Friday, March 3, 2017

Weekly Finale: Fleetwood Mac's "The Chain"

It is time to close out the week with another weekly musical finale.

This week, I am digging into the vaults for a classic from the 1970's, Fleetwood Mac's The Chain:



The Chain is a wonderful piece of folk-style music, which builds to a rocking crescendo. It was featured on Fleetwood Mac's "Rumours" album, arguably one of the great albums of all-time. The Chain is also one of the few Fleetwood Mac songs where the entire band shares the writing credit.

Of course, The Chain's resurrection today didn't come out of nowhere. It was featured in the most recent trailer for Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, which was just released this past week (the trailer was released, not the movie):



That is the end of my blogging chain for this week. Come back Monday for more, and enjoy your weekend!
Posted by at No comments:

Rating the Presidents (Part 6)

This is part 6 of my ongoing series where I rate the presidents on multiple criteria. here are the links to previous parts:
SUMMARY

Here are the winners for each category (Mine first and then the C-SPAN survey):

Public Persuasion: FDR - FDR
Crisis Leadership: Ronald Reagan - Abraham Lincoln
Economic Management: Warren Harding - George Washington
Moral Authority: George Washington - George Washington
International Relations: Thomas Jefferson - FDR
Administrative Skills: George Washington - Abraham Lincoln
Relations with Congress: LBJ - LBJ
Vision / Setting an Agenda: Ronald Reagan - Abraham Lincoln
Pursued Equal Justice For All: JFK - Abraham Lincoln
Performance Within Context of Times: George Washington - George Washington

So I gave Washington 3 top votes and Reagan 2 votes, whereas the survey gave Lincoln 4 votes and Washington 3 votes. Whether that means anything or not, I would still rate Washington as the greatest president. 


Now for the worst (mine followed by the C-SPAN survey):

Public Persuasion: William Henry Harrison - James Buchanan
Crisis Leadership: Woodrow Wilson - James Buchanan
Economic Management: Herbert Hoover - Herbert Hoover
Moral Authority: Richard Nixon - James Buchanan
International Relations: Woodrow Wilson - James Buchanan
Administrative Skills: Warren Harding - Andrew Johnson
Relations with Congress: Andrew Johnson - Andrew Johnson
Vision / Setting an Agenda: George W. Bush - James Buchanan
Pursued Equal Justice For All: James Buchanan - James Buchanan
Performance Within Context of Times: James Buchanan - James Buchanan

The C-SPAN survey left no doubt of its derision for James Buchanan, with 7 worsts, with Andrew Johnson in a far second with 2. For me, the worst was a tie for 2 selections between Woodrow Wilson and James Buchanan.

If I have to select between James Buchanan and Woodrow Wilson, then I am tempted to give it to Buchanan: The Civil War resulted in more American deaths than in both World Wars combined. But how many 20th century deaths worldwide can be attributed to Wilson? Wilson's policies were dangerous for both America and the world. Wilson's push for the League of Nations allowed for the Treaty of Versailles, which was a major impetus to World War II. And let's not forget it was Wilson who helped give us the Federal Reserve system which has allowed our economy to boom and bust over and over again, even as it allows money to remain locked up in "too big to fail" banks and away from the economy.


Overall, George Washington was the best, and Woodrow Wilson was the worst, in my opinion. The C-SPAN survey rated Abraham Lincoln as the best, and James Buchanan as the worst.

But there is still one more part to this series...

(to be continued)
Posted by at No comments:

Where is the Obamacare Replacement Bill? Today's news for March 3rd

The Hill:
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Thursday blasted House Republicans for keeping their ObamaCare repeal and replace legislation under wraps.





Paul is 100% correct. Most Republicans (if not all) were elected to the House and Senate on promises to repeal Obamacare. Now that they are being held responsible for their promises, they are getting weak in the knees, and trying to pass an "Obamacare Light" bill.

Unfortunately, they are taking their legislative lessons from Nancy Pelosi, who infamously said: "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy." If the Republicans try to pull a Pelosi, expect the Democrats to pick up Congressional seats in the 2018 midterm elections.

In other news...

Fox News:
In what has been called a “visa war,” the European Union’s parliament on Thursday called on the bloc to force American tourists visiting Europe to first obtain visas because the U.S. excludes five EU countries from its no-visa policy.

The Wall Street Journal reported that the request is unlikely to change policy, but reflects “hostility among some European politicians to the Trump administration.”

The report said Parliament’s vote came six weeks into Trump’s presidency and after the legislature publically slammed Trump’s executive order banning travelers from seven Muslim-majority countries.

U.S. citizens can travel to all EU countries without visas but the U.S. hasn’t granted visa-free travel to citizens of Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Poland and Romania.
Do you feel that cold front moving in from Europe? That is the early frost of a trade war forming. If President Trump isn't careful, his protectionist ideals could turn into a fully formed trade war, instead of just a minor inconvenience to American tourists.

Finally, in news of "I told you so":

Tribune Washington Bureau:
Donald Trump has allowed his young presidency to become mired in a seemingly intractable Russia scandal by singling out journalists for attack instead of squarely facing allegations that his advisers colluded with Russia in its meddling in the U.S. presidential election.

“You have to be honest and get the information out quickly so you can define it and start the process of hopefully moving on,” said Doug Heye, a veteran Republican communications strategist. “The truth will always come out.”

For months, Trump and his aides have been silent or vague as information has leaked out in dribs and drabs about their contacts with Russians. Instead of releasing information during the campaign or even the transition, Trump continues to blame the news outlets that are reporting the accusations.

“Russia is fake news,” he said at a news conference last month. “This is fake news put out by the media.”

On Thursday, the Russia scandal reached a new urgency as it became known that Attorney General Jeff Sessions may have misled his fellow senators in sworn testimony about his interactions with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak while Sessions was Trump’s chief foreign policy adviser. After hours of debate roiled Washington, Sessions recused himself from overseeing any investigation into Russia campaign meddling after several fellow Republicans pushed him to do so.
 As I said in yesterday's news:
While Sessions' meetings with Kislyak were most likely innocent, he should have mentioned them. Now that the meetings have come out anyway, he looks guilty as sin. It is the Nixon rule of politics: It isn't the scandal that takes you down, but rather the cover-up.
I love it when media outlets steal my ideas.
Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, March 2, 2017

Rating the Presidents (Part 5)

This is part 5 of my ongoing series where I rate the presidents on multiple criteria. here are the links to previous parts:
PURSUED EQUAL JUSTICE FOR ALL

There are three possible presidents at the top of this list: Abraham Lincoln, Lyndon Johnson, and John F. Kennedy.

Although the C-SPAN survey chose Lincoln first, Lincoln's freeing of the slaves was a side effect, not his main intent. Maintaining the union was more important to Lincoln than freeing the slaves, as evidenced by the fact he never freed the slaves in the North (the Emancipation Proclamation only impacted slaves in the South). He freed slaves to hurt the South, not out of any kind of humanitarianism.

Lyndon Johnson deserves plenty of credit for all he did, including the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and the nomination of the first black Supreme Court Justice (Thurgood Marshall).

But it was JFK who set the table for what Johnson was able to accomplish. The principals in the civil Rights Act were laid out by JFK. It was JFK who initially nominated Thurgood Marshall as a federal judge. It was JFK who went head-to-head with Alabama governor George Wallace to ensure the desegregation of the University of Alabama, even calling up the Alabama National Guard to make it happen.

JFK faced much resistance to his civil rights ideals, which prevented him from doing much more. Johnson may get credit for reaping the fruit, but it was JFK who planted the seeds. For that, I name JFK first.

As for last place, I cannot argue with the C-SPAN survey's choice of James Buchanan. his pro-slavery stances only served to set the stage for the Civil War.  

PERFORMANCE WITHIN CONTEXT OF TIMES

Speaking of Buchanan, he also got worst on the C-SPAN survey in "performance within context of times". yet another ignominious distinction which is well-deserved by him. His appeasement of the southern states prior to the Civil War arguably made Lincoln's election in 1860 look a lot more threatening to the South. I would argue that, minus Buchanan bending over backwards for slavery, it is possible that Lincoln's election might not have led to an instant rebellion. Buchanan definitely deserves the worst in this category.

I also have to agree with the survey's choice of George Washington as the best here. With all the factions fighting for control of our new country's government, Washington was the steady voice of reason that kept our country moving forward. A lesser first president could have allowed our country to fall into civil war before it even had a chance to get started. A more ambitious first president could have turned our country into a monarchy before the republic ever got a foothold. Without Washington, there would be no United States of America.

(to be continued)
Posted by at No comments:

Back to Russia: Today's news for March 2nd

Washington Post:
Then-Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) spoke twice last year with Russia’s ambassador to the United States, Justice Department officials said, encounters he did not disclose when asked about possible contacts between members of President Trump’s campaign and representatives of Moscow during Sessions’s confirmation hearing to become attorney general.

One of the meetings was a private conversation between Sessions and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak that took place in September in the senator’s office, at the height of what U.S. intelligence officials say was a Russian cyber campaign to upend the U.S. presidential race.
And Sessions meeting with a Russian ambassador helped the Russians with their cyber campaign how? Unless he gave them the password to John Podesta's email account, this is a huge reach.

On the other hand:
When Sessions spoke with Kislyak in July and September, the senator was a senior member of the influential Armed Services Committee as well as one of Trump’s top foreign policy advisers. Sessions played a prominent role supporting Trump on the stump after formally joining the campaign in February 2016.

At his Jan. 10 Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing, Sessions was asked by Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) what he would do if he learned of any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of the 2016 campaign.

“I’m not aware of any of those activities,” he responded. He added: “I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians.”

Officials said Sessions did not consider the conversations relevant to the lawmakers’ questions and did not remember in detail what he discussed with Kislyak.

“There was absolutely nothing misleading about his answer,” said Sarah Isgur Flores, Sessions’s spokeswoman.

In January, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) asked Sessions for answers to written questions. “Several of the President-elect’s nominees or senior advisers have Russian ties. Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day?” Leahy wrote.

Sessions responded with one word: “No.”

In a statement issued Wednesday night, Sessions said he “never met with any Russian officials to discuss issues of the campaign. I have no idea what this allegation is about. It is false.”

Justice officials said Sessions met with Kislyak on Sept. 8 in his capacity as a member of the armed services panel rather than in his role as a Trump campaign surrogate.
While Sessions' meetings with Kislyak were most likely innocent, he should have mentioned them. Now that the meetings have come out anyway, he looks guilty as sin. It is the Nixon rule of politics: It isn't the scandal that takes you down, but rather the cover-up.

On the third hand:

New York Times:
In the Obama administration’s last days, some White House officials scrambled to spread information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election — and about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump and Russians — across the government. Former American officials say they had two aims: to ensure that such meddling isn’t duplicated in future American or European elections, and to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators.

American allies, including the British and the Dutch, had provided information describing meetings in European cities between Russian officials — and others close to Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin — and associates of President-elect Trump, according to three former American officials who requested anonymity in discussing classified intelligence.
...Mr. Trump has denied that his campaign had any contact with Russian officials, and at one point he openly suggested that American spy agencies had cooked up intelligence suggesting that the Russian government had tried to meddle in the presidential election. Mr. Trump has accused the Obama administration of hyping the Russia story line as a way to discredit his new administration.

At the Obama White House, Mr. Trump’s statements stoked fears among some that intelligence could be covered up or destroyed — or its sources exposed — once power changed hands. What followed was a push to preserve the intelligence that underscored the deep anxiety with which the White House and American intelligence agencies had come to view the threat from Moscow.

It also reflected the suspicion among many in the Obama White House that the Trump campaign might have colluded with Russia on election email hacks — a suspicion that American officials say has not been confirmed. Former senior Obama administration officials said that none of the efforts were directed by Mr. Obama.
There is absolutely NOTHING the Trump campaign could have told the Russians to help them hack Democratic Party computers better. in fact, it is probably a safe bet the Russians could teach anyone else a thing or two about hacking.

So what exactly was the point of what the Obama administration did, by planting all this information around the government?

This is a clear case of confirmation bias from the Obama administration. They were in disbelief over losing the election, not believing that Hillary Clinton could have lost to Donald Trump. In the minds of the Obama administration, there had to be something illegal going on there, aside from the arrogance of the Clinton campaign, Democratic Party, and the mainstream media. So they saw the contacts between Trump's campaign and the Russians as something illegal (even though there was no possible way Trump's campaign could have enabled or assisted the Russian hacking).

On top of this, it is not unheard of for presidential campaigns to have discussions with foreign government officials. Remember when Obama's campaign had overseas speeches during the 2008 election? Those didn't happen without contacts with foreign governments. But even without the speeches, those kinds of contacts are made.

In spite of the fact the Obama administration knew these kinds of contacts are made, they created a scandal story in their minds, and then spread information around the government to prove it, even though the dots don't connect in this illogical story.

On the fourth hand, this could also be a case of the MSM pushing the "election hack" story, when the truth is possibly a different kind of sordid connection between Trump and the Russians. Considering how there is historical precedent, specifically between Bill Clinton and China in 1996, there could be something illicit involving campaign donations and backdoor deals between Trump and the Russians, but this is pure speculation.  

But illicit campaign donations probably aren't as sexy as an "election hack".

And now onto news of the 2020 presidential election...

Daily Mail:
The improbable political rise of Donald Trump has led Oprah Winfrey to think about whether or not she could become the second TV entertainer to work in the Oval Office.

Oprah told Bloomberg interviewer David Rubenstein that before Trump won the November election, she thought she was unqualified to be president.

But not anymore.

'I actually never thought that that was – I never considered the question, even a possibility,' she said. 
But when reality-show icon Trump beat longtime politician Hillary Clinton, she said, 'I just thought, "Oh! Oh!"'
That flushing sound you hear is the quality of future presidents. Thanks Donald! Now every rich loon with name recognition will think they can be president.

But it isn't necessarily all bad:

The Hollywood Reporter:
Iger told THR in June that "a lot of people have urged me to seek political office," and now he's considering the prodding for him to lead the Democratic ticket.

Disney CEO Bob Iger already runs the world's most successful media company. But could his impeccable mogul credentials carry him to the Oval Office?

Sources say Iger has told friends he is considering their nudges that he make a run for president in 2020 as a Democrat. There’s a hitch. Any political future would hinge on Iger, 66, finding a Disney successor, of course. (Complicating matters, in February, he told financial analysts he would be "open" to remaining as CEO after his contract ends in June 2018.)

...Iger has plenty of friends in high places within the Democratic party. Former Vice President Al Gore told THR in January that he counts fellow Apple board member Iger among his closest Hollywood friends. A number of politically plugged-in industryites say they would welcome an Iger-led Democratic ticket. Others point out that President Trump, though wildly unpopular in Hollywood, has paved the way for a businessman who has never held public office to become the leader of the free world.
Disclaimer: I own shares of Disney stock. I have nothing but respect for Iger as a CEO over Disney. He has shown an incredible knack for accumulating the best intellectual properties, and then leveraging them for profit.

That said, being expert at overseeing an intellectual property portfolio doesn't make someone good presidential material. Then again, neither does real estate investing, although the jury is still out on Trump. But we do know that community organizers and rich boys from political families suck as presidents.
Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, March 1, 2017

Part 2 of Trump's speech before Congress: Today's news for March 1st

(continued from part 1)

15. Trump does say something right corporate taxes, but I am not sure he is correct on the reason why:
Right now, American companies are taxed at one of the highest rates anywhere in the world. My economic team is developing historic tax reform that will reduce the tax rate on our companies so they can compete and thrive anywhere and with anyone.
(APPLAUSE)
It will be a big, big cut. At the same time we will provide massive tax relief for the middle class. We must create a level playing field for American companies and our workers. Have to do it. 
Certainly, there is an international competitive reason for wanting companies to be taxed less than other countries. But he misses the real point of doing that: Consumers pay ALL corporate taxes, which are not the "pennies from heaven" that politicians like to claim they are.

Ironically, if Trump wants to give the middle class a tax break, cutting corporate taxes would do exactly that, by enabling companies to cut their prices charged to consumers.

16. Trump makes a sly call for higher tariffs on imported goods. Hello, Smoot-Hawley.

17. One of the more controversial parts of Trump's speech was this section:
According to the National Academy of Sciences, our current immigration system costs American taxpayers many billions of dollars a year. Switching away from this current system of lower-skilled immigration, and instead adopting a merit-based system, we will have so many more benefits. It will save countless dollars, raise workers' wages, and help struggling families, including immigrant families, enter the middle class. And they will do it quickly and they will be very, very happy indeed.

I believe that real and positive immigration reform is possible, as long as we focus on the following goals: To improve jobs and wages for Americans, to strengthen our nation's security, and to restore respect for our laws. If we are guided by the well-being of American citizens, then I believe Republicans and Democrats can work together to achieve an outcome that has eluded our country for decades.
The big question here is: What qualities deserve "merit" under this proposal? And how many bureaucratic hoops will immigrants have to jump through in order to prove they have"merit"?

Any immigration system which is heavy in bureaucracy only encourages the poor and unskilled to cheat in order to get into the country.

Trump was right earlier in the speech about the need for regulatory reform, yet he never really touches on it with his signature topic of immigration.

18. Trump's infrastructure proposal:
America has spent approximately $6 trillion in the Middle East. All the while our infrastructure at home has crumbled. With this $6 trillion, we could have rebuilt our country twice, and maybe even three times, if we had people who had the ability to negotiate.

To launch our national rebuilding, I will be asking the Congress to approve legislation that produces a $1 trillion investment in infrastructure of the United States financed through both, public and private capital, creating millions of new jobs.
$1 trillion is such a pretty number. And very political. Whenever you see a number so perfectly rounded in a political discussion, always question the validity of it. Odds are, a politician pulled it out of their you-know-what.

By the way, why can't states maintain their own infrastructure? Why does all our money have to flow through Washington to get back to the states where it is needed?

19. Trump's call to repeal and replace Obamacare is as absurd as the old "chicken in every pot" political slogan:
Tonight I am also calling on this Congress to repeal and replace Obamacare —
(APPLAUSE)
— with reforms that expand choice, increase access, lower costs, and at the same time, provide better healthcare.
Trump does propose some good ideas, such as giving "Americans the freedom to purchase health insurance across state lines."

20. Trump's idea for paid family leave sounds good and fair. However, implementing it will be rough. The only way to allow for it is to make it mandatory for both men and women. Any form of optional paid family leave will never work, because women will take it and men won't, thereby making it harder to hire women. On the other hand, forcing it on men could have unintended social consequences (i.e. forcing men to choose between career and having children, much like women do today).

21. Trump called education "the civil rights issue of our time" (notably after both previous presidents Bush and Obama had said the same thing), before going on to say:
I am calling upon members of both parties to pass an education bill that funds school choice for disadvantaged youth, including millions of african-american and latino children. These families should —
(APPLAUSE)
These families should be free to choose the public, private, charter, magnet, religious or home school that is right for them. 
Sounds reasonable, unless you are in the teacher's union.

22. Then Trump goes wacky:
I have ordered the Department of Homeland Security to create an office to serve American Victims.  The office is called VOICE –- Victims Of Immigration Crime Engagement.  We are providing a voice to those who have been ignored by our media, and silenced by special interests. 
What is the purpose of this and why does the federal government need to be involved in it? At what point is the government acting as its own political action committee?

23. And then came the Ryan Owens moment:


CNN's Van Jones said, "He became President of the United States in that moment, period." Sorry Van, but Trump became president during the inauguration back in January. You might have missed it, seeing as you work at CNN. We can let you slide this time.

Seriously, it was a touching moment, although I find it silly that tugging on the heart strings is all it takes to bring the Left to its knees.

24. The rest of the speech could have been cut down, leaving the Ryan Owens moment as a way to go out on a big note.

25. In summary, Trump's speech was light on details, long on wind. But that is no different than our last president. If he is going to talk for an hour, the least he can do is provide some details. And donuts.
Posted by at No comments:

Part 1 of Trump's speech to Congress: Today's news for March 1st

For today's news, I am diverting from my normal format to discuss President Trump's speech to Congress last night, point-by-point:

1. Trump starts the speech with a lot of pretty speech, but not much meat. He genuflects at the altar of civil rights, America's 250th birthday, the dying middle class, and America's inner cities.

2. Then he complains about how much we have spent overseas, while ignoring America's needs:
For too long, we have watched our middle-class shrink as we have exported our jobs and wealth to foreign countries... 
And we’ve spent trillions and trillions of dollars overseas while our infrastructure at home has so badly crumbled...America must put its own citizens first. Because only then, can we truly make America great again.
3. Then his speech becomes oddly uneven:
Dying industries will come roaring back to life, heroic veterans will get the care they so desperately need. Our military will be given the resources its brave warriors so richly deserve. Crumbling infrastructure will be replaced with new roads, bridges, tunnels, airports and railways, gleaming across our very very beautiful land. Our terrible drug epidemic will slow down and ultimately stop, and our neglected inner cities will see a rebirth of hope, safety, and opportunity. Above all else, we will keep our promises to the American people. 
Trump forgets that "dying industries" die for a reason, usually obsolescence. Spending on infrastructure won't bring them back.

But that has little to do with the military. Taking care of veterans is right and appropriate, but doesn't belong in this part of the monologue. And giving the military more resources (read: money) also has nothing to do with infrastructure. If anything, most of our money spent overseas has been on the military's failed ventures in Muslim nations. (I call them "failed ventures" because every dead terrorist seems to create a new one in this largest version of "whack-a-mole" ever played.)


And then he mentions the drug epidemic. Does he even listen to himself? While this would be good news if he plans to treat the drug epidemic as a true epidemic, and not some vast criminal activity, that possibility seems unlikely. Bringing this up in the middle of discussing infrastructure also seems inappropriate.

4. Trump discusses the manufacturers who are expanding or bringing back operations to the United States since he was elected. These are nice, but will they last? Or will the jobs being created get replaced with robots? 

5. Then Trump goes off on a tangent about the money we are saving on the F-35 jets. That is nice. But it is also like your wife bragging on how much money she is saving on a head of lettuce while she is buying fur coats every week.

6. Next, Trump drops this news:
We have begun to drain the swamp of government corruption by imposing a five-year ban on lobbying by executive branch officials, and a lifetime ban —
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you. — and a lifetime ban on becoming lobbyists for a foreign government.
Anti-lobbying sounds great on the surface, but the effectiveness of lobbying has more to do with the stupidity of legislators.

7. Now we get to something potentially good:
We have undertaken a historic effort to massively reduce job crushing regulations, creating a deregulation task force inside of every government agency. 
And we are imposing a new rule which mandates that for every one new regulation, two old regulations must be eliminated.
This will need to be done for a long time, but it is only a step in the right direction if the bureaucrats don't find workarounds. Want to bet they incorporate the old regulations into sub-sections of the new ones? Bureaucracy, like life, always finds a way.

8. When Trump talks about saving the coal industry, this is one of those things we need to let go. Of all the energy sources, coal is the dirtiest. If you want to save the coal industry, innovation will be needed, not just eliminating regulations. find a way to burn coal cleanly, and you can save the coal industry. Unfortunately, government isn't good at innovation.

9. Trump makes some claims about his opening of construction on the Keystone and Dakota pipelines. But CNN points out, appropriately, the flaw in his claims about the jobs created:
By some estimates, construction of the two pipelines will create just north of 10,000 construction jobs and tens of thousands of indirect jobs. However, these are primarily temporary jobs. The number of permanent jobs created directly by the pipelines would be far lower.
For all the tens of thousands of temporary construction jobs the pipelines create, there will only be about 90 permanent jobs after they open.

That said, the pipelines should still be built. Just don't expect beaucoup job numbers in the long run.

10. Trump wants the pipelines built with American steel. Nice touch.

11. But then Trump makes a small step in the right direction:
To protect our citizens, I have directed the Department of Justice to form a task force on reducing violent crime. I have further ordered the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice, along with the Department of State and the Director of National Intelligence, to coordinate an aggressive strategy to dismantle the criminal cartels that have spread all across our nation.  
We will stop the drugs from pouring into our country and poisoning our youth, and we will expand treatment for those who have become so badly addicted. 
It is good to see that he is taking the appropriate view of drug abusers. But is he willing to take drug abuse off the books as a crime? That remains up in the air.

12. Trump discusses the immigration laws. He is right about enforcing them. Why have laws if they won't be enforced? Frankly, many of our recent presidents were downright negligent in their duties to enforce the laws of the United States, specifically as it relates to immigration. As former Georgia Attorney General Thurbert Baker once said (and I am paraphrasing here), if you don't like the laws, change them, but don't ask me not to enforce them.

Later, in his speech, Trump suggests this:
I believe that real and positive immigration reform is possible, as long as we focus on the following goals: To improve jobs and wages for Americans, to strengthen our nation's security, and to restore respect for our laws. If we are guided by the well-being of American citizens, then I believe Republicans and Democrats can work together to achieve an outcome that has eluded our country for decades.
It sounds nice, but it is a little light on specifics.

13. Trump promises to destroy ISIS. Unfortunately, using military action which causes civilians deaths only gives them recruitment fodder.

14. Trump does make this great point:
More than one in five people in their prime working years are not working. We have the worst financial recovery and 65 years. In the last eight years, the past administration has put on more new debt than nearly all of the other presidents combined.
How does our government add so much debt, and yet no jobs? The answer is painfully obvious: That money is getting hoovered up by too-big-to-fail banks, the uber-wealthy, and special interests. Even if you don't agree with my analysis, there is one obvious fact you cannot deny: The money is not reaching the economy.
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)