I WANT TO REVIEW THE FOX BUSINESS—GOP DEBATE IN THIS ISSUE—BUT FIRST A COUPLE OF ECONOMIC TOPICS
Christmas is looking like a big question-mark. Consumers are still hunkering down, and only lower gas/energy prices have relieved their financial concerns/pressures. Many households have two working adults and the might both have second jobs. With this kind of setting, child care costs are becoming a huge issue too.Retailers have ordered a lot of merchandise for the holiday season and it is all here, or arriving soon—and it is piling up—not selling through (yet, anyway).
BLACK FRIDAY WON’T BE WHAT IT USED TO BE
Black Friday as a promotion has been over-used and will no longer have the same kind of singular impact as in the past. The move to on-line shopping and buying plus the parity when everyone was heavily discounting and expanding hours on Black Friday has forced retailers to find new and more creative ways to attract customers. If inventory doesn’t start moving soon, sales will heat up and discounts will explode. The weather in much of the US is just getting cool and that may help move some of the cold weather goods.To add to the malaise, many large companies are posting mediocre financial results and some are laying off people—or hiring fewer seasonal workers than in the past. Walmart is the poster child for these problems.
THE FED NEEDS OVERSIGHT—AND HAS NONE—AND ARE TRYING TO PUMP UP THE ECONOMY, BUT MAY BE CREATING NEW BUBBLES
The Fed reports to no one. That’s not good! Barack Obama’s Consumer Protection Agency doesn’t report to Congress on budgetary matters, either. Neither does Obamacare, which is why the de-funding talk was all irrelevant—it can’t be defunded. When the president violates the Constitutional law, he needs to be reined in. The Supreme Court and other Courts are just starting to do this—BUT—Obama and his “In-Justice” Dept. has managed to either create untouchable agencies, or blatantly ignore those who are abusing their roles (IRS, NLRB, to name just two). I’m not a supporter of Rand Paul or his father Ron, but they are both right when they attack the Fed’s unfettered ability to act, without any oversight or adequate consideration of the economic consequences. If the GOP wins the White House and holds Congress, it needs to bring the Fed into line—somehow. Congress is not very good at supervising much of anything, so a new form of economic oversight might be needed, combining the executive and legislative branches.
ARE YOU SICK OF THE DRUG ADS ON TV? I AM!
If there is a way to alter the economics and efficacy of the pharmaceutical industry in the USA, it would be to outlaw the blizzard of Tv ads for new medications in which the warnings and disclaimers take more than half the ad time and sound horrifying. About a decade ago, a Harvard Medical School staff member, John Abramson, took a leave to write a great book: Overdosed America. The situation was nowhere near the crazy level it is not with TV ads, but his complaint then was that patients whose illnesses/conditions could have been managed through mostly lifestyle changes, came into his office demanding the latest drug du jour, that they have read about or seen advertised on TV. IF Congress would pass law prohibiting the advertising of prescription drugs on TV (including cable, etc.) that money could be diverted to research for new and better drugs—and we would all be better off. That also goes for advertising sexual enhancement drugs on TV. (What do two people in separate bathtubs in the Cialis ads have to do with sexual interaction and erectile disfunction anyway?)
OK—ENOUGH OF THAT…ON TO THE RECENT DEBATES
First Five Conclusions:
1) Get rid of the “undercard.” It’s nearly irrelevant.
2) Cutting the number of participants down to eight was a step in the right direction, but another cut is probably wise—or at least a review of the polling approaches that choose the on-stage gang.
3) Somebody remind the candidates on stage that everything they use against each other is just fodder for the Clinton campaign attach next year.
4)—Stop attacking each other and start attacking Hillary and the Democrats. The intra-party attacks seldom work anyway, and often work against the attacker.
5) Devise a better mechanism to replace some of the people on the stage with others who have become “more deserving.”
A BIG THANKS TO PAUL RYAN FOR SACRIFICING HIS PERSONAL LIFE TO SERVE AS SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE—A DIFFICULT AND THANKLESS—BUT INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT JOB.
HOW DID THIS DEBATE COME OUT? WHO WON? WHO LOST? WHO JUST SHOWED UP? WHAT ABOUT THESE CANDIDATES?
TOP TIER
MARCO RUBIO was the clear winner (again). He is articulate, passionate, likable and clearly has a superior understanding of the issues, how to attack them, and most of all, how to communicate clearly and simply what needs to be done. He is the GOP version of JFK from the past. Inspiring and appealing. It’s hard to reconcile his youthful appearance and age (44) with the fact that in these debates he often comes across and the only adult on the stage! Yes, he is inexperienced in many areas, and has never led or governed anything. Rubio knows his stuff—in very many areas—and has plans that he has published. Fine tuning and then implementing such plans is what presidential advisors are for. Ronald Reagan proved that. I believe Rubio can/will choose wisely, from a diverse group of talented people, some of whom were on the debate stage. Parts of Rubio’s plans need “tweaking.” e.g., His tax plan may help families but probably doesn’t do enough for Americans with no children—to provide tax breaks that lead to economic growth. Best of all Marco Rubio is a “uniter” and he can speak to the American people about the issues and plans to deal with them. A big part of leadership is being able to effectively communicate your message/plans in a way that others “buy into it.” Rubio has that.
(Hillary’s camp fears him most of all.)
TED CRUZ came in second. The problem I have with Cruz has nothing to do with his knowledge or talent. His ideology is too far right to win in the general election. Worse yet, he is a GOP version of Barack Obama. He’s smart, he's a good speaker, and his ideology (unlike Obama) has an appeal unless it is taken to extremes—which he is prone to do—simply for the boost it gives his ego and image. Cruz said he published plans to abolish five cabinet level departments. Good idea—but then he only mentioned four, repeating Commerce twice. That kind of error sank Rick Perry, but went almost unnoticed last night. Of course anyone planning on dismantling the giant US Federal Government—which does need to be done—better have a huge, robust growth plan for private sector job creation to use the tens of thousands of government employees and government contractors’ employees who will be idled by such a move. Cutting too fast will create a certain recession—a bad one; cutting too delicately won’t get the job done. Finally, Colleagues in the Senate and counterparts in the House neither like him, nor trust him. He has earned that dislike and distrust by his behavior in the Senate. He is a “divider.”
CARLY FIORINA came in third on the basis of her intensity, her insights and her command of the facts about the nature of change needed in government. Ideologically, I agree with her. The disconnect comes with her demeanor and lack of likability. She reminds me of the stern, hard school teacher stereotype—who is usually right and who nobody likes and some actually fear. I simply cannot imagine her as president of the USA. Some say she’s running for a VP spot. Maybe so. Maybe that it a better fit, since it would use her skills in the campaign. However, I am troubled by any political candidate who does not come across and likable, no matter how astute they might be.
NEXT TIER—OUTSIDERS
BEN CARSON was himself. Each time out, he gets a little sharper on details and policy. He maintains his likability and quiet charm. It works for him, even if he doesn’t have the time to get into all the issues. I have a feeling that he’s done a lot of thinking about many other issues by now, and IF he had enough time, might surprise people. I still cannot imagine a doctor, no matter how smart and wise he might be, rising into the presidency of the USA. Barack Obama, for all his flaws, was at least knowledgeable on matters political and policy—wrong—but knowledgeable. Carson would simply be a president in the old school (Founding Fathers) of citizen leaders, and that may not be enough for a leader in today’s complex world. He didn’t hurt himself. He coasted into an OK outcome.
DONALD TRUMP was himself too—albeit a bit muted most of the time. It’s easier to imagine him running the country, but wondering when his volatility, risk taking, shoot from the hip and face down the opponent would put the USA in some kind of big trouble. He would surely shake things up. How? Even he doesn’t know. He doesn’t say because he figures “he’ll cross that bridge when he comes to it.” His immigration plan is a reach too far. Not wrong in principle, but typically Trumpian in execution—extreme and bold. He coasted into an OK outcome, with just a few Trump style jabs at Fiorina and Kasich, mostly.
FORMER FRONTRUNNER
JEB BUSH had a good debate—for him—but it simply wasn’t that good. He may have been a great governor in Florida, he may be a very smart guy with good plans. The problem is “how he comes across.” If Carly is the strict, mean schoolteacher, Jeb is the wonky, bumbling one, who has all the knowledge, but somehow, can’t get many people to believe in him and follow his lead. The best thing he could do is to gracefully find a way to withdraw, and throw his support to Rubio, before it all goes there anyway. He can mend fences with his former protege if he works at it. He might even find a meaningful role in a Rubio administration.
DELETE
RAND PAUL as usual was “ ff on his own island". He says some very thoughtful and insightful things, but he’s like a man who looks at only part of a problem and has it solved, until the rest of the problem rears its ugly head. What he says is often not wrong per se—just unworkable in America. That’s why his father could never get traction as a presidential candidate. Like father, like son. “Say good night Rand. help narrow the field.”
JOHN KASICH had a bad night. He had good parts, like the one where he reeled off the policy summaries for a whole series of countries. Then there were the bad parts. He interrupted and lectured like a disagreeable, grumpy uncle at a holiday dinner. It wasn’t only what he said, but how he said it. Nobody ever accused Kasich of being charming, and last night he lived up to that reputation. Yes, he has done all these things, in different times, in different places, under different circumstances—and maybe he can do them again—but he’ll never get the chance. He’s a weak communicator to start with, and when saddled with an unwelcome message, that’s a fatal flaw. Come back to Ohio, John and help it get stronger—and carry it for the GOP.
ADD:
CHRIS CHRISTIE was not on the big stage where he belongs. If Paul, Kasich and Jeb would throw in the towel, there would be enough “air time” to hear Christie’s brand of tough love and get it done leadership. I don’t expect this to happen, but I wish it would. Maybe the RNC can work with the networks to find a bigger, better polling program to help winnow the field to actual presidential contenders.
EARLY PRIMARIES ARE SOMETIMES MEANINGFUL AND SOMETIMES JUST “POLLS”
Iowa, NH, & SC will tell more, but not all that much. The real answers will come around Super Tuesday and its variants—and that is next March.
UNDISCOVERED CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES: THE CLINTON FOUNDATION AND HILLARY’S TROUBLING ROLE:
COMBINED WITH HER (DOCUMENTED) LIES AND MISHANDLING OF “CLASSIFIED” INFORMATION—SHOULD SHE BE INDICTED?
IF HILLARY WERE ACTUALLY INDICTED FOR HER MISBEHAVIORS, WHAT WOULD THE DEMOCRATS DO? BRING JOE BIDEN OUT OF RETIREMENT? (Or would the sitting president, Barack Obama and his “InJustice” Department somehow find a technicality to protect Hillary? They did it for the IRS!)
(Note: Hillary’s statement that she never handled documents marked “classified” is because that is not what such documents are technically called. The technically correct “classifications” are “Confidential,” “Secret,” and “Top Secret” all of which are colloquially grouped under the heading “classified.”
(Info received from a correspondent)
Recently, Charles Krauthammer alluded that he had no doubt some of the 30,000 Emails Hillary deleted from her private email server very likely had references to the Clinton Foundation, which would be illegal and a conflict of interest.The Clinton Foundation is "organized crime" at its finest, and we are financing it.Here is a good, concise summary of how the Clinton Foundation works as a tax-free international money laundering scheme. It may eventually prove to be the largest political criminal enterprise in U.S. history.This is a textbook case on how you hide foreign money sent to you and repackage it to be used for your own purposes. All tax free. Here's how it works:1. You create a separate foreign "charity." In this case, one in Canada.2. Foreign oligarchs and governments, then donate to this Canadian charity. In this case, over 1,000 did -- contributing mega millions. I'm sure they did this out of the goodness of their hearts, and expected nothing in return. (Imagine Putin's buddies waking up one morning and just deciding to send untold millions to a Canadian charity).3. The Canadian charity then bundles these separate donations and makes a massive donation to the Clinton Foundation.4. The Clinton Foundation and the cooperating Canadian charity claim Canadian law prohibits the identification of individual donors.5. The Clinton Foundation then "spends" some of this money for legitimate good works programs. Unfortunately, experts believe this is on the order of 10%. Much of the balance goes to enrich the Clinton's, pay salaries to untold numbers of hangers on, and fund lavish travel, etc. Again, virtually all tax free, which means you and I are subsidizing it.6. The Clinton Foundation, with access to the world's best accountants, somehow fails to report much of this on their tax filings. They discover these "clerical errors" and begin the process of re-filing 5 years of tax returns.7. Net result -- foreign money, much of it from other countries, goes into the Clinton's pockets tax free and untraceable back to the original donor. This is the textbook definition of money laundering.Oh, by the way, the Canadian "charity" includes as a principal one Frank Giustra. Google him. He is the guy who was central to the formation of Uranium One, the Canadian company that somehow acquired massive U.S. uranium interests and then sold them to an organization controlled by Russia. This transaction required U.S. State Department approval, and guess who was Secretary of State when the approval was granted. As an aside, imagine how former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell feels. That poor schlep is in jail because he and his wife took $165,000 in gifts and loans for doing minor favors for a guy promoting a vitamin company. Not legal, but not exactly putting U.S. security at risk.Sarcasm aside, if you’re still not persuaded this was a cleverly structured way to get unidentified foreign money to the Clintons, ask yourself this: Why did these foreign interests funnel money through a Canadian charity? Why not donate directly to the Clinton Foundation? Better yet, why not donate money directly to the people, organizations and countries in need?This is the essence of money laundering and influence peddling.Now you know why Hillary’s destruction of 30,000 Emails was a risk she was willing to take. Bill and Hillary are devious, unprincipled, dishonest and criminal, and they are slick!!!Warning: They could be back in the White House in January 2017. Don't let it happen!! Remember, most people are not well informed.You must inform and educate them.
CRITICAL, LIFE-ALTERING DECISIONS ARE COMING.BE WELL INFORMED. THINK HARD. CHOOSE WISELY. SHARE FEEDBACK.BEST, JOHN
Comments