Donald Trump Could Actually Become the Next U.S. President

Posted on December 24, 2015 by tonyj126

I have eluded to this in other posts, but I believe that Donald Trump could win the presidential election in November 2016. Here’s a brief summary of the points I’ve previously made:

1. Trump’s supporters stick by him no matter what he does or says;
2. His supporters seem especially determined to give him their loyalty if the media and/or other politicians attack him for his statements;
3. His supporters do not appear to trust those who criticize or disagree with Mr. Trump, even if clear evidence is presented that Mr. Trump’s statements are untrue (for example, the claim that he witnessed thousands of Muslims in New Jersey celebrating the fall of the Twin Towers on television broadcasts);
4. I believe this loyalty to the ultimate outsider, Mr. Trump, is the result of the Republican National Committee, republican Congressional leaders, and conservative media emphasizing (or exaggerating) the negative and blaming President Obama for any problem during the the past seven years in an attempt to sway the voting public away from democrats;
5. I feel the strategy outlined in item #4 worked so well that much of the country no longer trusts anyone remotely associated with the political establishment.

In addition to those points, I’ve got a few new ones.

6. Distrust of the media is growing.
The Washington Post has decided to cancel it’s column, “What was Fake on the Internet This Week?” It ran for 82 weeks and was written by Caitlin Dewey. One of the reasons for it’s cancellation was that some people stopped believing the well-documented reasons provided for why a story was fake. For example, a Facebook user showed a photo of a protest at an Islamic education enter in Dearborn, MI, and claimed that the protest was in support of ISIS. Ms. Dewey provided evidence in her column that the center was holding a peace rally and has done so for years, but the pro-ISIS photo continued to spread on Facebook. The media is now considered to be untrustworthy.

7. Fears of terrorism have skyrocketed since the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino.
In the wake of the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001, about 30% of Americans believed that they personally would fall victim to a terrorist attack in the next 12 months. That is an incredibly high percentage and I was not one of them. One advantage to living in Manhattan in the late 1980’s is that I could see and hear about crime, but know that the chances I would be a victim were incredibly small. I actually had funny conversations with my mother who lived in a small town a couple hours north of New York City in which she would express concern because she heard about a murder in Manhattan and I would tongue-in-cheek ask whether the house was still standing because her local news always started off with a house fire.

The Paris attacks, while horrific, killed 0.006% of the population, which oddly enough, is about the same percentage of the population killed in San Bernardino. When you add in the injured and friends and families of the victims, it would still be a very small percentage of people affected. I haven’t been able to find a recent poll to show the percent of Americans who feel they will fall victim to a terrorist attack in the next 12 months, but it’s likely to be much higher than 0.006%. This fear helps Donald Trump’s campaign because he makes statements which reassure people that he has the solution to terrorism. Since Mr. Trump’s supporters seem to reject fact-checking, his word is all they need to believe he will solve the problem.

8. Mr. Trump may benefit from a version of the Bradley Effect.
The Bradley Effect refers to an election result when a African-American candidate receives substantially fewer votes than are indicated by the pre-vote polls. It is named after Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley who lost the 1982 California governor’s race despite having a lead in the polls. The Bradley Effect describes the situation in which some white voters, not wishing to appear racist to the pollsters, report that they intend to vote for the black candidate, but instead vote for the white candidate. I suggest that there may be many Americans who intent to vote for Mr. Trump, but keep it to themselves because they may feel their support could be viewed by their friends, family, coworkers or pollsters as intolerant. We’re only a few weeks away from the Iowa Caucasus and the New Hampshire primary. If Mr. Trump receives significantly more votes than one would expect from the pre-vote polls, that could be the “Trump Effect.”

So, it could be a very interesting primary season and general election. Time will tell

Posted in U.S. Politics | Leave a comment

How Can We Make America Great Again? Part II: What do the Republican Presidential Candidates Mean by That?

Posted on December 21, 2015 by tonyj126

My plan here is to note the problems that the top ten republican presidential candidates (I’ll just call them “the candidates” from now on) identify as causing American to lose its greatness and the reasons why. In later posts I will address and comment on those claims.

I put a lot of research into this one. I read the candidates’ websites, and entered the information into an outline that became quite difficult to read. I then attempted to edit the outline so I could better see the patterns I needed, but it didn’t really help. That exercise, however, has helped see the big picture so I feel I’m ready to start writing.

For the candidates, the easiest answer to the question posed above is, “We need a different president in office.” And I am pretty sure we can narrow that down a bit more to, “I should be the next president.” Each candidate’s website informs the reader of proposed changes to programs and policies which will improve America’s position in the world. Working backwards, we can extrapolate the problems these changes are suppose to address, and consequently, in what ways the candidates feel America has lost its greatness.

A quick note on campaign slogans. I have been using Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again!” but we also have Ted Cruz’s “Reigniting the Promise of America” and “Heal, Inspire, Revive” from Ben Carson. There’s Marco Rubio’s “A New American Century,” Jeb Bush’s “Restore a Freer, Stronger America,” and Rand Paul’s “Defeat the Washington Machine.” Mike Huckabee gives us “From Hope to Higher Ground,” Carly Fiorina wants to “Take Our Country Back,” and John Kasich plans on “Building a Better Country.” Only Chris Christie’s “Telling It Like It Is” doesn’t directly imply that there are problems to fix; well, not until you listen to what he’s telling you.

From their websites, there is considerable overlap in what the candidates consider problems that should be addressed. For several, there is also some agreement on the proposed solutions. In order of importance as determined by the number of candidates who address the issue, we have:

1. Taxes (10)
2. Economy & Job Creation (10)
3. Education (9)
4. Health Care (8)
5. Immigration (8)
6. Threats to the Second Amendment (Gun Rights) (8)
7. Terrorism, ISIS, Iran, Cuba, Syria (8)
8. Regulations (7)
9. Federal Spending and Debt (7)
10. Military Readiness & Funding (7)

Let’s take these one at a time.

Taxes
All ten candidates consider the current tax system to be problematic. Many mention the number of pages the tax code takes up – all of them wrong, but it is still a big number – and all propose a simpler system. The proposed changes to the U.S. system to collect revenue differ considerably and include proposals for a national sales tax (Fair Tax), a flat tax (one income tax rate for every taxpayer regardless of income), and simpler income tax systems with reduced rates and fewer deductions and loopholes. Some plans would cut revenue sharply and rely on additional tax revenue from the job growth they expect to result from people and businesses having more money to spent (as many as 4,861,000 new jobs over the next decade for one plan). So Public Enemy #1 is the current tax system and it’s likely a majority of Americans would agree.

Economy & Job Creation
According to the candidates, many economists and ordinary Americans, the economic recovery seems lackluster. While there has been significant job growth since the low point in February 2010, there is a lack of quality middle-class jobs being created. All candidates consider this a major problem and most blame the issue on the president. The proposed solutions are designed to make it easier to conduct business in the United States, and therefore, create more jobs. First there’s the tax code – see item #1. Reduce taxes on businesses and they will invest more in America. The current corporate tax rate in the U.S. is 35%, but there are so many deductions and loopholes, that some corporations – including large ones – pay no taxes at all in some years. The candidates contend that with a lower tax rate and level playing field, businesses will stay here and create jobs. Another deterrent to job creation is the added cost of doing business in the U.S. because of regulations that are not in effect in other countries, so many candidates contend that the number and cost of regulations should be reviewed and reduced.

Education
There was good consensus among the candidates that the federal government should stay out of the education of our children other than to provide funding. The Common Core, which is designed to provide uniform educational standards for the entire country that better prepare students for today’s jobs and colleges, was soundly rejected. All candidates who addressed this issue contend that state and local governments are better suited to decide on curriculum, textbooks, and teaching plans than is the federal Department of Education. Many feel that local governance will better engage parents and students and produce better results. Higher education was also addressed by many and affordability and relevance to job skills were the major themes. While those were the goals, there were few specific solutions offered.

Health Care
All candidates who addressed health care reform agreed that Obamacare should be repealed and replaced. The ideas for replacement, however, differ substantially. I’ll address health care in a future part for this series, but it seems to me that there are a number of ideas offered with little thought given to the costs or consequences. Many candidates tout a market-based solution, but then note that federal funds would be used to purchase health insurance for certain groups and that there would be mandates to ensure those with pre-existing medical conditions don’t slip through the cracks. That’s not a market-based solution, of course, but by adding those caveats, you don’t alienate those who are worried about how to pay for insurance or whether their current health issues will be a problem for them in the new system.

Immigration
Both legal and illegal immigration were addressed by many candidates. Donald Trump has been most outspoken with his proposal to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border and “Make Mexico pay for it.” He has also stated that all Muslims should be banned from entry “until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses….” Trump represents the most extreme view on immigration, but most candidates want a wall – either in certain areas or along the entire border – and there have been Islamic-phobic statements from other candidates, although not on their websites. A few candidates want to change the constitution to end birthright citizenship. In general, illegal immigration is considered a problem because it takes jobs away from U.S. citizens and lowers wages because undocumented workers will agree to accept lower pay. Many of the candidates also feel that legal immigration should be curtailed or paused until it is fully evaluated or if the unemployment rate is too high. A few candidates also addressed H-1B visas which allow skilled guest workers to fill jobs when businesses are unable to find qualified U.S. citizens with the needed skills.

Threats to the Second Amendment (Gun Rights)
The majority of candidates noted threats to gun ownership, but there has been little successful action toward gun control on the local level and none in congress. Why is this addressed by so many candidates when there isn’t a serious threat? Two reasons. First, the U.S. has a lot of mass shootings (4 or more people) – more than one a day, on average. When a high profile shooting occurs, the president and other people of a more liberal persuasion than the candidates complain about the easy access to guns in this country and suggest “common sense gun reform.” While there’s no chance of passage in the republican-controlled congress, the conversation is considered a threat to gun ownership. Second, the National Rifle Association (NRA) is an extremely powerful organization and no conservative politician can be seen as supporting any tightening of rules for gun ownership. That is why, only days after the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California, Senate Republicans voted down a proposal that people on the No Fly List – that is, people the federal government have identified as potential terrorists – not be barred from purchasing firearms.

Terrorism, ISIS, Iran, Cuba, Syria
I lumped these together, but that doesn’t mean that I believe the three countries listed are terrorists nations. Some of the candidates do, however, and there are proposals to revoke the Iran Nuclear Deal and end diplomatic relations with Cuba. The websites haven’t caught up with the stance most of the candidates took during last week’s debate. All candidates who have a plan to defeat ISIS propose a military solution with cooperation and troops from allies, often with increased surveillance, propaganda, and other intelligence programs.

Regulations
Regulations designed to ensure clean air and water, fair treatment of employees/contractors, health care, safe food and drugs, investment security, gun safety, and to protect endangered species are considered by the candidates to be a burden to business and should be reviewed and reduced. If accomplished, the candidates contend that business and innovation will flourish, jobs will be created, the U.S. will be more energy secure, and products will still be safe. Most candidates mentioned the REINS Act which would give congress the authority to approve or reject any new regulations with an annual cost to business of more than $100 million.

Federal Spending and Debt
Here, the candidates blame both the president and congress for spending too much over the years. The plans cut government spending by reducing the federal workforce and sending responsibility for many government duties to state governments with federal funds supplied as block grants. The more dramatic the candidate’s tax cut plan, the more drastic the government employee and department/agency cuts.
Military Readiness & Funding
Because so many members of congress have taken a pledge to never raise taxes, some interesting strategies have been employed so that promise can be kept. In 2011, Congress was deadlocked in budget negotiations and passed a law which mandated $1 trillion across the board cuts to many social programs and the military beginning in 2013 if they were unable to develop a budget by the end of 2012. They weren’t, and the cuts began two years ago. All the candidates who consider military readiness a problem intend to end the sequester budget cuts to the military once in office. They claim that the military is understaffed which has caused an undue burden on military personnel and National Guard troops.

That’s the top ten. Now it’s time to look at them closely.

Next Time: Part III – Let’s Explore Taxes, the Economy and Jobs

Posted in Economics, Make America Great Series, U.S. Politics | Leave a comment

A Short Break

Posted on December 18, 2015 by tonyj126

I have a lot of research to do for Part II of the America Great series so it’ll be a few days before I can post again. Also, our daughter is coming home from university tomorrow so we have to go see the new Star Wars movie.

In the meantime, may I suggest this excellent article from The New Yorker:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/23/conversion-via-twitter-westboro-baptist-church-megan-phelps-roper

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

How Can We Make America Great Again? Part I: Aren’t We?

Posted on December 16, 2015 by tonyj126

That’s an excellent slogan for a presidential campaign in which the candidate is not from the same political party as the current president. In order to win the election, you have to convince the voters that the current state of the country is bad. Some form of this question, however, is the focus of a large number of national and local political candidates, pundits, and ordinary people. So, what’s the problem? Is America great or not?

First of all, a little discussion on what’s meant by “Great.” If we’re going to say something is great in America, does that mean we have to be #1 in the world in that area? I don’t think so. What makes a country great is that it has many good attributes that have a beneficial effect on its citizens’ lives. I believe that great countries also have an overall positive effect on the lives of other people in the world. The United States has a lot of these attributes and despite all the negative stuff we hear anytime we turn on the news, it’s a fantastic country and I feel lucky to have been born here.

The Military
With respect to the military, we can definitely claim, “We’re #1!” I content that the strong U.S. military is beneficial for our citizens, but good for the rest of the world as well. There are likely many people who would disagree. As with other militarily dominant world powers throughout history, the U.S. has used excessive force when perhaps other options may have been a better idea (Granada and Iraq come to mind). But our men & women in uniform keep the shipping lanes open, help keep regional conflicts from expanding out of control, and for seventy years, have helped prevent World War III.

When you look at the Syrian civil war and the resultant refugee crisis, it’s hard to see how we’re preventing regional conflicts from getting out of control, but remember how World War I began. An assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand by a Serbian Nationalist in a Europe full of alliance agreements led to a rapid escalation of tensions. The self-declared Islamic State is attempting to expand the conflict beyond the area they currently control, but airstrikes (vast majority American) have helped Kurdish troops stop and start to push back the militants.

The importance of keeping the shipping lanes open should not be understated. Almost everything in the world would cost more and be harder to obtain if piracy was rampant. It might lead to a ‘buy local’ movement – which environmentalists would appreciate – but there are still many imported items needed to make the local products (fuel & machinery, for example). Also, because the U.S. is a major food exporter and food aid provider, starvation and wars in the rest of the world would increase if shipping was not as free.

The Dollar
The U.S. Dollar is the preferred reserve currency in the world because it is considered the safest. Countries, companies, and individuals around the world hold onto dollars to help ensure financial security and there are more $100 bills in circulation outside the U.S. than within our borders. What makes this great for U.S. citizens and residents is that our interest rates to borrow money are about 0.5% lower than they would be. To put that into perspective, a 1% increase in a mortgage rate from 4% to 5% increases the monthly payment by 12%.

Freedom of Religion
While there is a lot of discussion these days about treating people of one religion differently than those of other religions, freedom to worship as one wishes was a cornerstone to the formation of the United States. The first amendment to the Constitution begins with, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….” Religious persecution has been around as long as there has been religion and our separation of Church and State helps make us great.

The Economy
This may strike some of you as odd considering all we hear about how badly the economic recovery is. While it’s true middle class jobs were lost disproportionally in the Great Recession and a recent Pew Research Center report shows that the percentage of middle class households has dropped From a peak of 61% to 50%, our economy can be self-sustaining and can help improve other countries’ economies. We are a rich nation and therefore, we are a consumer nation. Our buying power drives economies around the world and mitigates overreaction to troubling economic news such as the Greek debt crisis or the slowdown in China. To paraphrase John Maynard Keynes’ Paradox of Thrift, a person benefits if he/she saves money, but it’s bad for the economy because there’s less demand for products. The people of the U.S. aren’t very thrifty so we help the world’s economies.

Our Land, Air and Water and Plenty of Ways to Enjoy Them
This is a beautiful country and recreational opportunities abound. Many countries have similar attractions, but we have tremendous diversity, very little pollution, and great transportation systems. Our train system isn’t as developed as in many countries, but our airports and roadways make travel options plentiful. Other than in the larger cities, parking isn’t even an issue. The U.S. is a great country for recreation.

The Cities
We have some truly wonderful cities which, while younger than counterparts around the globe, offer fantastic resident and vacation options. There’s not much more to say other than New York, San Francisco, New Orleans, Pittsburgh, Memphis, Chicago, Los Angeles, etc., etc., etc.

The People
For over two centuries, we have been a country which has encouraged immigration and recognized the benefits that come with that policy. Unfortunately, the Native American population has suffered from this non-Native growth, and there has been sometimes violent resistance to allowing certain people to immigrate. Still, the diversity we have in this country has grown into a rich tapestry of faith and culture in many cities. (I’ll discuss the current mood against immigration in a later part.)

Extremely Good Medical Care
The U.S. has many of the best hospitals and medical research facilities in the world. Our system of health insurance is a result of worker retention efforts during World War II when salaries were capped. This means that we have a lot more money to invest in healthcare than do countries with government run systems. It also means that medical care is more accessible but also more expensive than in those countries. So, we have superb, but expensive medical care.

Our Universities
The colleges and universities in the United States offer an excellent education to students from around the country and the world. There are private institutions and state schools, two-year community colleges and four-year bachelor degree programs, masters and Ph.D. options, and of course, excellent law and medical schools. (Student debt will be addressed in another part.)

No Bribery and Low Obstacles to Conducting Business
In many countries, it is nearly impossible to conduct business without bribing officials for permits, supplies, or necessary services. Not true in the U.S. There is some regulation to ensure public safety and taxes to be paid, but for the most part, entrepreneurship is encouraged by all in authority and there are plenty of banks, venture capitalists and other financial institutions to provide startup funds. Wherever an entrepreneur is in the world, one of the best places to start his/her business is in the United States.

Conclusion
There are plenty of other positive attributes that the United States has which makes us great. Of course, we could improve in some areas, but that’s true for all countries. There are, in fact, many great countries and the U.S. is definitely one of them.

Next time: Part II – What do the Republican Presidential Candidates Mean when they say, “Make America Great Again?”

Posted in Economics, Make America Great Series, U.S. Politics | Leave a comment

Trump’s Supporters Remind Me of Fundamentalist Christians

Posted on December 14, 2015 by tonyj126

Let me explain. I am not suggesting that Donald Trump is the ideal presidential candidate for the majority of fundamentalists. Rather, I now see a correlation between the tightly held beliefs of fundamentalist Christians and how Trump’s supporters developed their seemingly unshakable allegiance to him.

I know this may not be a popular post as it discusses my views on religious beliefs to which I do not subscribe. I do have religious beliefs, just not fundamentalist Christian ones. I, in fact, enjoy respectful discussions of politics and religion – those two taboo subjects that we’re supposed to avoid in polite company. My opinion of fundamentalists, however, has not been a favorable one for most of my adult life. In this country, the church representatives who most frequently and publicly condemn people with whom they do not agree seem to be fundamentalists Christians.

In my last post, I pointed out that Donald Trump is the ideal candidate for those who believe the one-sided message supplied by conservative news programming which highlights the most negative aspect of any issue so that blame and derision can be placed on the president (economy, debt, government inaction, not riding a horse topless like Putin, etc.). That conviction is similar to the way religious beliefs are nurtured and reinforced. When you grow up in a faith community which teaches that the bible is the inerrant Word of God, discourages and conducts interventions in response to opposing opinions, and will publicly condemn those with differing views, you have a one-sided stream of information. Whether you’re a believer from the beginning or become Born Again during a pivotal event later in life, you’re wholly committed to the fundamentalist – or Trump – cause.

I was surprised when Ben Carson voiced his opinion that the pyramids were built to store grain instead of their well documented actual use as burial monuments. I think I know how he arrived at that belief though. In the Book of Genesis, the bible tells us that God sent Joseph a message in two dreams that there would be seven years of good harvests followed by seven years of drought. Joseph was put in charge of storing grain from the seven good years so Egypt would be able to weather the seven bad years. He needed to store that grain somewhere and the largest structures that remain from Ancient Egypt are the pyramids. For someone who believes that the bible is the inerrant Word of God – as I suspect Carson does – you would have to develop a reasonable scenario to explain the Genesis reading. Enough stored grain to feed the large Egyptian population for seven years would take up a lot of space – hence, the pyramid idea.

Biblical scholars recognize that there a lot discrepancies in the bible, and many are significant. A couple of examples. The Gospel according to John has Jesus die on Thursday (“the day of preparation”) while the other gospels have him die on Friday. The likely reason: the author of the John gospel wanted to stress that Jesus died to take way the sins of humanity. Therefore, he changed the story so Jesus died at the same time as the lambs were sacrificed (slaughtered) for the Passover meal. The phrase “Lamb of God” to describe Jesus comes only from this gospel. Note that lamb’s blood on the doorframe of a Jewish home saved a Jew’s life on the night God killed all the first-born sons in Egypt to punish the pharaoh for keeping the Jewish people in slavery.

Another example: It is likely that the Jesus birth narratives in Matthew and Luke were added to the gospels at a later time by different authors because the fact that Jesus was born in Bethlehem – the exact place where the Book of Micah predicts the Messiah would be born – is never mentioned again in those gospels. Jesus is always referred to as a Galilean. The birth stories differ in so many ways, in fact, that they can’t both be historically accurate. Where would you go if a census required you to return to the home of your ancestor from 1,000 years ago? Also, there’s no Ancient Roman record of such a census, and very good Roman records exist. (There was a smaller census in a different region which did not require travel that occurred about 10 years after Jesus’ birth. The Luke birth narrative author was probably writing 80-100 years later and used that vague knowledge to place Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem.”

These and many other discrepancies have been known since the mid to late nineteenth century and have been taught in non-fundamentalist divinity schools for many decades. This knowledge is not a obstacle to faith if you believe the bible contains ancient symbolic, poetic, and allegorical messages in addition to some historic facts about Jesus’ life and ministry.

Fundamentalist Christianity, however, grew out of the Reformation method of reading the bible as the inerrant Word of God. When eighteenth and nineteenth century archeological discoveries did not support the Tanakh’s (the Christian Old Testament) description of Judah’s power and reach, many Christians rebelled against the scientific evidence. There was also rebellion against publications such as Darwin’s Origin of the Species and The Descent of Man. From the 1870s a series of Evangelical conferences reinforced a mood of resistance to Darwin’s views and the belief that the bible was not the inerrant Word of God. Between 1910 and 1915, twelve volumes of essays – entitled The Fundamentals – were published in the U.S., and in 1919 the World’s Christian Fundamentals Organization was founded.

So fundamentalist Christianity grew out of a choice to disregard scientific evidence and theological teachings in which the bible stories are considered symbolic or poetic rather than historic. I believe this fundamentalist origin – which may best be described as rejecting experts whose views and findings are not supported by the bible when read literally – has remained a core belief and still directs fundamentalist Christian public and private policy.

The public policy is pretty easy to find. The literally read bible says homosexuality is not allowed, so it’s not allowed. Period. The bible says slavery is allowed, so in the past, the bible was used to show that it was God’s will for people to own other people. The bible still says slavery is allowed, of course, but we just don’t discuss that anymore, let alone that the prescribed penalty for a disobedient son or for wearing clothing of mixed fabrics is death.

The private policy is a little harder to narrow down, but in general, experts and outsiders are not to be trusted, and generalizations may be used to reinforce the point. One example may help show what I mean. On my daughter’s first day as a chemical engineering intern at a plant in rural Tennessee, an hourly plant worker said to her, “You’re from the North. How many abortions have you had?” In other words, this man has been taught in his church and community that Northerners are immoral and not to be trusted.

Okay, so back to Donald Trump’s supporters. They were raised, so to speak, on a diet of one-sided conservative information so they would feel that democrats were the problem. The framers of that argument, however, overshot their target (the democrats) and for Trump supporters, no insider should be trusted or believed. Consequently, the only logical choice is to support the candidate who is the most outsider, and you should not believe information from anyone who is remotely associated with the political establishment or the media (Don’t trust the “Experts”).

If I did my job right, you should be able to see the correlation between Donald Trump’s supporters and fundamentalist Christians. And you can trust me – I’m an outsider. I’ve never run for political office and only started blogging about this stuff a month ago.

Posted in Religion, U.S. Politics | Leave a comment

Is Fear the Reason for Trump’s Popularity?

Posted on December 11, 2015 by tonyj126

Let me start with the reason I chose the name “A One Man Think Tank” for this blog. I spend a lot of time listening to stuff. I listen to news, audiobooks, podcasts, or music while I’m cleaning, cooking, writing emails or doing other non-demanding computer work. That information simmers a while in my brain, and I’m pretty good at making connections and seeing the big picture. Sometimes I hear one final piece of the puzzle and the idea springs forward fully formed. That happened today, although once I began writing, I discovered it wasn’t as fully formed as I thought.

That last puzzle piece for me was the question, “Is fear the reason for Trump’s popularity.” That may not have been the exact wording, but it was the pre-commercial break teaser for the upcoming local news segment called, “Tom’s Corner.” Tom is Tom Van Howe and the Western Michigan station I was watching is WWMT (http://www.wwmt.com/news/features/tomscorner/stories/On-Donald-Trump-and-the-politics-of-fear-240951.shtml#.VmpAm3o8KrU). My answer to that question is for the most part, No – it’s anger and mistrust.

I’m sitting here with a glass of very nice scotch because I feel this is a scotch kind of realization. The media and most political observers are completely baffled by Donald Trump’s incredibly loyal supporters. The snippets of responses I have heard in answer to reporters’ questions about Trump’s latest newsworthy statement or action have struck me as cult-like behavior. No matter what their leader does or says, his supporters follow him wholeheartedly and point to the more mainstream media and political figures as being out of touch and wrong.

Today’s realization: Donald Trump is the logical result of conservative media and conservative politicians’ actions over the past couple decades.

I grew up with three TV channels – when the weather was cooperating – but people today choose the news programs that share their beliefs. Fox News has a significantly higher viewership than other cable news channels, and in some weeks, it is the most watched cable television channel in prime time. With that large of an audience (two to three times as large as the other cable news networks), there are millions of Americans whose beliefs are reinforced daily. With more interview segments than news package segments on cable news, there has been a shift away from treating your adversary with respect. It makes me cringe to hear a pundit on Fox News call the President of the United States a pussy.

So, close to 3 million people a day listen to Fox News interviews in which it is stated that:
1. The economy is doing poorly and it’s the president’s fault;
2. Taxes are bad and the reason why the good jobs are gone;
3. The country has too much debt and it’s the president’s fault;
4. The country is unsafe from terrorists and mentally unstable mass murderers and the president is clueless about what to do;
5. America is becoming a laughingstock in the world and it’s the president’s fault;
6. The federal government is incompetent and it’s the president’s fault;
7. Federal spending is out of control and it’s the president’s fault; and
8. It’s perfectly acceptable to call the president and anyone else with whom you disagree derogatory names and insult them.

Does this remind you of any current Republican presidential candidate?

Add the actions of conservative politicians to this stream of opinion identified as news. In December 2008 and early January 2009 – before Obama was sworn in as president – Republican leaders in congress held secret meetings to develop the strategy of blocking nearly every Obama initiative. The plan was to regain the presidency in the 2012 election by pointing to how little Obama was able to accomplish.

Obviously, the strategy did not work, but The Party of No (Time, September 3, 2012) has become so ingrained that congress is barely able to function and the populace has become disgusted. Last month, congress’ approval rating dropped to 11%. Still, with gerrymandered congressional districts, there is not a clear path out of this situation. In extremely conservative and extremely liberal districts, you could lose your job if you were to compromise and vote for a bipartisan bill. Consequently, very little gets done in Washington.

So, Donald Trump is in fact the perfect Republican presidential candidate for this era.

Conservative media tells us that everything that is wrong in the world is the President’s fault and by association, Hillary Clinton’s. It is also acceptable to insult your opponents and to treat people disrespectfully (there’s a lot of that going on in liberal media as well, but their audience is unlikely to vote in Republican primaries). Additionally, you can’t choose those with political experience since they’re the dysfunctional fools who can’t get anything accomplished now. You cannot trust the media or any traditional political sources because they have an agenda to defeat Trump. Consequently for his supporters, Trump’s claims and plans are not subject to fact checking or review by outside groups.

To quote one supporter, “He may stretch the truth, but he’ll get things done.” Why? Because he says he will. What more do you need?

Posted in U.S. Politics | Leave a comment

Buyer Beware

Posted on November 23, 2015 by tonyj126

The November 20 Detroit Free Press contained a review of the movie Mockingjay – Part 2. I didn’t actually read the review – I’m not that interested in seeing the movie – but I did find something interesting about the way the film review was presented in the newspaper. At the top of the front page there was an image from the movie and the teaser, “DELICIOUS Fulfilling Finale for ‘Hunger Games.'” This was a great play on words six days before Thanksgiving, but the tone seemed to differ considerably from the front page of the Entertainment section. There you could read, “THE GAME’S UP ‘Mockingjay – Part 2’ Limps to a Gray, Gloomy Finish.”

It seems to me that these two headlines imply different opinions about the movie. That actually may not be the case – really, I should read the review, but I’m unlikely to see the movie so I don’t want to waste the time. Nonetheless, it got me thinking about how businesses will sometimes misrepresent a product or overemphasize a consumer need in order to sell more of their wares. In the case of the Detroit Free Press, the front page teaser could entice some members of the younger generation to purchase the paper or visit the website in order to read the review. Some may even become new subscribers. That would generate additional revenues and profits for the paper’s parent company, Gannett. I think it is reasonable to assume that the demographics of the newspaper’s normal readership and the demographics of Hunger Games movie fans do not have much overlap.

This situation, if true – someone else could read the review and let me know whether there appears to be a difference of opinion – is a mild case of consumer manipulation. I am of the generation now that – gasp – watches one or more of the major network nightly news programs. It seems that almost every advertisement played during these programs is aimed at getting the viewer to ask his or her doctor for one prescription or another. There is big money in pharmaceutical products, especially when those products are under patent (probably not a surprise to most of you). That’s ‘Big Money’ in more than one way. The research and development funds required to bring a new drug to market is very high, especially when the costs of failed drugs are added in. Similarly, the potential profits from a successful launch of a patented drug are enormous. The profits will be even higher if the condition for which the drug is prescribed affects a large number of people and those people are bugging their doctors for the drug. Hence, the ads.

There’s nothing illegal with this system. In fact, because the potential rewards are so great, pharmaceutical companies are willing to make large financial bets on product development. Many of these attempts lead nowhere while others lead to unexpected places. Minoxidil began as a high blood pressure medication in pill form that caused the unwanted side effect of hair growth over many parts of the body. In 1988, the topical hair growth lotion Rogaine was developed to take advantage of this side effect.

So, is this a good system or not?

Many people feel that drug prices are too high in the United States. That high price is due to the cost of development which includes the regulatory costs to convince the Food and Drug Administration that the drug is safe and effective. It also includes all those advertisements – without the demand generated by the ads, the prices would be lower. And those high prices are also the product of our mostly employer-provided medical insurance system. In order for an insurer to sell itself to companies and their employees, it must show its value by providing large discounts on medical services and pharmaceuticals. Because the employer, employee, insurance company, pharmaceutical company and healthcare providers rely on these large discounts, the listed price of medical services and drugs are very high. (Listed price is a bit of a misnomer – it is very hard to find the price of a medical service in the U.S. until the bill comes.) Also, the system has the unwanted side-effect of financially harming the middle class. Low and high income people enjoy large discounts through their government or employer sponsored health insurance. The middle class, however, gets charged full price if they do not have employer-sponsored coverage. Many middle class families have declared bankruptcy due to debt from medical conditions. (More on this in a future post.)

So, other than the problem with high prices, do we have a good system for drug development? Well….

While there is nothing illegal with the current system, some drug companies have taken steps to increase sales that have crossed the line. At times, they have been able to convince doctors to prescribe drugs to treat conditions for which the drug is not approved, or they have convinced them that the drug is safer than it is. Pharmaceutical companies and their executives have faced fines and convictions for providing misleading information. In 2007 the Department of Justice accused Purdue Pharma, L.P., of deceptively telling doctors OxyContin was safer and less additive than other drugs. The company and several executives pleaded guilty and were fined $635 million. In 2008 Cephalon paid $425 million in fines partly for marketing its Actiq opioid to treat conditions for which it was not found to be safe and effective – migraines and sickle cell pain. The marketing of opioids as safer and less addictive that other drugs has led to a serious addition problem in the country, especially in the mid-west and south where in some states, there are more opioid prescriptions filled in a year than the total population. The U.S. has approximately 4.5% of the world’s population, but uses 56% of the world’s prescription opioids. (Time)

Okay, other than the high price issues and overzealous selling techniques, is this a good system? Yes, but….

By having market driven development, there is great effort spent on developing the next big financial winner. Research is exploding in gene modification therapy to one day make cancer completely curable. Cancer is a very scary word. Many of us would feel a huge sense of relief to know that a diagnosis of cancer would no longer mean a degrading, painful and premature end to our lives. There’s a lot of money to be made in a cure for cancer, and a lot of money is being spent now to develop those cures.

The problem is that there is not a lot of money to be made in developing drugs which combat tropical diseases that affect a large number of very poor people living in impoverished countries, or the next generation of antibiotics. There is a scary new development out of China. A new strain of e. coli bacteria has been found in pigs and in people who consumed pork products. It is completely resistant to last resort antibiotics and it can pass on that resistance to other strains of bacteria. There is now a credible threat for worldwide untreatable epidemics and for entire classes of antibiotics to become completely useless. Pharmaceutical companies are not working toward the next generation of antibiotics with the urgency that may be warranted by such a potentially devastating outcome because the profit potential isn’t as high as for products which cure cancer for insured people in wealthier countries.

I find this troubling, but without the current profit driven system, we may not have many of the drugs that have helped people age with dignity and in pretty good health. Still, untreatable worldwide epidemics – yikes. That could lead to a post-apocalyptic world. Perhaps I should do something to take my mind off these concerns. Maybe I’ll go see a movie. I wonder if Mockingjay – Part 2 is any good.

Posted in Economics | Leave a comment

Economic Renewal Through Tax Cutting – Pascal’s Wager in Reverse?

Posted on November 20, 2015 by tonyj126

The November 10 Republican presidential debate was the first one I watched. Actually, I recorded it and was pretty tired by the time I saw the program. I found myself drifting off a few times and in that drowsy state, I may have missed some of the finer points the candidates were trying to make. The bigger points got through and it’s one of those I would like to address today.

All of the republican candidates want to cut taxes to stimulate the U.S. economy and generate good paying jobs. That, in turn, will help fill the government coffers because those new gainfully employed Americans send some of their earnings to the federal government through income taxes or perhaps, by way of a national sales tax instead. Most, if not all of the candidates also plan to cut government spending. There are a couple similar plans, but for the most part each candidate’s financial advisors have developed significantly different tax and spending programs. The rosy picture that emerges under these scenarios is a nation with a balanced budget, low unemployment, and a small, unobtrusive federal government which allows business to flourish under a republican president.

There are plenty of experts who attempt to figure out the effect on tax collection, government spending and job growth based on the economic programs proposed by the candidates. These experts’ conclusions do not often agree, and that’s where Pascal’s wager comes into play.

Pascal’s Wager comes from an argument Blaise Pascal included in one paragraph in Pensees, a collection of notes and essays from the mid-seventeenth century which dealt with religious and philosophical matters. In brief, Pascal argued that a person should believe in God’s existence not because that existence can be “proved,” but because it is the best bet. For this to make sense, you have to believe in an afterlife and believe that your experience in the afterlife is dependent on whether you believed in God while living (or at least at the time of your death). Accept God’s existence: get eternal joy; reject God’s existence: get eternal damnation.
Put another way, if God exists and you believed this during your lifetime, the rewards are huge; if you didn’t believe, the penalties are huge. If God doesn’t exist, there’s no real penalty whether you believed or not.

So, back to the candidates’ economic proposals to cut taxes and spending. Donald Trump claims his plan would increase U.S. gross domestic product by 6%; Jeb Bush claims 4%. The historic GDP growth rate from 1947 to present is 3.24%. That averages in the post WWII expansion, but not the Great Depression. During George W. Bush’s presidency, the GDP grew at an average rate of 2.1% and for the first 6-1/2 years of the Obama presidency, the growth rate has averaged 1.8%. If you assign the first three months of a president’s term to his predecessor because there’s a delay in how a leader’s policies reverberate throughout the economy, the rates change to 2.2% for Bush and 2.4% for Obama. Recall that these growth rates include what are commonly known as the Bush Tax Cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 which were designed to stimulate the economy.

Ronald Reagan is known for spearheading the tax reforms of the 1980’s which among other changes, reduced the top tax bracket from 70% in 1981 to 50% in 1982 to 38.5% in 1987 to 28% in 1988. These actions stimulated the economy and generated additional tax revenue, just as the current Republican presidential candidates promise will happen under their plans. I contend, however, that cutting the top tax bracket from 70% would stimulate substantially more growth than cutting it from the current 39.6% rate. It should also be noted that, while the GDP growth rate was better during Reagan’s presidency than during the terms of the presidents before and after him, the rate was equal to the long term average from 1947. Per the Cato Institute, real economic growth averaged 3.2% under Reagan, 2.8% under Ford-Carter and 2.1% under Bush-Clinton.

So, with a nod toward Pascal, what if the Republican candidates’ tax plans do not produce the 4-6% growth they promise. In this case, the rewards and consequences differ from Pascal’s scenario about believing in God. If the executive and legislative branches believe in and enact the tax and spending cuts, and the predictions are correct, the nation’s economy supports a good lifestyle for its citizens. If the predictions are not correct, however, the situation could become desperate. We would then likely experience ever increasing deficits, cuts to the country’s social safety net (food, health, education & welfare programs), increased income and wealth inequality, and perhaps social unrest.

Government spending generates jobs. Since higher income individuals have higher savings rates, changes which benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor negatively impact job growth. While the wealthy are often referred to as “job creators” – a perfectly reasonable description – the customers drive the demand. A business owner is unlikely to create those jobs if there is little need for their products because cuts in the social safety net have reduced the buying power of the lower income portion of the population. Social unrest would have a similar employment depressing effect. Additionally, once the tax rates are reduced, it is almost impossible to get congress to raise them again. Thanks to gerrymandered districts, the House of Representatives is full of Republican members whose only risk of loosing an election would be to a more conservative challenger. Consequently, those members are very unlikely to ever vote for raising taxes.

There is also a research study performed by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service – an arm of the Library of Congress – and made available to the House and Senate on September 14, 2012. It was withdrawn shortly after its release due to pressure from Senate Republicans (Forbes), and re-released on November 1, 2012, following a letter from the ranking Democratic tax expert in the House, Rep. Sander Levin, in which he asked for an explanation for the withdrawal. Based on 65 years of U.S. economic data, that study concluded that, “The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with savings, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.” In layman’s terms, cuts to the top tax brackets do not stimulate the economy, do not help people prepare for retirement, but increase wealth inequality. (Report: http://www.dpcc.senate.gov/files/documents/CRSTaxesandtheEconomy%20Top%20Rates.pdf)

To believe or not to believe. Political candidates make promises and, once elected to office, they make excuses for why they were unable to keep those promises. When it comes to economic promises that do not pan out, however, there is a very good excuse to give – presidents don’t have that kind of power. The GDP growth rate the past few years has been tempered by things beyond the president’s control. These include the Greek debt crisis, which in part has weakened the Euro, the war in Syria and the refugees it has produced, the devaluation of the Yen, the drop in crude oil prices, and the slowing of the Chinese economy. On the plus side, interest rates are historically low and it is not difficult to service the nation’s substantial debt at the moment. Also, it’s a great time to take a trip abroad and use our strong U.S. dollars to see the world – if you’re on the right side of the income inequality scale, that is.

Posted in Economics, U.S. Politics | Leave a comment

An introduction

Posted on March 22, 2014 by tonyj126

I perhaps put too much information in my profile, but I think it defines me pretty well. One other thing that seems appropriate tonight is my gravitar. I will probably change it to a different photo later, but the reason why my gravitar is such a dark image of me is because I am sitting in my father-in-law’s kitchen while he is in bed hopefully not having a bad reaction to a new medicine. The photo is dark because my father-in-law is 87 and has only one light bulb in the 5-bulb ceiling light in order to save energy.

For the past 3 weeks I have been on the verge of driving to Sedona, AZ to work on a house I purchased more than two years ago. I think I need about another month to make the house ready for rental, but my trip has been delayed by my father-in-law’s recent health issues. I was beginning to wonder whether I would be able to make the trip this month because it’s a tiring 27 hour drive each way and I have to be back by April 19. My wife was also experiencing a lot of stress over work issues and I didn’t feel right leaving her. I needed a sign.

Funny thing – I got a sign. My wife clipped the bottom of the garage door with the top of her roof rack the day before my father-in-law’s last medical appointment and the tools I needed to fix the door were packed at the bottom of my car. I had to unload the car (which had been packed for 3 weeks) & that last medical appointment has led to 3 more.

I do feel a “Something” out there – perhaps God, sientient cosmic energy, whatever – and I think he/she/it helps me head down the correct path. At my church I call it getting dope slapped by the Holy Spirit when the hairs on the back of my neck stand up and make me aware of some danger my conscience mind had missed. I wonder what situation was prevented by my not making the trip to Sedona this month. Or, for what need will my extended family or church or friends need me to stay in town to help solve or comfort. Sometimes we are not meant to know.

Posted in Musings | Leave a comment