organizer – or in this case national organizer running for president – should blend in with the people to make it look like he or she was one of them – i.e., he or she was on their side.  Not wearing a pin or showing a flag were stupid misjudgments that could only make it harder for an enterprising organizer to be successful in winning over a group.
Now the most alarming thought of all is that the Democrat presidential primary candidates, who all know & practice the Alinsky method, are not trying to blend in with the unsuspecting Americans who are too busy enjoying America to know what is happening, but rather these presidential aspirants are showing their attractive natural feeling of closeness & understanding to the enemies of America - those who have been taught & brainwashed from an early age to hate America, those who despise our way of life so much that they can't stand seeing the American flag or a patriotic lapel pin.  What if these presidential primary candidates have correctly determined that these haters are in the majority, or @ least the voting majority, & therefore know there is more to gain by revealing their natural dislike for America too?

Sunday, September 15, 2019

Pocket Constitution

To celebrate the writing of the Constitution 232 years ago this week below are two examples of correspondence Hillsdale College received regarding the Constitution & in particular
the 390,000 pocket constitutions that the school has sent to students across America.  Grateful teachers are also most appreciative.
For those who have not read the Constitution in years, decades, or ever please contact Gina Gallutia @ 517-607-2738 @ Hillsdale College to receive a free copy of the pocket Constitution.  Please let me know if you have any problem getting through & I will try to help.
You will find reading the Constitution invaluable between now & the November 2020 presidential election.

Sunday, September 8, 2019

Green New Deal Is More About AOC's Economic Agenda Than Climate Change

“I said, we have an existential threat, we are in a situation where, if we don’t act quickly, we’re going to basically lose almost everything we have.  And that’s exactly the case.  It’s even more urgent now.”  Joe Biden speaking about the urgency of addressing climate change @ a campaign rally in NH in May where he claimed to introduce the first bill that addressed climate change in the 1980s – over 30 years ago.

After AOC, the de facto leader of the Democrat Party, presented her version of the Green New Deal to a group of fawning Democrat congressmen last February, all of the Democrat presidential aspirants have hopped on board to one large degree or another.  Joe Biden joined in to remind everyone that it is even more urgent now than it was the first time he told us about its urgency over 30 years ago.
But the devil is in the details & a check of the details of the plan reveals that AOC’s Green New Deal is in reality the largest expansion of government since LBJ’s Great Society.  It not only proposes getting the U.S. off of fossil fuels within 10 years but also providing universal healthcare, government job & housing guarantees, & a host of impractical ideas like replacing air travel with trains & upgrading & retrofitting every building in America to make them more energy efficient.  It is more about AOC’s economic agenda for America & less about eliminating carbon emissions.
The above understanding of the purpose of AOC’s Green New Deal plan was confirmed when AOC’s chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, explained to the staff of former presidential candidate Jay Inslee (one-issue climate change candidate who has now dropped out) that “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal, is it wasn’t originally a climate thing @ all.  Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?  Because we really think of it as a how do you change the entire economy thing.”
Now you can check to see for yourself that AOC’s Green New Deal puts in just enough climate change points to mask that it is really about taking over the entire American way of life or as her chief of staff put it
the “economy thing.”  Just look below @ some of the points from the Senate Joint Resolution 8, entitled “A joint resolution recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal” within 10 years, but not later than 2030, sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell & brought to the Senate floor for the purpose of putting senators on record supporting such a plan.
1.  establishing millions of high-wage jobs & ensuring economic security for all,
2.  securing clean air & water, climate & community resiliency, healthy food, access to nature, & a sustainable environment for all & promoting justice & equality,
3.  upgrading all existing buildings & constructing new buildings to achieve maximum energy & water efficiency,
4.  removing pollution & greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation & agriculture sectors – i.e., no more fossil fuels, &
5.  providing higher education, high-quality healthcare, & affordable, safe, & adequate housing to all.
The joint resolution was defeated in the Senate 57 to 0 with not one Democrat, including Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey who introduced the bill, voting for it when it counted (see photo above).
The urgency, or @ least the significance of making the right politically correct impression, about the Green New Deal was evidently lost on the “Google Campers” – i.e., celebrities who took 114 private jets & mega yachts valued @ between $200 million & 400 million to attend Google’s climate change conference in Sicily’s Verdura Resort last month.  The celebrities, most of whom thankfully I never heard of, very well could have used more fossil fuels getting to the conference than most people use in a year.  A classic example of do as I say, not as I do.
American Action Forum (AAF) headed by former Congressional Budget Office Director, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, analyzed the Green New Deal & provided a cost estimate of the several parts & its totality.
AAF calculated that it will cost over $5 billion just to meet
the Green New Deal’s goal of transitioning to “clean, renewable, & zero-emission energy sources” within the next 10 years.  Not to be outdone by AOC, his friend & one time presidential primary campaign worker in 2016, Bernie (also a co-sponsor of AOC’s Green New Deal) has added many bell & whistle giveaways to AOC’s mostly aspirational original plan & has
come up with his own version of the Green New Deal that is estimated to cost $16.7 trillion over the next 10 years - for both the fossil fuel elimination portion & the economic agenda portion of his plan that is not directly linked to climate policy.  To help understand why Joe Biden is considered a moderate – Biden’s climate change
plan is estimated to cost “only” $1.7 trillion in the next 10 years.
Bernie claims his plan will pay for itself within 15 years through a combination of new taxes, fees, & litigation against fossil fuel companies, new taxes on corporations & wealthy people, together with cuts in military spending related to U.S. reliance on oil & savings across the economy.  Source: Inside Climate News.
But getting back to AOC’s original Green New Deal – when all of the pieces of the above Senate Joint Resolution are added together AAF calculates the cost could be as high as $93 trillion over the next ten years.  See table below.

The Federal Reserve reports that the nation’s household net worth is currently about $108 trillion meaning that the $93 trillion estimated cost over the next ten years of AOC’s Green New Deal is just a little less than the nation’s current total wealth – the value of all assets such as stocks, savings accounts, & property minus liabilities such as personal debt.  AAF estimates the annual cost for each American household could be as high as $67,000 to meet the goals of the Green New Deal: “net zero” emissions, widespread high-speed rail service that makes air travel unnecessary, guaranteed government jobs, universal healthcare & its tax cost & diminished choices & decreased access to providers, & building, retrofitting, or otherwise upgrading every house & building in the country to maximize energy efficiency.
The Heritage Foundation provides the following graphic that shows the cost comparisons for electricity bills using coal versus those using wind & solar energy systems for a family of four.

The AAF report concludes that "the Green New Deal is clearly very expensive.  Its further expansion of the federal government's role in some of the most basic decisions of daily life, however, would likely have a more lasting & damaging impact than its enormous price tag."
A lot has been made the past several days about the erroneous track of many weather forecasting models that showed Hurricane Dorian going across Florida into Alabama.  Now if meteorologists can't get the forecast of a hurricane right over a period of a few days why would we trust them to surrender our way of life over climate change predictions & draconian regulations & their tremendous costs covering the next ten years?