Between the sword and the wall. Between a rock and a hard place. Between the devil and the deep blue sea.
All expressions that try to convey the very uncomfortable situation when none of your options appears to be very palatable.
This is the situation on the Republican presidential side.
Back in July of 2015 I started down this road. At that time there were 16 apparent candidates. That grew to 17 by August of 2015. In my initial rumblings I divide the menagerie into two groups based upon my preferences without regard to a candidates viability.
I had six below what I called the Elmer Fudd line because I considered them loony toons. Unfortunately one of my loony toons six is still in the race.
Here's what I said at the beginning about the three still in the race.
Donald Trump - If nothing else he stands by what he says. The man may not have any political experience but he knows his way around finances. He has a tendency to say some strange stuff but he's not loony toons.
He has a tendency to say strange stuff indeed. After listening to him for nine months I'm convinced he's little more than an egotistical, loud mouthed bully. He's used to being able to intimidate everyone he encounters. He could be a complete disaster as president. Or, perhaps not. He's just too unpredictable.
Ted Cruz - Cruz is hopeless but most of the others are even worse!
The "others" were Scott Walker, Bobby Jindel, Rick Santorum, Ben Carson and Mike Huckabee. These were the six below the Elmer Fudd line. At that time it looked as if Cruz might be sliding. Unfortunately that turned out to be wrong.
John Kasich - ...given his fiscal conservative and business background this guy might actually be interesting to consider. I don't go for his abortion position but he doesn't strike me as completely crazy. For a Republican he might actually be acceptable.
I don't see Kasich winning the nomination in anything short of a wildly contested convention and I don't think that's going to happen. That means it's between Trump and Cruz. The sword and the wall.
Even given Trump's constant demonstration of the difference between having money and having class, Cruz is far more dangerous. He's crazy and his father is even crazier.
On the Democratic side Bernie is still, surprisingly enough, keeping it close. Bernie, like Trump, is talking about things that he can't deliver on in the current political climate. It's just not reasonable.
However all progress is the result of unreasonable men because they try and adapt reality to what is right rather than simply accepting what is wrong.
Perhaps the best of all words would be a Trump vs. Sanders election? Let's put the two great outsiders on the stage against each other and see which the country prefers.
Wednesday, March 30, 2016
Tuesday, March 22, 2016
What's with the Rise of Trump?
The sudden rise of Donald Trump to political prominence is something of a puzzle. So what makes Trump supporters tick?
To some it's due to frustration over the economy, the continued national debt and the seeming inability of Washington to accomplish anything useful.
To others it's the result of anxiety over a changing society, the fear of terrorism mixed with a dash of xenophobia.
To still others it's racism pure and simple.
I think it’s a combination.
They have this vague feeling that things are spinning out of control for them. They also have this vague feeling that there are people, the so-called elites, that don’t have this problem. Then they go looking around for people to blame over this uneasiness.
Their gaze lands on people they see as taking things from them. They see it as their taxes being used to benefit people who don’t deserve it. People who either shouldn’t be here in the first place or are just too lazy to fend for themselves. The impression that these people are people of color simply adds to the angst. The federal debt is just one more example of money being taken from them and used to benefit people that don’t deserve it.
Now, they may not understand the numbers but the numbers say they have something of a valid point. If you look at household income the lowest 40% of wage earners actually experienced a decrease in real income between 2010 and 2014 while people in the 80th to 95th percentile had their real income increase by about 5%. So the economic recovery has been unbalanced at best.
There are about 125 million households in the US. In 2015 the federal budget included payment of $402 billion in interest on the federal debt. Some of this, about $180 billion, was offset by interest received on trust funds such as Social Security but the actual interest paid was $402 billion. Now divide $402 billion by 125 million. My spreadsheet says that’s about $3,200 per household.
The federal budget also includes $446 billion for Health Care Services which includes Medicaid, CHIP and SNAP but not Medicare which is a separate budget item. Do the same division and now you get about $3,500 per household. That totals $6,700 per household which is not an insignificant amount of money. And of course we all know that not all households contribute equally and so do the Trump supporters (I'm tempted to say Trumpettes).
These two numbers are currently projected to increase to $731 billion and $632 billion by 2020. Assuming a one million household increase per year that would mean $5,600 and $5,100 per household for a total of $10,700 per household which is clearly unworkable.
For years the Republicans have been garnering votes by promising to “fix” the “cause” of these “vague feelings.” But of course in many cases the “cause” is a myth or the solution isn’t that simple so now we add to the feeling of being ripped off a feeling of betrayal and you get Donald Trump for president.
Can he win a general election?
I'm still not sure he's getting the nomination but assuming he does, then the more bad things that happen between now and November, the better his chances.
To some it's due to frustration over the economy, the continued national debt and the seeming inability of Washington to accomplish anything useful.
To others it's the result of anxiety over a changing society, the fear of terrorism mixed with a dash of xenophobia.
To still others it's racism pure and simple.
I think it’s a combination.
They have this vague feeling that things are spinning out of control for them. They also have this vague feeling that there are people, the so-called elites, that don’t have this problem. Then they go looking around for people to blame over this uneasiness.
Their gaze lands on people they see as taking things from them. They see it as their taxes being used to benefit people who don’t deserve it. People who either shouldn’t be here in the first place or are just too lazy to fend for themselves. The impression that these people are people of color simply adds to the angst. The federal debt is just one more example of money being taken from them and used to benefit people that don’t deserve it.
Now, they may not understand the numbers but the numbers say they have something of a valid point. If you look at household income the lowest 40% of wage earners actually experienced a decrease in real income between 2010 and 2014 while people in the 80th to 95th percentile had their real income increase by about 5%. So the economic recovery has been unbalanced at best.
There are about 125 million households in the US. In 2015 the federal budget included payment of $402 billion in interest on the federal debt. Some of this, about $180 billion, was offset by interest received on trust funds such as Social Security but the actual interest paid was $402 billion. Now divide $402 billion by 125 million. My spreadsheet says that’s about $3,200 per household.
The federal budget also includes $446 billion for Health Care Services which includes Medicaid, CHIP and SNAP but not Medicare which is a separate budget item. Do the same division and now you get about $3,500 per household. That totals $6,700 per household which is not an insignificant amount of money. And of course we all know that not all households contribute equally and so do the Trump supporters (I'm tempted to say Trumpettes).
These two numbers are currently projected to increase to $731 billion and $632 billion by 2020. Assuming a one million household increase per year that would mean $5,600 and $5,100 per household for a total of $10,700 per household which is clearly unworkable.
For years the Republicans have been garnering votes by promising to “fix” the “cause” of these “vague feelings.” But of course in many cases the “cause” is a myth or the solution isn’t that simple so now we add to the feeling of being ripped off a feeling of betrayal and you get Donald Trump for president.
Can he win a general election?
I'm still not sure he's getting the nomination but assuming he does, then the more bad things that happen between now and November, the better his chances.
Friday, March 11, 2016
The Economy
A series of exit polls conducted by Edison research for the TV channels and the Associated Press indicates that about 70% of Republican voters are "very worried" about the economy nad some 23% are "somewhat worried.
On the Democratic side the numbers were less but still significant with 42% saying they were very worried and 39% saying they were somewhat worried.
Yeah I can understand being concerned about the economy. Things have certainly been a mixed bag.
First the good news.
The deficit is down from a high of $1.4 trillion in FY 2009 to $440 billion in FY 2014. The unemployment rate is down from a high of 10,0% in October of 2009 to 4.9% in February of 2016. The Dow Jones Average is up from around 7,000 in March of 2009 to around 17,000 in March of 2016. The GDP is up from $14.2 trillion in 2Q 2009 to $18.1 trillion in 4Q 2015.
Now for the bad news.
The growth in GDP has been about 3.9% per year since 2010 but it only grew 2.9% in 2015 which is the worst growth rate since 0.11% in 2009. The labor force participation rate is at 62.9% down from 66.1% in 2008 so one could argue that the REAL unemployment rate is around 8.1%. However since 2008 the number of retired workers has increased by 2.6% of the population so that would suggest that the REAL unemployment rate is no greater than 5.5%. The deficit is estimated to increase back up to $615 billion in FY 2016 which is going in the wrong direction.
Now for the ugly news.
Based upon the quintile upper limit or the 5% lower limit, real income (adjusted for inflation) for the lowest quintile from 2010 to 2014 has DECREASED by about 1.3% so the poorest 20% of the population actually had less spending power in 2014 than in 2010. For the second quintile it has DECREASED by about 0.2%. So some 40% of American households were worse off in 2014 than they were in 2010. For the third quintile real income INCREASED by about 2.1%. For the fourth quintile it INCREASED by about 3.4% and for the top 5% it INCREASED by about 5.4%.
The change in real income differing by income category is typical of this increasing wealth and income inequality we keep hearing about. It's a real problem. To my mind it's #2 right behind the deficit. At #3 we have the solvency of Social Security and Medicare.
I suspect, I don't know, but I suspect, that a significant overhaul of the tax system is required to address all three of my top concerns. But what do I know? I'm just an engineer.
On the Democratic side the numbers were less but still significant with 42% saying they were very worried and 39% saying they were somewhat worried.
Yeah I can understand being concerned about the economy. Things have certainly been a mixed bag.
First the good news.
The deficit is down from a high of $1.4 trillion in FY 2009 to $440 billion in FY 2014. The unemployment rate is down from a high of 10,0% in October of 2009 to 4.9% in February of 2016. The Dow Jones Average is up from around 7,000 in March of 2009 to around 17,000 in March of 2016. The GDP is up from $14.2 trillion in 2Q 2009 to $18.1 trillion in 4Q 2015.
Now for the bad news.
The growth in GDP has been about 3.9% per year since 2010 but it only grew 2.9% in 2015 which is the worst growth rate since 0.11% in 2009. The labor force participation rate is at 62.9% down from 66.1% in 2008 so one could argue that the REAL unemployment rate is around 8.1%. However since 2008 the number of retired workers has increased by 2.6% of the population so that would suggest that the REAL unemployment rate is no greater than 5.5%. The deficit is estimated to increase back up to $615 billion in FY 2016 which is going in the wrong direction.
Now for the ugly news.
Based upon the quintile upper limit or the 5% lower limit, real income (adjusted for inflation) for the lowest quintile from 2010 to 2014 has DECREASED by about 1.3% so the poorest 20% of the population actually had less spending power in 2014 than in 2010. For the second quintile it has DECREASED by about 0.2%. So some 40% of American households were worse off in 2014 than they were in 2010. For the third quintile real income INCREASED by about 2.1%. For the fourth quintile it INCREASED by about 3.4% and for the top 5% it INCREASED by about 5.4%.
The change in real income differing by income category is typical of this increasing wealth and income inequality we keep hearing about. It's a real problem. To my mind it's #2 right behind the deficit. At #3 we have the solvency of Social Security and Medicare.
I suspect, I don't know, but I suspect, that a significant overhaul of the tax system is required to address all three of my top concerns. But what do I know? I'm just an engineer.
Thursday, March 10, 2016
On Bernie Sanders
Sanders claims to be a Democratic Socialist. This is a variation on pure Socilism which postulates that both the economy and society should be run to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few, in order to achieve a more "just" society.
It doesn't necessarily call for public ownership of the means of production but it does believe in government regulation of private corporations.
I put "just" in quotes because that's usually the stumbling point. Who defines what is "just?" The simple answer is it's determined by who the people elect. I think it's safe to say that Republicans and Democrats in today's society disagree on what is "just."
I think most political scientists would consider the current US a "mixed economy." Primarilly Capitalist but with some Socialist like concepts such as significant government regulation, Social Security, Medicare, SNAP and Medicaid among others.
A major problem of course is that the US government has no significant source of income other than taxation since it doesn't own any means of production. That means the government doesn't actually pay for anything but acts as a middle man that makes Tom and Dick pay for Harry's benefits.
Needless to say that often doesn't please Tom and Dick.
Republicans tend to want to push things more toward Capitalism under the theory that will result in a stronger economy and benefit everyone. The Democrats believe that society needs a government safety net of some sort because regardless of how strong the economy is there will always be people on the outer edge of society that require government aid. Therefore they tend to try and push more toward more Socialist like programs.
For the past 80 years or so there has been a steady but ragged movement to the left and I don't think that going to change any time soon. Sanders is trying to jump to where we might be 50 or 60 years from now and I'm pretty sure that's not going to happen.
It doesn't necessarily call for public ownership of the means of production but it does believe in government regulation of private corporations.
I put "just" in quotes because that's usually the stumbling point. Who defines what is "just?" The simple answer is it's determined by who the people elect. I think it's safe to say that Republicans and Democrats in today's society disagree on what is "just."
I think most political scientists would consider the current US a "mixed economy." Primarilly Capitalist but with some Socialist like concepts such as significant government regulation, Social Security, Medicare, SNAP and Medicaid among others.
A major problem of course is that the US government has no significant source of income other than taxation since it doesn't own any means of production. That means the government doesn't actually pay for anything but acts as a middle man that makes Tom and Dick pay for Harry's benefits.
Needless to say that often doesn't please Tom and Dick.
Republicans tend to want to push things more toward Capitalism under the theory that will result in a stronger economy and benefit everyone. The Democrats believe that society needs a government safety net of some sort because regardless of how strong the economy is there will always be people on the outer edge of society that require government aid. Therefore they tend to try and push more toward more Socialist like programs.
For the past 80 years or so there has been a steady but ragged movement to the left and I don't think that going to change any time soon. Sanders is trying to jump to where we might be 50 or 60 years from now and I'm pretty sure that's not going to happen.
Monday, March 07, 2016
Josh Nailed It
I just read an article by Josh Marshall at TPM and he has managed to clearly articulate an issue that I've been sort of trying to get a handle on for a while now.
The intensity and volume of the pro-Trump movement is only understandable "if you are dealing with a chunk of the electorate with expectations that are deeply unrealistic in the context of conventional political action."
I've seen this clearly demonstrated in interviews and in comments on articles. Many of these people are simply ignorant of what is possible in a complex world.
They don't understand how the budget process works; they don't understand how the political process works and they don't understand that the checks and balances are there to prevent things from rapidly spiraling out of control.
It's SUPPOSED to take effort to make significant changes.
Marshall goes on to observe that this "is a volatile situation when you're talking about at least a quarter of the national electorate."
He's right about that as well. That quarter appears willing to accept what amounts to a virtual dictatorship if it will achieve what they want.
Marshall's last thought, when taken to its logical conclusion, is chilling.
"That gets you Trump. It also gets you Ted Cruz. And it may get you worse still."
It could get you the unthinkable. Trump has threatened to issue what would be illegal orders to the military. Some military experts say that the military will refuse to obey them. I know better. Some of the military will refuse but others will not.
That could lead to civil war. But civil war might be preferable to allowing Trump control of the nuclear arsenal.
The intensity and volume of the pro-Trump movement is only understandable "if you are dealing with a chunk of the electorate with expectations that are deeply unrealistic in the context of conventional political action."
I've seen this clearly demonstrated in interviews and in comments on articles. Many of these people are simply ignorant of what is possible in a complex world.
They don't understand how the budget process works; they don't understand how the political process works and they don't understand that the checks and balances are there to prevent things from rapidly spiraling out of control.
It's SUPPOSED to take effort to make significant changes.
Marshall goes on to observe that this "is a volatile situation when you're talking about at least a quarter of the national electorate."
He's right about that as well. That quarter appears willing to accept what amounts to a virtual dictatorship if it will achieve what they want.
Marshall's last thought, when taken to its logical conclusion, is chilling.
"That gets you Trump. It also gets you Ted Cruz. And it may get you worse still."
It could get you the unthinkable. Trump has threatened to issue what would be illegal orders to the military. Some military experts say that the military will refuse to obey them. I know better. Some of the military will refuse but others will not.
That could lead to civil war. But civil war might be preferable to allowing Trump control of the nuclear arsenal.
Tuesday, March 01, 2016
Super Tuesday
I've been away. In the Florida Keys to be exact but I return to find Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton charging to victory on Super Tuesday.
A Trump vs. Clinton debacle seems more and more possible.
I continue to be astonished that people will vote for Trump who is little more than an abrasive bully, a hypocrite and a phony.
The thing about bullies is when they are stood up to they run and Clinton is not about to be intimidated by Trump.
A Trump vs. Clinton debacle seems more and more possible.
I continue to be astonished that people will vote for Trump who is little more than an abrasive bully, a hypocrite and a phony.
The thing about bullies is when they are stood up to they run and Clinton is not about to be intimidated by Trump.
Saturday, February 20, 2016
South Carolina and Nevada
Trump wins South Carolina and Clinton takes Nevada,
For the Republicans:
Donald Trump - 32.93 % 38
Marco Rubio - 22.38 %
Ted Cruz - 21.76 %
Jeb Bush - 8.13 %
John Kasich 7.96 %
Ben Carson 6.85 %
For the Democrats:
Hillary Clinton - 52.53%
Bernie Sanders - 47.41%
I'm beginning to think that Trump may in fact win the Republican nomination. On the Democratic side it's perhaps not that obvious,
I shudder at the thought of a Trump vs. Clinton election and yet that's better than Cruz being involved at any level.
For the Republicans:
Donald Trump - 32.93 % 38
Marco Rubio - 22.38 %
Ted Cruz - 21.76 %
Jeb Bush - 8.13 %
John Kasich 7.96 %
Ben Carson 6.85 %
For the Democrats:
Hillary Clinton - 52.53%
Bernie Sanders - 47.41%
I'm beginning to think that Trump may in fact win the Republican nomination. On the Democratic side it's perhaps not that obvious,
I shudder at the thought of a Trump vs. Clinton election and yet that's better than Cruz being involved at any level.
Friday, February 19, 2016
An Article about Social Security
I was reading an article about why there was no Social Security (SS) Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) this year and strategies one could follow to offset a future lack of COLA increases.
The article wasn't terribly informative but, as usual, the comments were.
I understand that a lot of people are angry but their anger is based largely upon misunderstandings.
Let's start with an observation. People are pissed off at "people in Washington." I can understand that but before you allow that anger to drive your actions learn how the system works.
It's amazing now many people believe things are are just not true.
- Illegal immigrants don't collect SS. As a matter of fact they pay about $15 billion a year into SS without any hope of ever collecting benefits.
- Obama doesn't control how money is spent. Obama didn't give illegal immigrants a raise because illegal immigrants collect no benefits. Besides, Congress would have to approve any such allocation.
- Medicaid is not paid out of the SS fund. There is separate federal/state funding for Medicaid.
- No one except Congress with approval by the President can divert money from the SS fund and the only diversion this year was into the disability fund which has been a part of SS since its inception in 1935.
- People aren't getting Obamacare for free.
- If you have a retiree health insurance plan from the state or the military these plans require you to have Medicare A and B and provide a Medicare supplement. SS is not forcing you to pay for something (Medicare) that you don't use.
Now, in general terms people are angry because they vaguely understand that Congress isn't giving them any help. Well, who's fault is that? The re-election rate for Congress is 96%. If you're looking for someone to blame, look in the mirror.
You don't like the way things are? Do you have any idea how your Congressman stands on the things you don't like? Do you even fucking know who your Congressman is?
The article wasn't terribly informative but, as usual, the comments were.
I understand that a lot of people are angry but their anger is based largely upon misunderstandings.
Let's start with an observation. People are pissed off at "people in Washington." I can understand that but before you allow that anger to drive your actions learn how the system works.
It's amazing now many people believe things are are just not true.
- Illegal immigrants don't collect SS. As a matter of fact they pay about $15 billion a year into SS without any hope of ever collecting benefits.
- Obama doesn't control how money is spent. Obama didn't give illegal immigrants a raise because illegal immigrants collect no benefits. Besides, Congress would have to approve any such allocation.
- Medicaid is not paid out of the SS fund. There is separate federal/state funding for Medicaid.
- No one except Congress with approval by the President can divert money from the SS fund and the only diversion this year was into the disability fund which has been a part of SS since its inception in 1935.
- People aren't getting Obamacare for free.
- If you have a retiree health insurance plan from the state or the military these plans require you to have Medicare A and B and provide a Medicare supplement. SS is not forcing you to pay for something (Medicare) that you don't use.
Now, in general terms people are angry because they vaguely understand that Congress isn't giving them any help. Well, who's fault is that? The re-election rate for Congress is 96%. If you're looking for someone to blame, look in the mirror.
You don't like the way things are? Do you have any idea how your Congressman stands on the things you don't like? Do you even fucking know who your Congressman is?
Tuesday, February 16, 2016
Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa
I simply hate it when I forget my own rules.
Yesterday I accepted a quote claiming that Charles Schumer (D-NY) said the following in a speech to the American Constitution Society in 2007.
"I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances."
Perhaps my dislike of Schumer made me willing to accept that he said this when there was a possibility the shoe might be on the other foot in nominating a Supreme Court justice.
Besides, it was a hypothetical situation that never actually came up so it didn't strike me as being terribly important.
I forgot about the old quote mine. The dishonest practice of taking a quote out of context in order to change its meaning. In context, this is what Schumer actually said.
"We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts or Justice Ginsburg replaced by another Alito. Given the track of this President and the experience of obfuscation at hearings, with respect to the Supreme Court at least, I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances. They must prove by actions not words that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not."
In other words he was talking not allowing another far right conservative on the court despite verbal assurances that they would abide by precedent and NOT about blocking any and all Bush nominees.
I wouldn't expect the Republicans to approve a far left nominee that couldn't be relied upon to respect precedent under ANY circumstances.
So Schumer was talking about something totally different than what the Republicans are talking about doing.
The rule I forgot was to always, always, ALWAYS verify quotes especially when they so conveniently support someones position.
Yesterday I accepted a quote claiming that Charles Schumer (D-NY) said the following in a speech to the American Constitution Society in 2007.
"I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances."
Perhaps my dislike of Schumer made me willing to accept that he said this when there was a possibility the shoe might be on the other foot in nominating a Supreme Court justice.
Besides, it was a hypothetical situation that never actually came up so it didn't strike me as being terribly important.
I forgot about the old quote mine. The dishonest practice of taking a quote out of context in order to change its meaning. In context, this is what Schumer actually said.
"We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts or Justice Ginsburg replaced by another Alito. Given the track of this President and the experience of obfuscation at hearings, with respect to the Supreme Court at least, I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances. They must prove by actions not words that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not."
In other words he was talking not allowing another far right conservative on the court despite verbal assurances that they would abide by precedent and NOT about blocking any and all Bush nominees.
I wouldn't expect the Republicans to approve a far left nominee that couldn't be relied upon to respect precedent under ANY circumstances.
So Schumer was talking about something totally different than what the Republicans are talking about doing.
The rule I forgot was to always, always, ALWAYS verify quotes especially when they so conveniently support someones position.
Sunday, February 14, 2016
And the Fight Already Begins
Less than six hours after the death of Antonin Scalia the political battle has already begun with Republicans calling on President Obama to let his successor name Scalia's replacement.
No real surprise there. I figure there are two chances of that happening, slim and none.
The trick is to come up with a slightly left of center jurist who has impeccable credentials and who can project an air of competence and integrity.
There should be no shortage of such candidates and putting such an individual forward as soon as possible could land the Republicans between a rock and a hard place.
Either they allow Obama to appoint another fairly safe liberal voice to the court or they obstruct the nomination and risk a public backlash in a election year.
If I were the Democrats I would pull out all the stops on this one and literally go for the throat. If they're vicious enough they might even get both the nominee appointed and a negative backlash against the Republicans.
Of course they won't play hard ball because they're god damned pussies.
On the other hand, Obama could nominate an openly Gay Black Hispanic Muslim Atheist Illegal Immigrant and let the chips fall where they may.
No real surprise there. I figure there are two chances of that happening, slim and none.
The trick is to come up with a slightly left of center jurist who has impeccable credentials and who can project an air of competence and integrity.
There should be no shortage of such candidates and putting such an individual forward as soon as possible could land the Republicans between a rock and a hard place.
Either they allow Obama to appoint another fairly safe liberal voice to the court or they obstruct the nomination and risk a public backlash in a election year.
If I were the Democrats I would pull out all the stops on this one and literally go for the throat. If they're vicious enough they might even get both the nominee appointed and a negative backlash against the Republicans.
Of course they won't play hard ball because they're god damned pussies.
On the other hand, Obama could nominate an openly Gay Black Hispanic Muslim Atheist Illegal Immigrant and let the chips fall where they may.
Saturday, February 13, 2016
Antonin Scalia is Dead
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, arguably the most conservative justice on the Supreme Court, was found dead at a Texas luxury resort.
I didn't agree with Scalia about much but there was no denying the man's towering intellect. He's been a fixture on the court and was the longest serving justice. He was appointed to the court in 1986 by President Ronald Reagan.
Good grief, 1986. That's a while ago.
Now the fun begins. Obama has to figure out how to get a Supreme Court nominee through a Republican senate that probably isn't going to be in any mood to cooperate.
He's got to find someone that isn't considered a firebrand liberal but can be relied upon to approach cases with an eye towards what makes sense in a modern world.
Scalia was something of a hypocrite. When it suited him he would argue for the expansion of broad generalities in the Constitution such as in the Hobby Lobby case and Citizens United. He found reasons to approve conservative positions.
On the other hand, in order to avoid progressive advances, he argued for a static Constitution frozen in the 18th century.
It should be interesting to see how Obama approaches this one. It is clearly critical that a new justice be appointed before the next election.
I didn't agree with Scalia about much but there was no denying the man's towering intellect. He's been a fixture on the court and was the longest serving justice. He was appointed to the court in 1986 by President Ronald Reagan.
Good grief, 1986. That's a while ago.
Now the fun begins. Obama has to figure out how to get a Supreme Court nominee through a Republican senate that probably isn't going to be in any mood to cooperate.
He's got to find someone that isn't considered a firebrand liberal but can be relied upon to approach cases with an eye towards what makes sense in a modern world.
Scalia was something of a hypocrite. When it suited him he would argue for the expansion of broad generalities in the Constitution such as in the Hobby Lobby case and Citizens United. He found reasons to approve conservative positions.
On the other hand, in order to avoid progressive advances, he argued for a static Constitution frozen in the 18th century.
It should be interesting to see how Obama approaches this one. It is clearly critical that a new justice be appointed before the next election.
Wednesday, February 10, 2016
New Hampshire Final Numbers
Things didn't change that much from the early going.
For the Democrats:
Bernie Sanders - 60.2%
Hillary Clinton - 38.2%
Apparently Clinton conceded as soon as the polls closed.
For the Republicans it looks like this.
Donald Trump - 35.4%
John Kasich - 15.7%
Ted Cruz - 11.7%
Jeb Bush - 11.0%
Marco Rubio - 10.5%
Chris Christie - 7.4%
Carly Fiorina - 4.1%
Ben Carson - 2.3%
This is a big win for Trump and unfortunately Cruz, may camels mash his little toes, managed a respectable third. Rubio came back slightly but still finished a disappointing fifth.
The rumor is that Christie is giving it up after this and Carson and Fiorina should seriously consider hanging it up after this as well but the word is Carson is already heading for South Carolina.
So now what? It's on to South Carolina.
For the Democrats:
Bernie Sanders - 60.2%
Hillary Clinton - 38.2%
Apparently Clinton conceded as soon as the polls closed.
For the Republicans it looks like this.
Donald Trump - 35.4%
John Kasich - 15.7%
Ted Cruz - 11.7%
Jeb Bush - 11.0%
Marco Rubio - 10.5%
Chris Christie - 7.4%
Carly Fiorina - 4.1%
Ben Carson - 2.3%
This is a big win for Trump and unfortunately Cruz, may camels mash his little toes, managed a respectable third. Rubio came back slightly but still finished a disappointing fifth.
The rumor is that Christie is giving it up after this and Carson and Fiorina should seriously consider hanging it up after this as well but the word is Carson is already heading for South Carolina.
So now what? It's on to South Carolina.
Tuesday, February 09, 2016
The New Hampshire Primary 2
Well New Hampshire is underway and on the Democratic but things are a tad surprising on the Republican side.
For the Democrats:
Bernie Sanders - 58.32%
Hillary Clinton - 39.57%
Apparently Clinton conceded as soon as the polls closed.
Now for the Republicans. At the moment it looks like this.
Donald Trump - 34.20%
John Kasich - 16.01%
Ted Cruz - 11.59%
Jeb Bush - 11.59%
Marco Rubio - 9.90%
Chris Christie - 7.40%
Carly Fiorina - 4.43%
Ben Carson - 2.37%
This is better for Trump than predicted and what happened to Rubio? Did his robotic demeanor over the last week lead to this? Perhaps Kasich becomes the new establishment golden boy after today?
Trump could actually win the whole enchilada. Well that's better than Cruz but I just don't think he'd make a very good president. He's a showman and not a statesman.
Carson should seriously consider hanging it up after this and Fiorina as well but the word is Carson is already heading for South Carolina.
For the Democrats:
Bernie Sanders - 58.32%
Hillary Clinton - 39.57%
Apparently Clinton conceded as soon as the polls closed.
Now for the Republicans. At the moment it looks like this.
Donald Trump - 34.20%
John Kasich - 16.01%
Ted Cruz - 11.59%
Jeb Bush - 11.59%
Marco Rubio - 9.90%
Chris Christie - 7.40%
Carly Fiorina - 4.43%
Ben Carson - 2.37%
This is better for Trump than predicted and what happened to Rubio? Did his robotic demeanor over the last week lead to this? Perhaps Kasich becomes the new establishment golden boy after today?
Trump could actually win the whole enchilada. Well that's better than Cruz but I just don't think he'd make a very good president. He's a showman and not a statesman.
Carson should seriously consider hanging it up after this and Fiorina as well but the word is Carson is already heading for South Carolina.
Sunday, February 07, 2016
The Economy
I was reading an article on how the Federal Reserve, and just about everyone else, isn't sure whether the economy is doing well or about to tank.
That was bad enough but then I read the comments.
I really love the comments. It's amazing how the government is hiding things when all of the information is publicly available and literally hundreds of people are analyzing that information and often coming to different conclusions.
It's also amazing how everyone seems to know more about economics than those whose career is the study of economics. Luckily I don't have to make a living from being an economist but I do have a degree in economics. Let me tell you, an exact science it's not. Let's start with understanding that the economy is always uneven. It's always the case where some people are doing well and others aren't. The so-called "indicators" attempt to measure whether more people are in the first group or the second group.
The economy is "healthy" if as many people as possible are in the first group and it's growing. That doesn't mean there won't always be people in the second group. Right now the East and West are doing better economically than the Midwest and South. The top five states in median household income in 2014 were Maryland - $70,004, Alaska - $69,825, New Jersey - $67,458, Connecticut - $65,753 and Massachusetts - $64,859. The lowest five states were Mississippi - $36,919, West Virginia - $38,482, Arkansas - $38,758, Kentucky - $41,141 and Alabama - $41,415.
And yes the cost of living in the states with the higher household incomes is higher but it's not that much higher. It's around 25%-30% higher than in the lowest states and a lot of that comes from housing.
So this is part of the problem. Not only is the situation murky but the recovery has been uneven. This is reality and it's what the article is saying. At least consider what the experts say. Don't accept it blindly but do your homework first before you reject it out of hand like I see a lot of people doing.
We seem to have this knee jerk reaction to immediately reject anything that isn't dripping of bad news and impending crisis. Yes, be skeptical, but accept the facts as well.
That was bad enough but then I read the comments.
I really love the comments. It's amazing how the government is hiding things when all of the information is publicly available and literally hundreds of people are analyzing that information and often coming to different conclusions.
It's also amazing how everyone seems to know more about economics than those whose career is the study of economics. Luckily I don't have to make a living from being an economist but I do have a degree in economics. Let me tell you, an exact science it's not. Let's start with understanding that the economy is always uneven. It's always the case where some people are doing well and others aren't. The so-called "indicators" attempt to measure whether more people are in the first group or the second group.
The economy is "healthy" if as many people as possible are in the first group and it's growing. That doesn't mean there won't always be people in the second group. Right now the East and West are doing better economically than the Midwest and South. The top five states in median household income in 2014 were Maryland - $70,004, Alaska - $69,825, New Jersey - $67,458, Connecticut - $65,753 and Massachusetts - $64,859. The lowest five states were Mississippi - $36,919, West Virginia - $38,482, Arkansas - $38,758, Kentucky - $41,141 and Alabama - $41,415.
And yes the cost of living in the states with the higher household incomes is higher but it's not that much higher. It's around 25%-30% higher than in the lowest states and a lot of that comes from housing.
So this is part of the problem. Not only is the situation murky but the recovery has been uneven. This is reality and it's what the article is saying. At least consider what the experts say. Don't accept it blindly but do your homework first before you reject it out of hand like I see a lot of people doing.
We seem to have this knee jerk reaction to immediately reject anything that isn't dripping of bad news and impending crisis. Yes, be skeptical, but accept the facts as well.
Saturday, February 06, 2016
The New Hampshire Primary 1
On to New Hampshire as they say. This was where in 2008 John McCain established himself with 37.1% of the vote and the Iowa Caucus winner Mike Huckabee faded to 11.2%.
To my mind New Hampshire means more than Iowa on the Republican side because it's more representative of the national electorate. Iowa is too heavily slanted towards very right wing evangelical Christians who are also known as the village idiots.
On the Democratic side not so much because the New Hampshire Primary tends to be further left than the national electorate.
So what is fivethirtyeight.com saying.
On the Democratic side it looks like a big win for Sanders. Estimated results are:
Bernie Sanders - 57.0%
Hillary Clinton - 40%
This now looks like it's going to be a long haul which is probably good as it keeps the candidates in the news.
In the meantime Clinton is still way ahead in endorsements with 466 points to Sanders 2 (10 for governors, 5 for senators and 1 for Representatives).
On the Republican side Trump seems headed for his first win but Cruz, may his earlobes be infested with gnats, isn't doing that well. Estimated results are:
Donald Trump - 27.3%
Marco Rubio - 18,6%
John Kasich - 14.8%
Ted Cruz - 12.3%
Jeb Bush - 11.3%
Chris Christie - 6.8%
Carly Fiorina - 4.5%
Ben Carson - 2.9%
I'd love to see Bush get ahead of Cruz but even A fourth or fifth place finish for Cruz here wouldn't necessarily cripple him as he's still holding a close third in South Carolina and the primary in his home state of Texas isn't that far away.
Maybe they'll get around to testing the water in Texas before the primary?
As for endorsements Rubio is in the lead with 60 points, Jeb Bush has 51, Chris Christie has 36 and John Kasich 20. Ted Cruz is next with 19. Donald Trump and Ben Carson have zero. Even Carly Fiorina has three (the only three people in the country that didn't have HP stock I suppose).
The rumor is that Carson is almost out of money. If he drops out after New Hampshire that might unfortunately give Cruz a boost.
Two of my four nightmare candidates (Carson, Cruz, Huckabee and Santorum) are gone and a third is wavering. Unfortunately that means the remaining one, Cruz, gets the benefit of the other wing nuts falling by the wayside.
I'll even take Trump over Cruz.
To my mind New Hampshire means more than Iowa on the Republican side because it's more representative of the national electorate. Iowa is too heavily slanted towards very right wing evangelical Christians who are also known as the village idiots.
On the Democratic side not so much because the New Hampshire Primary tends to be further left than the national electorate.
So what is fivethirtyeight.com saying.
On the Democratic side it looks like a big win for Sanders. Estimated results are:
Bernie Sanders - 57.0%
Hillary Clinton - 40%
This now looks like it's going to be a long haul which is probably good as it keeps the candidates in the news.
In the meantime Clinton is still way ahead in endorsements with 466 points to Sanders 2 (10 for governors, 5 for senators and 1 for Representatives).
On the Republican side Trump seems headed for his first win but Cruz, may his earlobes be infested with gnats, isn't doing that well. Estimated results are:
Donald Trump - 27.3%
Marco Rubio - 18,6%
John Kasich - 14.8%
Ted Cruz - 12.3%
Jeb Bush - 11.3%
Chris Christie - 6.8%
Carly Fiorina - 4.5%
Ben Carson - 2.9%
I'd love to see Bush get ahead of Cruz but even A fourth or fifth place finish for Cruz here wouldn't necessarily cripple him as he's still holding a close third in South Carolina and the primary in his home state of Texas isn't that far away.
Maybe they'll get around to testing the water in Texas before the primary?
As for endorsements Rubio is in the lead with 60 points, Jeb Bush has 51, Chris Christie has 36 and John Kasich 20. Ted Cruz is next with 19. Donald Trump and Ben Carson have zero. Even Carly Fiorina has three (the only three people in the country that didn't have HP stock I suppose).
The rumor is that Carson is almost out of money. If he drops out after New Hampshire that might unfortunately give Cruz a boost.
Two of my four nightmare candidates (Carson, Cruz, Huckabee and Santorum) are gone and a third is wavering. Unfortunately that means the remaining one, Cruz, gets the benefit of the other wing nuts falling by the wayside.
I'll even take Trump over Cruz.
Thursday, February 04, 2016
The Next SCOTUS Abortion Case
It's called Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt and it concerns a series of "regulations" passed in Texas to manage abortion clinics and "protect women's health."
Everybody understand that the objective of these regulations is to drive abortion clinics out of business. The law was written in consultation with Americans United for Life and the Texas lieutenant governor at the time the law was passed boasted that it would "essentially ban abortion statewide."
Yet, with a straight face, Texas lawmakers and their attorneys are contending it's not intended to prevent abortions but to safeguard women's health.
Ah yes, another example of Christian and Conservative dishonesty.
They're so convinced they're right that they have to lie about their motives.
Where I come from if you have to lie about your motives then you know damn well what you're doing is wrong.
Now obviously the court can see through the subterfuge but that doesn't mean they're going to do the right thing.
If the state of Texas can make a "good enough" argument that these regulations are within the framework allowable by the 1992 SCOTUS case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey then the court's conservative majority may well ignore the subterfuge and uphold it anyway.
The law would then provide a blueprint for other conservative states to follow suit. All in the concern for women's, and especially poor women's, health. Yeah, right.
Everybody understand that the objective of these regulations is to drive abortion clinics out of business. The law was written in consultation with Americans United for Life and the Texas lieutenant governor at the time the law was passed boasted that it would "essentially ban abortion statewide."
Yet, with a straight face, Texas lawmakers and their attorneys are contending it's not intended to prevent abortions but to safeguard women's health.
Ah yes, another example of Christian and Conservative dishonesty.
They're so convinced they're right that they have to lie about their motives.
Where I come from if you have to lie about your motives then you know damn well what you're doing is wrong.
Now obviously the court can see through the subterfuge but that doesn't mean they're going to do the right thing.
If the state of Texas can make a "good enough" argument that these regulations are within the framework allowable by the 1992 SCOTUS case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey then the court's conservative majority may well ignore the subterfuge and uphold it anyway.
The law would then provide a blueprint for other conservative states to follow suit. All in the concern for women's, and especially poor women's, health. Yeah, right.
Them Damn Welfare Cheats
This idea of lots of people living high off welfare is a myth. Republicans continue to pitch this nonsense while they pass more loopholes for billionaires to avoid taxes and provide more subsidies to oil companies.
Poor people aren't stealing from you. They're in worse shape than you are and would love to make a decent salary so they don't need government support.
Now let's look at the other side. Do you know what "carried interest" is? Your Republican congressman knows because this is the loophole in the tax code that they keep making larger and larger that allows people who make millions of dollars a year to pay Capital Gains taxes rather than income taxes at half the tax rate.
Let's see, what makes more sense, people who are poorer than you and are essentially divorced from the political process (in other words they don't even vote) are pulling strings to steal your hard earned money or people who are richer than you and contribute millions of dollars to Republican campaign funds are pulling strings to steal your hard earned money?
Poor people aren't stealing from you. They're in worse shape than you are and would love to make a decent salary so they don't need government support.
Now let's look at the other side. Do you know what "carried interest" is? Your Republican congressman knows because this is the loophole in the tax code that they keep making larger and larger that allows people who make millions of dollars a year to pay Capital Gains taxes rather than income taxes at half the tax rate.
Let's see, what makes more sense, people who are poorer than you and are essentially divorced from the political process (in other words they don't even vote) are pulling strings to steal your hard earned money or people who are richer than you and contribute millions of dollars to Republican campaign funds are pulling strings to steal your hard earned money?
Wednesday, February 03, 2016
Two More Down
Both Rick Santorum, may camels urinate upon his eyebrows, and Rand Paul have announced they're dropping out of the Republican race.
Paul's dropping out should help Trump and Rubio in New Hampshire. Santorum was so unpopular there I doubt anyone will even notice that he's gone.
In the meantime Rubio is now pulling ahead in endorsements with 5 senators and 33 representatives but as yet no governor's endorsement.
Paul's dropping out should help Trump and Rubio in New Hampshire. Santorum was so unpopular there I doubt anyone will even notice that he's gone.
In the meantime Rubio is now pulling ahead in endorsements with 5 senators and 33 representatives but as yet no governor's endorsement.
Tuesday, February 02, 2016
Iowa Caucus Final Numbers
If these numbers aren't "final" they're close enough I believe. I'm going to talk Democrats first because although Clinton "won," this is an amazing performance for Sanders who no one, including yours truly, took seriously when he first announced he was running.
Hillary Clinton - 49.86% (22 delegates)
Bernie Sanders - 49.57% (21 delegates)
Martin O'Malley - 0.57% (0 delegates)
For all intents and purposes this is a dead heat tie and Martin O'Malley has announced he's done.
Now for the Republicans.
Ted Cruz - 27.65% (8 delegates)
Donald Trump - 24.31% (7 delegates)
Marco Rubio - 23.10% (7 delegates)
Ben Carson - 9.31% (3 delegates)
Rand Paul - 4.54% (1 delegates)
Jeb Bush - 2.80% (1 delegates)
Carly Fiorina - 1.86% (0 delegates)
John Kasich - 1.86% (0 delegates)
Mike Huckabee - 1.79% (0 delegates)
Chris Christie - 1.76% (0 delegates)
Rick Santorum - 0.95% (0 delegates)
Jim Gilmore - 0.01% (0 delegates)
Obviously this is a big win for Cruz but I think Rubio gains even more. The Republican Iowa Caucuses have been much further right than even the Republican Party can stomach and I'm thinking Rubio collects the support of the party stalwarts after this showing.
Mike Huckabee has announced he's done. Santorum should go with him.
Hillary Clinton - 49.86% (22 delegates)
Bernie Sanders - 49.57% (21 delegates)
Martin O'Malley - 0.57% (0 delegates)
For all intents and purposes this is a dead heat tie and Martin O'Malley has announced he's done.
Now for the Republicans.
Ted Cruz - 27.65% (8 delegates)
Donald Trump - 24.31% (7 delegates)
Marco Rubio - 23.10% (7 delegates)
Ben Carson - 9.31% (3 delegates)
Rand Paul - 4.54% (1 delegates)
Jeb Bush - 2.80% (1 delegates)
Carly Fiorina - 1.86% (0 delegates)
John Kasich - 1.86% (0 delegates)
Mike Huckabee - 1.79% (0 delegates)
Chris Christie - 1.76% (0 delegates)
Rick Santorum - 0.95% (0 delegates)
Jim Gilmore - 0.01% (0 delegates)
Obviously this is a big win for Cruz but I think Rubio gains even more. The Republican Iowa Caucuses have been much further right than even the Republican Party can stomach and I'm thinking Rubio collects the support of the party stalwarts after this showing.
Mike Huckabee has announced he's done. Santorum should go with him.
Monday, February 01, 2016
Watching the Iowa Caucuses
Right now Clinton and Sanders are basically in a dead heat.
Clinton - 49.96%
Sanders - 49.36%
On the Republican side it's:
Cruz - 27.72%
Trump - 24.42%
Rubio - 22.96%
Carson - 9.30%
At least on the Republican side all Iowa ever manages to do is galvanize the Republican elite. The people that attend the caucuses are so far to the right they're just not representative of anything other than the Iowa caucuses.
Mike Huckabee won in 2008 and Rick Santorum edged out Mitt Romney in 2012. Huckabee had something like 34% of the vote and was never heard from again.
Here's hoping Ted Cruz is never heard from again.
Looking at the numbers I have to believe that the big winner here is going to be Marco Rubio because he's someone that the party elites can live with and can rally behind. I thought it was going to be Bush but he looks like he's got no hope. Rubio has endorsements from 4 Senators and 23 Representatives. Cruz has endorsements from 18 Representatives. Trump has endorsements from no one.
Martin O'Malley has officially announced that he's suspending his campaign and Ben Carson says he's going to take a break from campaigning. Hopefully that's the last we'll see of Carson.
I've just seen that Mike Huckabee is suspending his campaign as well. Well Mike, we hate to see you go; we hate to see you go; we hope to hell you never come back; we hate to see you go. Good riddance.
Clinton - 49.96%
Sanders - 49.36%
On the Republican side it's:
Cruz - 27.72%
Trump - 24.42%
Rubio - 22.96%
Carson - 9.30%
At least on the Republican side all Iowa ever manages to do is galvanize the Republican elite. The people that attend the caucuses are so far to the right they're just not representative of anything other than the Iowa caucuses.
Mike Huckabee won in 2008 and Rick Santorum edged out Mitt Romney in 2012. Huckabee had something like 34% of the vote and was never heard from again.
Here's hoping Ted Cruz is never heard from again.
Looking at the numbers I have to believe that the big winner here is going to be Marco Rubio because he's someone that the party elites can live with and can rally behind. I thought it was going to be Bush but he looks like he's got no hope. Rubio has endorsements from 4 Senators and 23 Representatives. Cruz has endorsements from 18 Representatives. Trump has endorsements from no one.
Martin O'Malley has officially announced that he's suspending his campaign and Ben Carson says he's going to take a break from campaigning. Hopefully that's the last we'll see of Carson.
I've just seen that Mike Huckabee is suspending his campaign as well. Well Mike, we hate to see you go; we hate to see you go; we hope to hell you never come back; we hate to see you go. Good riddance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
