On McCarthy: Obligations Now, Spending Later

Everyone is trying to suggest Speaker Kevin McCarthy rolled over on the debt ceiling debate. Maybe he did? Maybe he didn't. The thing is, getting anything agreed upon on any bill is a tough thing to do on its own. It's when we throw in all these add-ons and ultimatums that we get all tangled up, and processes take longer or shut down.

The key issue, in my opinion, regarding the debt ceiling is that it is about money already spent and making sure we honor our debt obligations. We have to pay our bills regardless of the reality of out of control spending. 

You can't go to Discover and say, "Let's hold my payment until we can talk about spending less." That's just not how it works. You spent the money, the bill has come due, and you have to pay it. Even if the spending was irresponsible or out of line.

McCarthy does assert that the dems are onboard with furthering the discussion to include some welfare reforms, cut spending and slash IRS funding. Who knows if they will actually be onboard when the real debate begins. 

Nonetheless, I think all of these are important issues and I truly hope McCarthy can bring these items to the table.

But the point is that that's the time to have the discussion. Before future spending occurs. And we need to stop just talking about cutting spending, but actually do something about it. That's where we always get stuck. When the bills come due and the other side wants something we use it as a tool but once all is said and done it's back to business as usual.

Almost as if the government is simply playing games with the American people to make the appearance they want to cut spending. If they really did then the issue would not come up nearly every time the bills come due and we have to raise the debt ceiling.

Because we spent too much, again.

Even when Trump threatened to shut down the government, I thought that was a wrong-headed approach, and I am a strong Trump supporter. To me, it serves no purpose to default on our obligations and shut down the government. It doesn't help any American if that happens. And beyond that, it does nothing to actually curb spending.

To further call for McCarthy's ouster for coming to some terms around the deal, I think, is wrong-headed.

Beyond that, the animus from our side, against our side, against McCarthy is just more of the same problem republicans always have. We simply have trouble rallying around and uniting as a party. Debt ceiling aside, it kills us in elections.

We already have an uphill battle to win seats and offices as it is. When we can't unite, the other side wins by default a lot of the time. And beyond that, it's fodder for the other side and its accomplice media to spread the news that our party is in chaos. It never looks good for us. 

Say what you want about Nancy Pelosi as Speaker, but no matter what she did the democrats stuck by her side come hell or high water. Regardless of what you think about McCarthy, I think our side needs to do the same.

Because while McCarthy might not be our "winner," so to speak, if we can't rally behind him now, how are we going to be united in 2024 to win back the White House? Because one can argue that because we have such animus toward certain candidates, if we don't go to the polls to vote for whoever the nominee winds up being, it may as well be a vote for the other side to win.

Frankly, the bottom line for me is this. We're being way too hard on McCarthy. We need to give him a chance and cut him some slack and stop fueling discussions of infighting and chaos that the democrats can use as a reason NOT to vote republican in 2024.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to get all the latest posts from all the places where I write.

Trump Wins 2nd Presidential Debate

I know how the pollsters and news media are trying to slant the 2nd presidential debate. They are slanting it the way one would fully expect.

That Hillary Clinton won.

But, and I say this despite any admitted bias I may have with regard to Donald Trump's candidacy, I think it is clear and undeniable that Trump came out of this debate as the clear winner. Hands down. Look, I try to be fair in any analysis I make—on both sides for that matter. I thought Trump also clearly lost the first debate, and for a variety of reasons. That is, to my mind, a fair and honest judgement.

One thing that stood out for me in this second round was that Trump appeared way more prepared than usual to discuss the issues, and to lay out in more detail exactly what he wants to do, and more importantly, how he intends to do it. He was also considerably more contained than is his usual modus operandi as well. Something that I think is exactly what he needed to do in order to sway some on-the-fence voters, and perhaps to also solidify any voters in his base who may have been considering, for whatever reason, to jump ship.

Forget any establishment republicans who may have already jumped that ship. They are jumping for other reasons—of course.

The truth is that Donald Trump was on message, and frankly on-target. The one thing that few in the liberal media will give him credit for is how he effectively managed to shut down the discussion of the leaked tape. Both the moderators and Hillary Clinton, I think, quickly drew the conclusion that if they were to further discuss the issue, Trump would have effectively unloaded myriad talking points with regard to Bill Clinton's infidelities and misdeeds—and Clinton would have been in a very uncomfortable and difficult situation defending that. It took only a few strong words and a suggestion to allow the moderators, and even Clinton, to move on to the next issue. Had Trump not been so effective in his response to this issue, it may well have been the entire focus of the evening and he would have lost.

And of course, winner of the best line of the night also goes to Donald Trump when he suggested that had Trump been in charge of the law, Clinton would have been in jail. Despite obvious gasps from some in the audience at that remark—but I suspect many of those gasps came from Clinton supporters—I think the audience at least understood more clearly the seriousness of the issue of her emails as a whole. In preceding and following remarks I think Trump was able to convey two key issues with regard to the emails.

• Hillary Clinton has stated over and over again that she is best equipped to handle classified information, yet clearly her handling of the emails sent and received while she was Secretary of State via an unsecured server clearly breach that assertion—Trump also reminded voters that she lied to the FBI, and even reminded Clinton herself of her statement that she did not know what the letter "C" meant.
• It is impossible to know who may or may not have had access to her server and who may have gotten hold of any of the emails she sent or received—missing or not. This is potentially a serious threat to national security.

There is one more thought on the question of whether or not anyone who may be our enemy may have potentially gotten hold of classified information. How do we know that someone may not be holding on to that information to use it much later against us in some way? The server was not secured, no one really knows whether or not it was in fact compromised, and if it were, it would be difficult to know who was responsible for it.

Trump was very right to point out that only the media has seen this issue of her emails as "one to sweep aside as not that big of a deal." And I think he did so brilliantly.

And of course Trump also, I think, won the argument about taxes when he pointed out that even had he not paid taxes, he was still operating within the law—unlike what she had done with her emails—and that he was simply using the tax code as it was written by lawmakers. And he was very good to point out as well that singling him out for using the tax code as it was intended was foolish since every single rich person, armed with accountants and lawyers, would use the tax code in exactly the same way regardless of their party affiliations. His comments regarding this issue were much more effective, I think, than simply saying he was "smart." This laid out a more detailed rationale. And I think the audience got it when Trump also effectively pointed out two key things about taxes.

• Trump was not in a position to CHANGE tax laws. He was only in a position to FOLLOW tax laws, and to USE provisions in the tax laws as they were written by lawmakers. Clinton, on the other hand, was clearly better positioned in her former roles to make changes or push for changes if that is what she had wanted to do. She did say she was always against this or that item in the tax code—but while touting 400 pieces of legislation with her name on it, she did not single out a single piece of legislation with her name on it that addressed changes to the tax code. 
• He clearly stated an area of the tax code he wanted to change, and that would be carried interest. He said he used it like anyone would because, under the current tax code, it's what you do. But if he had his way, he would change it.

I think all in all Donald Trump explained most of his positions well. Be it his position on Syrian refugees, illegal immigration, the corporate tax rate and how lowering it would help businesses to better compete, and put more money in the pockets of the middle class, to explaining effectively why it can be harmful to let our enemies know what our intentions or timelines happen to be in any action we may take.

I have always advocated that nations need some secrets in order to ensure national security. 

Clinton, on the other hand, and for the first time for me, looked a bit frazzled—even surprised—by what was going down. I think Clinton was thoroughly convinced that this debate would go entirely a different direction. I can just hear the discussions before the debate, "With this tape out there, Trump will have nothing else to talk about...and we finish him." But that of course did not happen, and Clinton did not see any of what Trump delivered coming. The fact that he delivered with mostly tact and only once really raised his voice, and was well versed in the issues—all of this put Clinton clearly off kilter, and if anyone looked unprepared for this debate it was Hillary Clinton.

To be honest, despite my misgivings regarding the moderators which still leaned obviously left, I did find myself a bit surprised by some of the audience questions which put Clinton a bit in the hot seat. But, it was a town hall style. And even staunch Clinton cohorts will readily admit that when it comes to town hall's, Clinton always fares poorly. 

My thinking is because she has trouble actually talking about issues that aren't rehearsed, has trouble with questions she does not expect, and does not resonate well with the American people in general. 

As I said in an earlier post, the media and the polls that follow will all do their best to tell a story about a Clinton victory. They will do their best to suggest that the entire election is tilted in Clinton's favor. They will continue to flaunt any gains she may make in polls as "huge support gains" even though we all know that the steepest gains during this entire election has come from Donald Trump. 11 point swings are huge support gains in polls. Not 1 or 2 percentage point swings, But that's not how the media likes to tell the story.

In a nutshell, Trump won. Nuff said. Will he go on to win the final debate? Who knows? It depends on whether or not Trump can continue in the way he did with this last debate, and it depends on how well he can defend or deflect from any other garbage the left may try to pull out of the woodwork to shift the discussion from the issues, to what Donald Trump says or does.

The Dynamics in 2016 May Be Why Trump Wins

The other day I spoke a little bit about history having a tendency to follow the future when it comes to elections and politics in general, and how I felt that due to some historical and current data it strongly suggests that Hillary Clinton cannot win the upcoming presidential election. I stand by the arguments I made for my case on that. But there is something else that we know about history when it comes to primaries and who ultimately winds up winning nominations; The front runners rarely become the nominee.

I also talked a bit about some changing demographics and dynamics in this election cycle which could have at least some influence on things. For much the same reasons I believe those changing demographics and dynamics hurt Hillary's chances, I think they bolster Trump's.

For all intents and purposes you could say that Hillary Clinton has been the front runner for her party's nomination for at least the past four years and running. Despite her obvious troubles I don't see anyone emerging in the democratic party who stands a chance of unseating her strong lead within her party.

Hillary Clinton will be the democratic nominee for president without a doubt.

I am beginning to think that when it comes to who the republican nominee will be, it will be Donald Trump. He is going to manage to buck the trend that suggests that someone would ultimately otherwise knock him out of first place. And again, it is that changing demographic and dynamic that will help him maintain his lead. One of the brilliant things Trump has managed to do throughout his campaign, and continues to do to this day, is run against even his own party. He's running as much as an independent as he is running as a republican, and this just happens to be resonating with the electorate—and handily. I think Donald Trump, in many ways, is also managing to do something that any other republican candidate would be hard pressed to do and that is to capture at least a portion of the liberal voting public's interest. I actually believe that Trump can win the majority of the swing vote and take up enough of the democratic vote and ultimately win the White House.

Whether or not you totally agree with the movement of the 99%, and certainly everyone can agree that Donald Trump is certainly not in that majority, the movement did strongly suggest at least the idea that the citizens were becoming more and more dissatisfied with the way of the world. Granted, this anger was directed toward the fat cats. The rich and the powerful. But I think it was also a protest against an establishment that they (the 99% people) felt gave license to the rise of the rich and paved the way for a growing gap between the rich and the poor. Or in this case, the 1% and the rest of us. Trump may well be a part of that 1% the 99%ers hate so much, but he is not a part of the establishment.

Trump may not be for a $15 an hour minimum wage, but he is for restoring the kinds of jobs in the country that will provide a better chance for better wages, and moreover, more opportunities for the average citizen to get a good job that pays well and provides for their families and their basic needs. Even the 99%ers argued that the evildoers of the corporations raped and pilfered not only by becoming rich off the people (their claim, not mine), but they also did it by sending good paying jobs away to places like Mexico and China.

Donald Trump has said he wants to fix that.

Whether it is by design or by default, it seems that Trump is speaking to the masses. He's bucking all of the trends. He takes no prisoners. He draws a hard line in the sand. He has also managed to draw a good many people into the realm of politics who would not otherwise be so inclined. Perhaps it is still too early to draw such conclusions, but with the times being what they are and mindsets in places we haven't seen in our past, there is enough here to strongly suggest politics are out (leaving Hillary out), and anti-establishment in, meaning Trump may enjoy a rather surprise victory. Trump's success may well come partly from a combination of rules, history, and timing. If the dynamics were not what they are, Hillary could certainly have bucked history. Those dynamics are key to understanding exactly why the historical trend may perpetuate even with very different aspects as to why they will, and why perhaps they would not have.

The Danger of Talking Points in Elections

Democrats and liberals will often utter talking points, which on the surface sound fine. But rarely do they think through what the effect is ultimately of any of it. They simply drop their line, smile, and walk away feeling there is no reason to further explain. This is especially dangerous when these talking points are actually acted upon by our elected officials.

Take this democratic talking point as a case in point: "Everyone should have the ability to own a home."

On the surface it sounds wonderful and fair. Owning a home is the dream of a good many Americans, and in communities where people own their homes, the communities generally tend to thrive since there is a tighter bond between the real estate and the person who occupies it.

This talking point, and the action that was taken in support of it lead to the biggest financial decline in recent history and nearly caused an economic collapse.

Sure. The blame was placed on the big banks, Wall Street, and the rich. But the truth is that while there is some blame to lay there, a larger part of the blame lies on the politicians who signed into law the opportunity for people who could not otherwise afford homes to have them anyway.

Let's keep in mind that what the banks had to do in order for this to be possible was to have to take on enormous amounts of risk of capital. In answer to that they created credit default swaps and took on other measures which could not truly be valuated when all was said and done. When loans were called, no one had the money to pony any of it up.

Therefore the system fell apart.

The current lineup of democrats on the stage vying for the presidency are all spouting off talking points, and not a single one of them are backing up what they are saying, or explaining how they intend to do any of the things they say they want to. Americans are lapping it up like fresh milk to a cat. Granted, there are a handful of republicans doing the same thing. The difference is that most of the republican candidates are actually explaining how they intend to get something done, and stating the reasons behind why it must be done.

The key behind, for example, how the republicans intend to fix the economy? Jobs. And in one particular case, putting to task those countries that have for years siphoned off good jobs and unleveled the playing field when it comes to trade. Republicans know, and history shows clearly, that when Americans are working, and when the middle class is viable and strong, the economy thrives.

As for the democrats, they want to attack the so called evil rich who are simply counting their change and leaving everyone else behind with evil grins on their greedy faces. "Tax the fat cats. Pay their fair share. Close the gap between the rich and the poor."

The truth is that while this sounds fine on the surface, and I can certainly see where a good many Americans might be on board with this idea, it is a completely dangerous and counterproductive path to take.

When is the last time you received a paycheck from a poor man?

The rich are hard working people who build businesses and innovate products to sell to consumers not just here, but abroad. They are the machine that drives jobs which provide for the welfare of Americans. Yes the idea is to maximize profits. Sure, the playing field is a bit uneven. Yes the corporations have as much to be blamed for when it comes to how we lost those jobs as the government is to blame for opening trade in ways that allowed for it to happen, and which all but took away America's competitive edge, especially in the case of manufacturing. The heart and driver of the middle class in America.

What the republicans want to do is to restore manufacturing in the United States, and make it harder for countries like China and Mexico to provide cheaper labor which hurts American jobs. The republicans want to remove things like Most Favored Nation status and reinstate tariffs which were designed to even things out—a tariff on goods coming from China, for example, puts the cost of their products on par with the cost of making things at home in the U.S. Lacking a strong incentive for American businesses to get labor from China, they'd be more inclined to keep their shops open right here at home and keep Americans working in them at good and competitive wages.

The main thrust of this post is that at the end of the day as we approach the 2016 elections, we need to be paying attention to what is being said on both sides of the aisle. We need to not only hear the talking points. We need to be able to see the forest for the trees. We need to be able to read between the lines. We need to be able to consider the consequences—intended or unintended—when it comes to any decisions that might be made in consideration of what sounds good. As well, we need to fundamentally understand what has driven down our economy, and our standard of living. It has not been the rich. It has not been tax loopholes. It has largely been trade policy which has allowed for companies to provide jobs abroad and leave Americans behind, unable to compete. I will be fair and say that the republican party is largely to blame for this. But the fact is that they now see the harm it has done and want to set it straight while the democrats simply want to take from the rich to redistribute wealth without considering the impact of that, and without considering the benefits to restoring manufacturing, and restoring good paying jobs and the middle class to rebuild the country economically.

Why are the democrats so hell bent on focusing on welfare programs instead of jobs?

Because it equals more power for them to push their agendas through and hold the American people hostage. Americans who have more, have more power and control over their lives. Americans who have less become dependent on what the government can provide, and so the power is given to them, and the power of the American people erodes.

We are at a critical time in our nation's history. In order for us to get back on the right path, I think we need to stop listening and adhering to the talking points. We need to begin to dissect the talking points in a way we haven't done in a long while and begin to really get at the root of how we make America great again.