Alan Greenspan Died of What???

Sometimes even the gloomier headlines land a little funny. Take the latest one about former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, who passed away on June 22nd.

"Alan Greenspan, former Fed Reserve chair dies, with cause of death revealed."

"Cause of death revealed"—as if we were all waiting for some shocking twist. The article goes on to say he died from complications of Parkinson's disease. Sure. But honestly, every disease kills you through "complications." If diseases had a job description, that would be it.

Rule #1: Complicate one's ability to continue living.

By their very nature, complications are the part that actually does you in. Heart disease? One of the complications is that your heart stops. COPD or emphysema? A key complication is that you stop breathing. It's not exactly a mystery.

The part, in this case, that matters more is the fact that Alan Greenspan was 100 years old. Parkinson's or not, few people are cracking triple digits and making a run into overtime. At that age you could trip over a throw pillow and that would be your "cause of death revealed."

We already knew he had Parkinson's. We also knew he was a very old man. So, his passing isn't shocking, and it certainly doesn't require a dramatic headline tease.

Perhaps if someone had never heard of Alan Greenspan, the headline might be more informative. It's certainly a headline worthy of someone much younger who suddenly dies. When that happens, out of pure curiosity, we want to know.

A cleaner and more honest headline would have been: "Alan Greenspan, former Fed Reserve chair, dies at 100."

Then, inside the article, mention the Parkinson's diagnosis, and trust readers to connect the dots. He was a centenarian with a serious illness, and eventually biology does was biology does. 

Like the things I write about or the way I write about them? Want to help to keep the lights on? Consider making your next Amazon purchase through my Amazon link and I'll get a small, appreciated commission. Also be sure to check out The Springboard on YouTube.

© 2026 Jim Bauer

Trump on a $250 Bill? Seriously?

Only in America could the idea of putting President Donald Trump on a brand-new $250 bill turn into a national meltdown before lunch. The man could cure cancer, and someone would still find a way to be offended. That's just the political climate we're living in.

And before anyone assumes, "Well, of course Springboard loves this idea, he's one of those MAGA guys"—pump the brakes. If you've followed me for any amount of time, you know I don't rubber-stamp ideas just because they come from someone I generally support.

So, let me be clear. I think the idea is dumb. Not dangerous. Not world-ending. Just unnecessary.

There's a long-standing rule—codified in 1866—that we don't put living people on U.S. currency. It came after Spencer Clark, then Superintendent of the National Currency Bureau, put his own face on a 5-cent note. Congress was furious, the public was furious, and Representative Thayer argued that honoring living individuals on currency undermined the dignity of the nation. He was right then, and he's still right now.

Now, Trump isn't against the idea. Of course he isn't. He likes putting his mark on things, and there's nothing unusual about that. Plenty of wealthy and influential people do the same. But this wasn't his idea to begin with. It came from Congressman Joe Wilson of South Carolina, and 13 Republicans cosigned it.

Honestly? They shouldn't have. Not because it's immoral, but because it's tone-deaf and politically pointless.

Should Trump oppose it? I think so. Not because he's unworthy, but because it hands critics an easy talking point. It adds fuel to a fire that doesn't need more gasoline. And beyond that—it just feels tacky.

If we want a $250 bill to celebrate America's 250th birthday, I'm all for it. I'd happily add one to my collection of interesting notes. But do we even need a person on it? Why not feature the signers of the Declaration of Independence? Why not choose something that honors the country instead of turning it into another culture-war chew toy?

Wilson and the cosponsors should have known this would look bad. Trump should know it doesn't look good. And the whole thing becomes yet another distraction—another shiny object for the media and the haters to obsess over instead of focusing on anything meaningful.

Changing the law wouldn't end the world. Most Americans will never even see a $250 bill. It would be a novelty, a collector's item, a conversation piece.

But big national milestones deserve something better. Something that reflects our history, not our divisions. Something that honors the country, not the chaos.

We have a chance to create a piece of currency that celebrates 250 years of America. We don't need to turn it into another political circus. Honor the country. Make the bill. Make it historic. And leave the culture-war out of it.

Like the way I write or the things I write about it? Follow me on my Facebook fan page to keep up with the lastest writings wherever I may post them. Also, be sure to check out The Springboard on YouTube where I'm spending more of my time lately and consider subscribing if you like my style of commentary there.

© 2026 Jim Bauer

The Smoking Gun That Was Never Fired: Epstein Files vs. Donald J. Trump

People are still calling for full release of the Epstein files. I want that too. Trump wants it as well. But here's the thing; if there was anything in those files implicating Trump of any wrongdoing, wouldn't it already have been out there?

If there was one coffin nail for the establishment to take out Trump, that would have been it. Yet, since Barack Obama we've had the opportunity, but no one has taken the chance. I think there's only one reason why it hasn't happened.

Like what I am doing here? Why not follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest YouTube videos and reels from The Springboard.

© 2026 Jim Bauer

Trump Said It, I'll Say it: We Need to Get Out of NATO After this Betrayal

More and more I am convinced it may be time for the United States to finally pull the plug on NATO. This latest event doesn't seal it for me necessarily, but it brings me considerably closer.

Wanting to keep up with the latest postings wherever I may post them? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up to date.

© 2026 Jim Bauer

If the Republicans Lose the Midterms, Who's Really to Blame?

I agree with Speaker Mike Johnson to a point: if the Republicans lose the midterms, it really could mark the end of the Trump presidency. But he's wrong about the why.

A president's agenda only becomes durable when Congress codifies it. Executive orders are a great tool. But they can be wiped out with the stroke of a pen.

Remember day one of the Biden administration? Anyone?

Johnson's latest remark on the midterms suggests Republicans might lose because of Trump's recent State of the Union remarks about potentially cutting federal Medicaid funding in Minnesota over fraud concerns. And sure, that may influence some voters. But it's not the real issue.

The real problem is that Republican voters are frustrated. They feel like the party has been sitting still since Trump was elected. What major legislation has been passed? How much has Congress actually done to advance the president's agenda? Did they codify the DOGE findings?

No.

What did they do to eliminate the filibuster—something they could have done during the prolonged government shutdown? Something they should have done, given that Democrats have made it abundantly clear they have zero interest in helping Trump move anything forward. Compromise of any sort is out the window, even if it something actually makes sense.

Sure. The filibuster does have its purpose. Even I can agree with that. It encourages debate and compromise. In a rational political climate, it even makes sense. It's a way to balance power and give both sides a voice on bills.

But we're not in that climate. Democrats are angry, defiant, and convinced Trump is an existential threat. They're not budging on anything, even if it's reasonable. They couldn't even stand in support of putting American's safety in front of the safety of illegal immigrants, for Heaven's sake.

Ending the filibuster would have allowed the Republicans to pass the SAVE Act and other key parts of Trump's agenda.

What Johnson—and frankly much of the GOP leadership—seems to miss is that voters elected Trump for a reason. Despite what the media suggests, and what Democrats want to deny, it was a mandate. Yet Republicans in Congress have often acted just as resistant to Trump's agenda as Democrats. That's a problem, because Republican voters don't show up just to keep a party in power. They want results. And when they don't see results, they hold their own side accountable.

So, if Republicans lose the midterms, it won't be because of anything Trump said. It will be because Congress refused to act.

Johnson is right about one thing: if Democrats win in November, they've already told us what's coming—two years of investigations and potential impeachment hearings, their own end to the filibuster, endless legislation designed to box in the president, and total gridlock. It would turn this administration into one of the most powerless lame-duck presidencies in modern history. Any hope of advancing Trump's agenda at all would evaporate.

That's why Johnson's comments concern me. They suggest he doesn't understand why Republicans are actually at risk. If you don't know why you're losing, you can't possibly strategize how to win.

It's not too late. The SAVE Act is already in the Senate. It just needs to be brought to a vote. Yes, getting 60 votes under the current filibuster rule is unlikely. Even reverting to a talking filibuster might not be enough. But at least voters would see Republicans trying—showing urgency, showing fight, showing they understand the stakes.

If the Republicans lose the midterms, it won't be because of Trump. Forget what the polls say. Americans want Trump's agenda. That was made clear when he was elected, because his agenda is exactly what he campaigned on that got him elected. If the Republicans lose it will be because they refused to hear the voters who elected them to do the work to codify the mandate.

Voters gave Republicans their trust in 2024. They expected action. They expected progress. They expected the mandate to be honored. If Republicans squandered that, and they mostly have, they shouldn't expect voters to hand them another chance.

Republicans only win when they act. They don't get the free passes Democrats do. They have to listen to their voters. They have to do the work. And they have to earn every vote.

So, to Speaker Johnson and Leader Thune, the question is simple:

What are you going to do to win the midterms? We, the voters, are ready to do our part. When will you do yours?

Like the things I write about or the way I write about them? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2026 Jim Bauer