This Election is Costing Me Sleep, because Donald Trump will implement certain policies if Elected

I have not slept soundly through the night for some time now. I wake up between 3 & 4 or 5, relieve my prostate system, put buds in my ears and listen to the BBC.  There is nothing better to put me to sleep than the phrasings and tonality of a British accent.  I thank my 80+ year old friend Ed in BTV for turning me on to this.

But of course this morning they were discussing the U.S. election and my fears of what a Donald Trump win would mean overcame any inclination to return to sleep.  So I got up and began to type.

A speaker, unidentified to my brain said that Donald Trump does have 3 policies that you can count on him implementing and that is the basis for much of his support which has captured 3 groups of supporters:  Private Sector Union Workers, Tea Party supporters and America First/Isolationist types.

1.  Lower taxes and Reduced Free Trade

2.  Stop immigration

3.  No more promotion of democracy and nation building in Foreign Policy

That is what in my mind allowed Donald Trump to be nominated.  To that I would add the following which has allowed Evangelicals and Business types to get in line behind Trump even if they don't agree with #'s 2 & 3 or parts of #1.

4.  Do nothing about Global Warming & reverse Obama's Executive Orders

5.  Repeal ObamaCare

6.  Appoint Supreme Court Justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade and support prior decisions on Guns and Corporations have a Right to Free Speech and money is a form of speech.

Now what can you say for sure about such policies and this is why I could not sleep anymore.

Donald Trump's policies will end the America that represents Hope and that is the basis upon which so many Americans take pride in their country.  And why so many in the world want to be here if they could.  So basically Trump's policies are aimed at killing the founding premise of this country.

Why do I say that?  Well look at what each of these polices will actually accomplish.

1.  Lower Taxes will result in less government spending on defense and Human Services because Trump has said he will not touch Social Security or Medicare.  If he stops paying interest on our debt, which he has said he might do, there will be a financial crisis and my ability to support myself from my investments will be harmed.  Tearing up Trade Agreements will reduce corporate profits because business flows are build upon the rules that exist and changing them is not a positive.  We could have a depression from Trump's economic policies if he balances the budget.  That will crush hope.

2.  Removing 11 mm people from the U.S. will reduce GDP and cause a recession.  It will also require a police state apparatus that Trump can use for his own purposes as President.  That will crush hope.

And when doing #1 & #2 won't return the jobs to the Americans who support Trump because America doesn't have a manufacturing crisis.  We produce as much today as we did 30 years ago with far fewer workers because of technology advances and Trump cannot roll that backwards.  So that will crush hope when those avid supporters realize there is no change for them in Make America Great Again.

3.  Allowing Authoritarian Governments to operate unchallenged will crush the hope for those people who are subject to them.

4.  Doing nothing about Global Warming will depress anyone who cares about this issue and that will crush hope.

5.  ObamaCare needs to be adjusted but Trump has not said what he will do to replace it, only that he will repeal it as his 1st act of legislation.  So what will repeal actually result in.  Insurance companies will go back to discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions.  People who cannot afford their health insurance without subsidies will go uninsured again.  There will be chaos in hospital finances as the uninsured who cannot pay will flock to emergency rooms when they must get medical care.  The hospitals will seek to get reimbursement from those who can pay just like they used to and everybody's health insurance will cost more.  Unless, in the repeal, the Congress repeals the requirement that passed under Ronald Reagan that hospitals must provide care to anybody who shows up at their door (not to mention that the Hippocratic Oath might require them to do that also).  Anyway, this will destroy hope.

6.  Overturning Roe v Wade will be a slow moving issue.  We don't know what states will be allowed to do vs. what Congress might pass as national policy once the Supreme Court rules.  But we do know at least that if states are allowed to do their own thing, women in some states will be allowed to make their own decisions.  But women in other states will not have that choice and if they don't have the money to go to another state, they will bring into this world a child that may be unloved, may be brought up in unfortunate circumstances, may have physical and mental challenges, or may be an orphan at birth because the mother could not be saved because of new laws forbidding an abortion even for the safety of the mother's health.  That will destroy hope.

So that is what the Republican Party stands for today and it is depressing to me that 40% to 45% of Americans can support that vision.  That is not a country I want to live in because there is no hope.

How can there be hope when a person's unrestricted right to a gun is more important than my right to not be shot by someone with a gun?  How can there be hope, when the police state has the right to take or shoot anyone who fits a profile?  How can there be hope, when access to health insurance is dependent upon an employer being able to afford to help workers?  How can there be hope, when women are second class citizens if they don't comply with Evangelical views of how the world should operate.

I was raised in a small town which took pride in every way about the story of immigration and hard work in a society that rewarded effort.  It was quietly religious, but private about religion and didn't care what a neighbor's religion was.

My brain says how do I deal with this if Trump wins, but my heart cannot contemplate this eventuality.  My brain says maybe I should just commit suicide because I know I will be depressed and fearful about this loss of hope, but my heart cannot go down that path.  I have things I still want to do in this life.  I will probably need lots of Asian medical treatments to reduce my stress which my anger will create.  I am angry that so many people can support policies that destroy hope.  Hope has been the basis of my being from my earliest days.  I didn't really realize that until the end of this election.

Sunday Musings 7/3/16

Aashh, a long hot weekend.  So Donald Trump thinks crooked Hillary is not fit to be President because she had all her emails on an ex-President's computer server.  While that is not a decision I would have made, I don't view that as illegal or disqualifying.  Of course, the FBI is investigating and should they ever reach a decisions (what is taking so long), whatever will be will be.

On there other hand, we all file taxes every year and every Presidential candidate going back to Eisenhower has released tax returns, but Donald Trump does not.  What is he hiding?

And why does he obfuscate his dealing with the corrupt Trump University and his failed casinos, airline, and all the other less than successful businesses Trump has been associated with.  While Hillary may be indicted before the convention (in which case I would recommend the convention nominate Joe Biden as opposed to Bernie Sanders), Trump may be the 1st President to be indicted by a criminal jury after being elected.

Why isn't the right wing media demanding Trump release his tax returns?  That baffles me.

Why Science Denial Amazes Me

Yesterday, Donald Trump once again said global warming is a hoax and he will institute policies that rescind all U.S. efforts at contributing to a reduction in green house gases.  Yet, at the same time, he wants to build a wall in Ireland to protect his golf course from rising sea levels.  In other words, he is prepared to buy some insurance from a risk that he perceives in business, but one that he downgrades in the political world.

And that is what I don't understand about the politics of science denial.  The earth is so far as we know, the only planet with water and life.  We have the Kevlar telescope looking for other possibilities in the solar system and they have found over 1000 candidates for further investigation.  But they are all hundreds, if not thousands, of light years away.  We live on a rare planet.

And you would think, GOP politicians, who are generally a conservative type of person that would never be without insurance for their personal risks, would want global society to have that same attitude toward risk management;  nothing could coincide with such conservatism more than preserving our environment, including the overall temperature of the planet.

Now I know the cat is out of the bag so to speak on global warming, but you would think some measures, that do not overly harm the economy, would be prudent to try and reduce future global warming just as a form of insurance.  And you would think, American conservatives as religious people, would want to contribute to improving the conditions of life around the world by doing something to contribute to a reduction green house gases.  After all, their personal environment is effected by the overall temperature of the planet.

So why is the GOP so dead set against all reductions in green house gases?  My only answer is that personal greed trumps all else.  Business makes money when they don't have to pay to prevent stuff that society pays for in other ways and cannot charge it back to the business.  That is why business pollutes if there is not legislation which makes polluting a crime.  And business can give politicians the money they need to be reelected, which is how those politicians support their life style.  What I cannot explain is why the working whites who vote the GOP in, don't see that technology is what is causing their economic stress, not immigration, global trade or pro-environment regulation.

But even with that greed, I would think as conservative people they would care about the life their grandchildren and future generations will have.

But they do not, even when they have to build a wall to protect their property.

And that is what amazes me about science denial.

Michael Gerson: Trump Runs On Conspiracy Beliefs and that is Dangerous to Public Health

Not to mention the public good on any number of other points.

You Have to click here to real the whole thing, it is worth it

Why the Dangerous Donald is Running for President and other thoughts about GOP unity behind him.

Donald Trump will not release his tax returns.  Donald Trump has changed his mind about self-funding his campaign.  Donald Trump loaned this primary campaign the money it spent and can use future campaign donations to repay his loans.

Once Donald Trump is in office he can influence the IRS.  How can the IRS prosecute the President for fudging his taxes when he is there boss.  So when Donald Trump says he will not be beholden to special interests, be very skeptical.  The only special interest Donald Trump cares about is Donald Trump and controlling the IRS on his finances is Trump's #1 priority.

Everything else he is campaigning on is because he is a bigoted ignoramus with a colossal case of ego mania.  He doesn't give a rat's ass about the common people unless they are spending money in one of his casino's or being defrauded by his "university" or one of his other means of trading on his name.  And then he will defend himself in court fighting like hell to deny responsibility for anything.

He denies, he changes his mind, he obfuscates, he shouts obscenities to distract and bully, and I for one do not trust him.  He is so interested in only himself that I cannot believe so many voters in the GOP are unifying behind him.

I understand it is all political compromise, but if compromise is to important to party unity why is it not so important to compromise with the Democrats and run the government well.  If the government were being run well, and partisanship prevents that from happening, Donald Trump probably wouldn't have gotten this far.

The GOP baffles me.  They are not a responsible party fit to govern even a dog pound. Which is why, as someone who has split tickets many times, have not since I last voted against Bernie Sanders in 2008 or 2010.  The banks made mistakes, but they are not evil.

Money and Corruption Win

If you take a step back and think about it, money has been winning for a long time and didn't really need Citizen's United to continue its winning streak.  But it certainly helps.

One of the crazy things about American politics is how white lower middle class people support supply side economics (which I admit has validity at tax rates greater than x%) when it has done nothing for them in this technological revolution and they need support to maintain their community.

I think that is why rural America has supported Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders overwhelmingly.  They are the only candidates discussing programs to help those communities.  The fact that the people believe this unrealistic plans only illustrates their desperation to preserve their community.

Now we have the specter of Brazil.  A group of politicians who are under investigation for personal enrichment from politics impeach the President for moving money around from one bucket to another  bucket.  I have no idea on the constitutionality of that in Brazil, but I do know the President in Brazil wields a lot of power and the new President could bury all those investigations.  Meanwhile, the new President has been found guilty of violating campaign finance laws and may not even be able to run for reelection.  And who does he appoint to his cabinet:  well, the new science minister is a creationist who does not believe in evolution; and the new agriculture minister is a soy bean tycoon who has burned down thousands of acres of rain forest and stewardship of the rain forest is within agriculture. Money and corruption are winning in Brazil in a far bigger manner than the U.S.

And let us not forget Russia and China, where people with connections to the leadership have become wealthy beyond the imagination of we mere soles who worked and saved our way into retirement.  And who is a big admirer of the Russian and Chinese economic systems, why none other than Donald Trump.  How will be deal with them over Crimea/The Ukraine and the man made Chinese Islands when he is in awe of their political power systems?

So while Donald Trump did not take money from the Republican power brokers, he certainly understands the power of money and is a leading believers that money installs the right to be able to buy what you need; including eminent domain and anything else that helps the wealthy earn more wealth, avoid taxation on wealth, and buy the political policies that they believe in.

So if you are a relatively economically modest person, all you can hope for is your preferred party be able to get more money than the other side and hopefully, you get policies that you can live with.  And in the case of Donald Trump, you hope his access to Nuclear Codes doesn't result in him waking up one morning and deciding the only way to solve some problem is to use a nuclear weapon.

Let Us Remember Exactly What Conservative GOP Stands For

This is getting a lot of press since Paul Ryan and others have said Donald Trump is not a true conservative.

This is what True Conservatives stand for:   Cutting Taxes to starve the government of spending while balancing the budget with spending cuts that curtail financial support of the working poor and poor, harming education pushing in favor of those whose parents can afford private school, reducing the actions of public health again placing the poor at greater risk of being contaminated with insidious viruses and spending big bucks on national defense.  We know this because this is what has happened in Kansas with their tax cuts and legislative actions to remain financially solvent.

In contrast the Democrats stand for government doing its jobs and protecting public safety, including public health.  Thus, we have a proposal from President Obama to fund anti-Zika activities, but the GOP Congress refuses to bring the bill up.  Mosquito season has already started in the South, the Virus is in Puerto Rico, and I guess the GOP is hoping a sufficient number of poor people die so they win the election in Florida in November.

This is not unlike their attitude toward health insurance.  Their view is access to affordable health insurance is not a right.  If you make bad decisions or have bad luck, and are unlucky enough to not have employer paid health insurance or the financial resources to afford health insurance, then too bad.  The healthy should not have to subsidize your health insurance.  The world was a cruel place for  centuries and why should it change now when it will be a cost to people with money.

The irony in all this is that True Conservatives frequently site their beliefs in the models of Ronald Reagan and Jack Kemp:  Supply Side Economics with a reliance on individual responsibility.  I don't deny an element of truth in all that, it is just severe disagreement on where you draw the lines on individual responsibility and what a maximum tax rate should be.  And of course, as a Conservative Democrat, I believe in balancing the budget when we are near full employment as we are today.  Government has to work, it cannot be shut down or starved of revenues.  When it is starved of revenues, infrastructure deteriorates, the environment deteriorates, and public health is at risk.

Yet, as conservative pundits remind us, both Reagan and Kent cared about the less wealthy.  They believed society has a role to play in making society fair for the less wealthy, while encouraging them to be individually responsible.  And they both believed in legitimizing undocumented immigrants and integrating them into society, which is what really made America great.  Donald Trump is not a Reagan/Kemp conservative, as they would not evict 11 mm hard working people who want to live in the U.S.A.

So before I turn this over to James Hohmann of the Washington Post, let me tell you what disappoints me so far about the GOP Establishment.  They have taken no insight into the public's absolute disgust with a singular focus on partisanship, and actively working to reduce the effectiveness of government.  That is what is driving the rejection of the GOP.  There are no RINO's left in the GOP, but when their were, the party was competitive in almost every state of the union, and that rejection of moderation of the message is what has been rejected by the rise of Donald Trump who as I have previously written is completely unqualified to be President, not to mention some of his proposed policies are awful.

"Jeffrey Frank recalls covering Kemp for a Buffalo newspaper in the early 1980s. “Kemp was a cheerful, generous man, but what most deserves recognition, in what’s left of the Republican Party, is less his fascination with such byways as the ‘Laffer Curve’ … and more his persistent voice on behalf of lifting up the needy, the jobless, the disenfranchised—take your pick among the shorthand expressions used to describe America’s poor,” Frank writes for The New Yorker. “His commitment to bettering the lives of African-Americans was passionate and genuine.” The distance between Kemp and Trump, Frank explains, “is a distance to be measured not only in degrees of ideology … but in the appeal … to the nation’s better angels. In this long season, that seems as distant as Jack Kemp’s stubborn inclination to do the decent thing.”

Conservative Post columnist Michael Gerson, who worked for Kemp early in his career before becoming George W. Bush’s speechwriter, recalls his courage. “In 1994, California Gov. Pete Wilson (along with many other Republicans) supported Proposition 187, which denied public services to illegal immigrants, including schooling for their children. In one of his finest hours, Kemp came out strongly against the measure, which he said would imply ‘an ugly antipathy toward all immigrants,’” Gerson wrote in a column last fall. “This stand probably hurt Kemp’s own presidential prospects.”

"The New York Times’ conservative columnist, Ross Douthat, admits to underestimating how unprincipled elected Republican leadership would become once Trump secured the nomination. To acquiesce to Trump as the nominee is to gamble recklessly with the party’s responsibilities to the republic, he argues today: “It is possible that a dishonorable, cowardly, unprincipled course will yield the result that many in both G.O.P. factions clearly crave: Trump defeated in the general election, his ideas left without a champion, and then a reversion to the party’s status quo ante, to the comforts of a tactically narrow ‘wacko birds versus RINOs’ family feud. But then again it’s possible that the establishment and the Tea Party are more like Byzantium and Sassanid Persia in the seventh century A.D., and Trumpism is the Arab-Muslim invasion that put an end to their long-running rivalry, destroyed the Sassanid Dynasty outright, and ushered in a very different age. No doubt many thought at first that those invaders were a temporary problem, an alien force that would wreak havoc and then withdraw, dissolve, retreat. But a new religion had arrived to stay.”

The Background to Clinton vs. Trump

I have been pondering what I could say about Donald Trump's speech on foreign policy.  On the surface to anyone who hasn't thought about foreign policy as something that needs a coherent core, many things he said sounded reasonable.  But then again, his whole instinct is insulting and demeaning people.  Foreign policy is the art of getting people, whom you have little to no power over, to do things that you want them to; with whatever persuasive arguments you have to show what you want is in their best interest.

And as an individual from the Hoover Institution (a conservative think tank) pointed out, Trump was promising to make nice with Putin while arguing and insulting our friends in NATO and our southern neighbor, Mexico.  And lest you think the Wall is going to be a productive infrastructure project, I will point out that the criminal elements already favor digging tunnels under what is already there and using submarines to get the really high priced contraband around whatever impediments we try to put into place.

My mental logjam was broken by reading today's insightful columns covering old ground.  Both David Brooks and Paul Krugman discuss the fact that a substantial set of white voters are angry at what they perceive as the government not working for them.  On the Democratic side that comes out in the form of populism and support for things that stick it to the wealthy and help the poor/young.  On the Republican side, that comes out in a dislike for anything to do with the GOP establishment that promised Supply Side Economics would benefit everyone and wants to dismantle the safety net that helps people when they reach retirement age.

Paul Krugman analyzes why Clinton could successfully manage this anger.  His theory is that Democratic leaders have sufficiently delivered on their promises and the base is sufficiently satisfied with their leadership to support them.  GOP leaders, instead have focuses on anger and shutting down the government and not offering solutions to issues that their supporters, like the Democratic's supporters, are having to deal with in their everyday lives.  When globalization has been causing your community problems for 30 years, you perceive a problem with political process.  And that is why they are supporting Trump, even though he is also a supporter of tax cuts for the rich.  What Trump doesn't support is paying for those tax cuts by cutting services to the people. I don't know how he will balance the budget?  Perhaps he plans to get China to give the U.S.A. foreign aid to pay for it all.

David Brooks acknowledges that he doesn't have an answer to problems that he probably doesn't completely understand because he lives in the high income bubble.  But he recognizes that the anger driving this election needs to be understood and policies developed to address it.  I am sure that Brooks as a card carrying Republican wants balanced policies that do not disrupt things that are working broadly for the benefit of society.  I would have to agree with that.  In his mind, there are places in the U.S. where balanced policies have worked to address the problems and they need to be studied so ideas on how to spread them broadly across the landscape can be discussed.

I would start with health insurance.  Paul Ryan wants to help fix the main problem with Obamacare which is that the cost of health insurance for all is being driven up by insuring those with pre-existing conditions.  If the 5% or 10% of the population with pre-exisitng conditions had access to high risk pools subsidized by someone unidentified (why not put them into Medicare?), then the other 90% to 95% could enjoy the cost of health insurance for the relatively healthy.  Of course, he still needs to address the working poor who cannot afford health insurance without assistance even if the cost does come down.

It seems to be there are many points that can generate they type of anger we see in this election cycle.  That is David Brooks desire to identify them and see what can be done to address them.  It is his belief that if people can have hope restored to their psychology they will be more rational and less radical voters.

I have long recognized that rural areas have been suffering economically for a long time. What is interesting in this long primary cycle, is that is where Bernie Sanders and Trump/Cruz run up their largest voting percentages.  The U.S. rural areas are fired up with anger with no good solutions for their most fervent desires.


Link to Brook's column

Link to Kurgman column

The Problems With All the Candidates for President

I watched the Democratic Debate last night.  Funny, how an election that you can participate in focuses the mind on watching these intense people work to convince us that we should vote for them. I would not want to have a beer with any of them, I don't think any of them drink.  How could you pop a few back and then go out and campaign?  Raise money?  Think about critical issues?

Anyway, I came away with an understanding of every candidates weakness as a candidate.

Hillary can be attacked from the left and the right because (i) she has a long track record of centrist policies and (ii) decisions which might have been better than the alternative, but are still open to attack because things did not work out well.  And she has been on the national scene for 24 years and many people are tired of her.  The national attention span does not tolerate anyone being acceptable for 24 years, except for possibly a rock star or a movie star, but they get to disappear when not touring or promoting a film, unlike politics which is 24/7.

Bernie does not do details.  He is a big picture guy with some knowledge of things he is interested in. But he does not understand the complexity of the economy and his economic policies cannot be implemented because even centrist Democrats would not support some of his proposals, let alone the GOP.  And how is he going to pay for public college education for all?  He is going to have the states pay 1/3 of it.  I have no idea how states which are cutting spending for k-12 education because they prefer to cut taxes or at least contain taxes (even NY is doing that) are going to find the funds to pay for all this free college.  This stuff fires up the young voters, but it is not practical.  And I cannot believe how pro-palestinian Bernie was in the debate.  I may think Israel has to go down a different path which includes a two state solution because a one state solution is not a peaceful solution, but I disagree strongly with Bernie that only Israel did bad things in Gaza.  Hamas started the whole thing and is a terrorist supporting government.  And that is the beauty of a two state solution, even terrorist governments have to govern well if they want a happy population and they can be held accountable for their terrorist actions which deny's the population happiness, and, hopefully, they hold their government responsible changing that government's behavior.  That is my pipe dream.  But Bernie would be a failed President because he does not do details.

John Kasich does not have a coherent plan for health insurance, but he might if he were running as a Democrat.  Unfortunately for him, he is what passes for a centrist Republican now, which is a RINO to some and he is part of the establishment GOP which has lied to so many of the GOP rank and file that everyone, whether they did that or not, is subject to the anger that the GOP rank and file feel.

What is amazing is Ted Cruz has promulgated many of those positions that lead to the lying that has disillusioned the rank and file, and even formulated some of his own original positions (shutting down the government as a strategy when you cannot get what you want the normal way) that feed that disillusioning.  And some 65% of the population does not like him.  He did 2 days in NY and then fled to California where I doubt he is spending much time in L.A. or S.F.  And I doubt we will see him in NY again.  If he won the Presidency, would he even come to speak at the U.N.?  Does anyone else find his voice grating?  Ted Cruz is very scary.

There are many problems with Donald Trump and it all rolls up into 70% of the population not liking him.  Donald Trump is HUGELY SCAREY.

And I cannot remember, whether it is Trump or Cruz, but one of them is feuding with the Drudge Report.  Maybe the conservative spin Dr's are consuming themselves.  That would be a positive.

Well that runs through all the candidates, and I will be voting for Hillary Tuesday because she is qualified and 4 years of Hillary will absolutely have the Talk Radio Right and Pundit Class fuming at the GOP's ineptitude.

Sequestration is Helping the GOP Destroy Regulation, while George Will speaks common sense

If the Democrat's don't start calling out the GOP for this in a concise easily understood manner, there are going to be more Flints and eventually a dismantling of Dodd Frank and another banking crisis, not to mention what other environmental disasters may happen.

After using sequestration to reduce many agencies ability to enforce laws, and passing other laws to make the Federal Agency subservient to the States, the Congressional GOP is accusing the EPA of failing to do their job when all they did was follow the instruction the GOP Congress gave them.

And people wonder why so many voters are disgusted with the GOP establishment.  The only thing I wonder is why they flock to Donald Trump rather than the Democrats, but I guess his discriminatory bent is the answer to that.

Link to "poisonous conservative thinking that cause Flint crisis"

And George Will slams the Senate GOP on their desire to ignore the Supreme Court nomination.

Link to George Will

The Trump Conundrum for the GOP

Finally, some parts of the GOP are saying that they will not support Donald Trump and will vote for the Democrat or not vote at all.  These appear to be mostly neoconservatives who might vote for Hillary but are not likely to vote for Bernie.

But Ross Douthat has a radical idea that was a normal part of party politics in the 1800's; the smokey back room party leadership should just nominate who they want to.  While this would upset the 30% to 40% of GOP primary voters who believe in Donald Trump and are angry at both party's leadership for failing to protect them from technological advance, globalization, and immigration, it would at least sustain the GOP as a party of some type of conservative standing at the likely cost of the 2016 Presidential election.  But so would a Trump candidacy, I hope and secularly pray.

What Douthat does not address in this idea, is how will the GOP ever address the real world concerns of these angry voters.  Doesn't it involve some concept of accepting a certain concept of the safety net? Doesn't it involve some concept that the Government has functions to perform and there is a need to pay for it with tax revenues?  Doesn't it involve some concept of tax reform so our tax structure is competitive with other nations?  Just campaigning on a pledge to cut taxes and never raise them again does not address these issues.

And let me say, I don't think anything would have protected many of these workers from: (i)  technological advance - that is a home grown development; (ii) from globalization - China is an enormous engine and multi-national companies are free to go where the growth is; and (iii) immigration - most jobs undocumented immigrants do are jobs an insufficient number of white American's want to do.

So finding some policies that appease these angry voters should be a point of policy debate.  I don't have the answer.

Link to Douthat column


And the Washington Post has 7 leaders of the GOP posting what they think.  Jim Leach agrees with me and Ari Fleischer puts forth my worst fear.  Also commenting are Eric Cantor, Newt Gingrich, William Kristol , Haley Barber and Danielle Pletka.

Link to 7 Conservatives


And lastly a view on how this may play out over time with a realignment of voters supporting which party.


Link to Realignment column

Honesty is a Moral Value

As I have written before, as a manager of people, my philosophy was if you worked for me and you lied to me, that was a fireable offense because I could no longer trust you.  How can you trust someone who lies to you?

Ross Douthat and Maureen Dowd nailed today just how morally bankrupt the entire leadership of the GOP is because they lie.  And the fact that they lie is why Donald Trump, who lies, is doing so well.

I give you links to their columns.


Ross Douthat column


Maureen Dowd

DingBat Endorses WingNut

Sarah Palin, who wants to shake things up and destroy government for reasons I cannot figure out, has endorsed Donald Trump, who thinks the world and country need an authoritarian populist leader to fix the government.

The only consistent thing I can see in this absurd situation is a desire on the part of the two principals to have as much publicity and public adulation as possible.

This is what John McCain's picking of his VP has wrought us in combination with Mitch McConnell's "principled" position of doing everything he can to make President Obama a one term President.  Together, they have made significant contributions to establishing public support for the outrageous disregard for compromise that dominates the GOP today.

We can only hope that the electorate punishes the GOP for all this in November.

Domestic Terrorism is Alive

and being committed by Christian members of the NRA in the name of protesting government overreach (in their opinion).  These people are well known to us from their Nevada protest in support of Cliven Bundy, who did not want to pay grazing fees for cattle eating government grass.

What are they protesting?  National Parks and Conservation Land and Federal Land Management established over 100 years ago.

Now the sons of Cliven Bundy and other supporters have taken over a conservation area and locked the doors on the building daring law enforcement to come after them.  Meanwhile, if there were people of color or Islamic the conservative blogsphere and police would be up in arms trying to kill them all.

What are these people doing? Either nothing or discussing how to peacefully end this.  Such respect would not be shown people of color or a different religion.

Meanwhile, which political candidates support the Bundy's?

Donald Trump, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Ben Carson and Mike Huckabee.

So those are the GOP candidates who support domestic terrorism.