Hoist on Their Own Petard

Time to turn my ire onto the GOP.

By this time in President Obama's first term, the Senate had approved a dozen of his cabinet nominees.  Yet, today, only four of President Trump's nominees have been approved, and now the Democrats have decided to play hooky rather than even meet to approve additional nominees.

President Trump and the GOP, of course, are crying foul.  But what goes around, comes around.

Sure, it would have been nice if we'd had an Attorney General in place when the immigration order was signed.  The implementation of the order might have gone smoother, and Sally Yates wouldn't have committed an act of insubordination that (rightfully) cost her her job.  And President Trump wouldn't have had to fire her, making her today's poster child for fake liberal outrage.

But what comes around, goes around.

When President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to fill the late Justice Antonin Scalia's seat on the Supreme Court, the GOP refused to even hold a hearing.  Let's break down the political gamesmanship of that.

Consider the degree to which a justice is an activist vs. a constitutionalist as being akin to a gas gauge in a car.  The activists are toward the "Empty" end of the gauge; the constitutionalists are toward the "Full" end, at least when it comes to upholding the Constitution and not legislating from the bench.

So Ruth Bader Ginsberg is the equivalent of running on fumes, while Antonin Scalia was full right up to the cap.

When Scalia died, the GOP wanted to replace him with someone pegging the "Full" mark.  If Obama had had his druthers, he'd have picked someone who made Ginsberg look conservative.  However, he knew the GOP would hold a hearing and reject that nominee like Shaquille O'Neal blocking a Muggsy Bogues jump shot.

Obama is nothing if not politically cunning.  He knew that he could get the GOP to paint themselves as obstructionist.  So he nominated Garland, a moderate conservative (on our gas gauge, Garland would be just to the right of the half-tank mark, but so close you couldn't tell the needle wasn't right on the line).  Did Obama want a moderate conservative on the court?  Heck no, he wanted an uber-liberal.  But he knew that he was safe in nominating Garland, because he knew the GOP wouldn't place him on the court.  It was a safe - and crafty - pick.

And why wouldn't the GOP compromise and settle for a moderate conservative?  Even with Scalia on the bench, this Supreme Court had already proven itself to lean activist.  So replacing a full-tank guy with a half-tank guy would shift the court further left.  It would be like siphoning off one-half of one-ninth of your constitutional fuel, which is going to shift you about a gallon toward empty.

Then, if Hillary had won the presidential election, she could replace Ginsberg or Kennedy or whichever justice is the next to pass on to that big bench in the sky with the kind of uber-liberal that she would want, and the court would be activist for at least a generation.

Brilliant strategy on Obama's part.  Ah, you say, but Mitch McConnell was equally brilliant, because he refused to hold a confirmation hearing on Garland, and Trump won, and he's now nominated another Scalia-like justice, and here we are.

No, Mitch McConnell was lucky.  Lucky, and dumb.

No one expected Trump to win the election but Trump, so McConnell took a "yuuuuge" chance in potentially letting Clinton replace Scalia with a justice pegged on the "E" mark of the gauge.  So McConnell gambled with justice, and he won, but only because he was lucky.  Very, very lucky - like put all your chips and the deed to your house and your IRAs and your kids' college funds and your wife's wedding ring on one number of the roulette wheel and win lucky.

(Don't ever do that, by the way - especially with your wife's wedding ring.)

And, he played right into Obama's hands.  Obama called the GOP obstructionist (rightfully so) and scored some campaign points for Hillary - though that wasn't enough to overcome her many negatives in the end.  So McConnell made the GOP look bad, as Obama knew he would.  And that was dumb.  The smart play would have been to immediately hold a hearing and vote to reject Merrick.

Now, McConnell's chickens have come home to roost, and they're leaving guano all over Trump's cabinet, and some is bound to wind up on Judge Gorsuch.  So I can't blame the Dems for playing tit-for-tat.

The GOP cries foul because the time is long overdue for the partisan tit-for-tat games in Washington to end.  But should the Dems be the ones to end them?  Should they be expected to take the high ground, when the GOP won't?  (As a conservative, I'd rather see the GOP take the high ground and take the first steps in stopping the gamesmanship, because whichever party does that will wind up looking good in the eyes of voters.  Why give the Dems that edge?)

The politics of "you do it too" and "you did it first" are tiresome.  They remind me of the backseat arguments between my brother and me, riding in the car on the way to Colorado for vacation.  It didn't play well with our Dad, who was inclined to just punish us both, and it doesn't play with the majority of voters, other than the most partisan among us (and among them, it only plays half the time).

So the GOP is reaping what it's sown.  We all want these games in Washington to end - well, most of us do - and it's high time they did.  If they don't, we're all in peril.  It's simply a matter of which party has the moral will to take the first step in the process.

And from where I sit, I don't see either of the current major parties fulfilling that role.

Righteous Balls of Hate

I borrowed the title of this post from a novel I recently read.  It seemed particularly apropos as a description of many on the left since President Trump's election.

I see it in the mainstream media, as every Trump decision is derided as evil and nefarious.  I see it in the posts on social media, in which the President's actions are misunderstood and misrepresented to paint them in the darkest light.  And I see it in the now-daily protests against everything from the man himself to the decisions he makes and the actions he takes.  (Do these people not have jobs?)

We need to put all of this hate in its true context.

I've seen Facebook posts that have stated as fact that the executive order on repealing and replacing Obamacare has already eliminated coverage for dependent children to age 26, and coverage of pre-existing conditions.  This is patently false.  The EO directed various Congressional committees to begin the work of developing a viable replacement for Obamacare - which, let's face it, has become an unmitigated disaster.  (Note that no one on the left seems to care that some families' health care premiums have more than doubled.)  The President himself has stated that he wanted to preserve the age 26 and pre-existing conditions coverages from Obamacare.

Of course, he's an evil liar who cannot be trusted to keep his word (even though he's fulfilling campaign promises at a rate unmatched by any POTUS in memory).  I bet he hates puppies, too.

I've seen other posts decrying the recent EO "banning Muslims."  Again, read the order.  It has nothing to do with religion.  It specifies seven countries from which we will not accept travelers.  Those countries were selected because a) they have a history of supporting and/or exporting terrorism to the West, and b) it is relatively more difficult to properly vet people from those countries.  Imagine our Secretary of State - if one had been confirmed by now - calling his counterpart in, say, Syria or Somalia and requesting background information on one of their nationals.

And I've seen posts that were downright hysterical over the notion of building a wall on our southern border (I'll probably devote a future post just to the topic of immigration).  Never mind that Hillary Clinton voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which provides the legal mechanism for the construction of Trump's wall.  So did Senators Chuck Schumer, Joe Biden and Barack Obama.  Under Obama's presidency, most of the existing 700-mile border fence was constructed.  So a physical barrier on our southern border is not without precedent, and the aim is the same: to at least stem the tide of illegal immigration and the importing of drugs from our neighbors to the south.

This is an all-too-common thread in the attacks on the new President: previous Democrat administrations have done similar things, but there was no fake outrage over that.  Obama, Carter and FDR implemented temporary bans on immigration from countries that would do us harm.  They are revered by the left.  As noted, Obama supported a border fence, and built much of it.  He is idolized by the left.  Obama promised that if we liked our coverage, we could keep it, which turned out to be untrue.  The left would grant him sainthood if they could.  Bill Clinton molested and abused numerous women.  He is fawned over by the left.

This hypocrisy is evident in the posts themselves.  Trump was widely criticized by many - myself included - for some of the language he used during the campaign, often stooping to petty, childish name-calling that would be more at home on an elementary school playground than in a presidential campaign.  Yet the Facebook posts of many who criticized him for that very thing resort to the same tactics.  "President Tiny Hands" seems to be the favored moniker of the left these days.  How cerebral.

I've seen other posts that lamented the new era of "hate and fear-mongering" that we've supposedly now entered, then went on to say they hate Trump and his supporters, and to claim that Obamacare has already been repealed and Muslims are being banned.  Fear-monger much?

I will submit that the actions taken to date have not been perfect.  The immigration ban, for example, was effected before its ramifications could be properly coordinated by the affected agencies, including Homeland Security.  A number of snafus resulted.

However, if just one San Bernardino can be prevented, I'm all for waiting until we have more robust vetting processes in place, and I don't care whose tender feelings may get hurt in the process.  The left is worried that if we don't bring all the refugees here post-haste, they may die, but they don't give a good damn about a couple dozen people being gunned down during a holiday party at work (they call that "workplace violence," conveniently ignoring the perpetrators' sworn allegiance to al-Baghdadi).

And I'm skeptical about the effectiveness of a border wall.  If people want to come into this country illegally, some of them are going to find a way to do it.  And if money can be made smuggling drugs into this country, some of them are going to find their way here.

But I'm in the business of risk mitigation.  And we have to recognize that some of our risk responses - those things we do to mitigate exposures - provide only partial mitigation.  But the alternative - leaving oneself, one's business or one's nation completely exposed - is unacceptable.

Considering the hypocrisy noted above brings us a bit closer to understanding what's truly behind all the anti-Trump rhetoric and sentiment.  But to complete the picture, let's focus our attention on the recent Women's March.

Let me first say that I fully respect and support the right of any American to engage in peaceful protest.  I have relatives who participated in the march, and I love, respect and support them.  I am tolerant of their views, regardless whether they are tolerant of mine.

That said, what was the march about?  Human rights?  Women's rights?  The things Trump said about women in the past that were revealed during the campaign, or were stated by him on the debate stage?

In determining the answer, consider two facts:

1. There were no women in pink hats marching in the streets after Bill Clinton's inauguration, and let's not forget what he did to numerous women over his political career.
2. Women who wanted to participate in the march but were pro-life were told they were not welcome, and at least one pro-life organization that volunteered to sponsor the march was denied.  I guess those on the left only believe in their own right to participate in a protest, not in anyone else's.

These facts, combined with the left's blind eye toward similar actions taken by Democrat Presidents while castigating Trump for doing the same things, reveal what's behind all the outrage:

It is, pure and simple, D vs. R.  The Women's March was a march against a Republican actually being elected President - nothing more.  It was a march in support of permanent Democrat Party rule.  And the same is true of all of the outrage on social media, and on CNN, ABC and MSNBC.  Whatever a Democrat President does or says is okay, but if a Republican says or does the same thing, there'll be hell to pay.

On that note, I want to close by addressing one more Facebook comment I read.  The comment, a follow-up to a post that decried Trump in general, was this:

"We should hold everyone accountable for voting him in too!"

Ominous.  The very idea that one is to be held to account for whom they voted for is antithetical to the basis of democracy.

Moreover, I have a question for anyone who believes that way: how, pray tell, do you propose to hold those people accountable?  Imprison them?  Publish their names to be publicly humiliated, harassed and threatened, as happened to the red-state electors?  Shoot them?  (You're probably anti-gun, so I don't see that happening.)

The likely remedy such people would propose is to strip them of their right to vote in future elections, since the end game is to ensure that the Democrats always win, and the Republicans always lose.

I'll just say this: anyone who ever wants to try to hold me to account for the way I voted had bloody well better come prepared.  People have bled and died for my right to vote as I see fit, and I will honor their sacrifice with equal vigor.

I am The Economic Curmudgeon, and I approve this message.

Debunking the Hysteria Over an Executive Action

It's nice to at last be able to write a post that sheds the light of truth on a financial topic, rather than purely political ones.  I'm done with that - for now - though this one is related somewhat to the political hysteria that continues to grip so much of our nation.

After being inaugurated, President Trump signed several executive orders.  One of them caught the attention of some of my Facebook friends, who shared a post from Sen. Elizabeth Warren that linked an article from the L.A. Times.

Friends, first and foremost, if Elizabeth Warren says it, don't believe it.  It is undoubtedly misinformed sensationalist hyperbole.  Note that Sen. Warren doesn't understand why student loan rates shouldn't be the same as what banks pay the Fed for overnight borrowings.  Anyone who's taken a Money & Banking course in college - or has a modicum of common sense - knows better.  Sen. Warren does not.  I've forgotten more about finance, interest rates and banking than she will ever know.

The executive action in question rescinded one that President Obama made in the waning days of his administration.  Obama's action cut the mortgage insurance premium on FHA loans from 0.85% to 0.60%.  Trump's order rescinded that cut, leaving the insurance premium at 0.85%.

I understand why some people found this alarming.  After all, they haven't the foggiest notion of what the insurance premium is for, why the premium rate is what it is, whether it covers the default risk of an FHA loan, what the default rate is on FHA loans relative to conventional loans, why the FHA default rate is higher ... in other words, they don't understand the issue regarding which they're posting.

That violates The Curmudgeon's Third Rule of Linking or Sharing Articles on Facebook:  "Make sure you truly understand what it says."

But they shared it because Elizabeth Warren posted it, and that satisfies their pre-conceived partisan notions.  Which violates the Curmudgeon's Fourth Rule: "Remember that just because it reinforces what you already believe, that doesn't make it true."

So we're going to break it down, crunch some numbers, and find the truth.  But first, a primer.

FHA - named for the Federal Housing Authority, which administers the program - does not issue mortgage loans.  Rather, it guarantees repayment of loans under the program that are issued by banks, credit unions, mortgage brokers and other traditional lenders.  And since the FHA is taxpayer-funded, if enough borrowers under the program default on the loans to exhaust the FHA's reserves, you and I are on the hook to bail them out.

As we did during the recent housing crisis, to the tune of $1.7 billion.

Under this program, a borrower can make a down payment as low as 3.5%, vs. the 20% required to get a mortgage without paying for mortgage insurance, or the 10% minimum down payment required for a conventional mortgage, which requires borrower-paid mortgage insurance.  Now, pay attention to the numbers, please.

An FHA borrower can qualify with a credit score (a measure of the borrower's creditworthiness based on credit usage and history) as low as 580, which falls into the "Poor" range, and may indicate past defaults and bankruptcies.  The average credit score for FHA borrowers is 679, which falls into the "Fair" range.

So here's the idea behind the program: borrowers whose credit scores wouldn't otherwise qualify them for a mortgage, and who don't have the money to make a 10% down payment, can get a mortgage and buy a home.  It's not a bad idea.  In fact, my first mortgage loan was an FHA loan.  Not all FHA borrowers have low credit scores, they just can't afford a 10% down payment on their first house - at least without mommy-and-daddy money, which many don't have access to.  But on average, FHA borrowers have lower credit scores.

But there's increased risk involved: clearly, given their credit scores, FHA borrowers are more likely to default.  In fact, the FHA default rate today - well after the crisis - is 36% for loans issued at the apex of the crisis in 2007.

Do you get the significance of that?  More than a third of FHA loans granted in 2007 are in default today.  That's a whole lot of risk - risk to be borne by you and me, the taxpayers.  (Even if FHA doesn't exhaust its reserves, our tax dollars still fund it, so either way, we're on the hook for the defaults.)

But the risk doesn't end there.  Since the down payment is smaller, there's a greater risk of not being able to recover the full loan amount, through foreclosure and sale, in the event of a default.  If home prices fall, the value of the home is more likely to fall below the resale value than with a conventional mortgage.  Home prices need only fall by 4% for the house to be underwater, vs. more than 10% for a conventional loan.  And post-housing crisis, people are far more likely to default if their home's value falls below the loan balance than was true prior to the crisis.  (This is now called a "strategic default."  It used to be called "financial irresponsibility.")

Or, if the borrower doesn't take care of the home, in the event of a default and foreclosure, the lender may not be able to sell the loan at market value, which again can result in not being able to recover the full balance of the loan.

So, since the borrower is more risky, said borrower is asked to share in the risk by paying a mortgage insurance premium.  The insurance policy pays the lender back in full if the borrower defaults.  So the lender isn't on the hook, the insurer is - in this case, FHA (which means you and me, the taxpayer).

Okay, let's turn to some numbers.  There's a maximum amount for FHA loans, which prevents the program from being abused by borrowers of more significant means, or by higher-risk borrowers that try to leverage themselves into more home than they're going to be able to afford.  The maximum varies by state and county, based on home prices.  For my home county of Johnson County, KS, the 2017 maximum is $308,200 for a single-family home.  For reference, this is 31% higher than the median price for an existing home in the U.S.  We'll look at the impact of the rescission of President Obama's premium cut on a loan of both values, but first, let's compare the FHA premium to mortgage insurance premiums on conventional loans.

For conventional loans, mortgage insurance isn't required if the borrower puts up at least a 20% down payment.  The logic behind this is that a loan-to-value (LTV) of 80% (100% minus a 20% down payment) affords sufficient protection to the lender that mortgage insurance isn't necessary.  If the borrower makes a smaller down payment (the minimum is 10% for a conventional mortgage), mortgage insurance is required.

Those premiums range from .32% to 1.20%.  Note that the percentage is applied to the principal balance of the loan, as an annual amount.  This amount is divided by 12 and added to the monthly payment.  The premium range above is based on credit score, whether the loan is fixed-rate or adjustable-rate (adjustable-rate loans are riskier as the borrower may default when the rate adjusts upward, resulting in a higher monthly payment that the borrower may not be able to afford), and the down payment (between the 10% minimum and the 20% at which mortgage insurance isn't required).

So the average premium on a conventional loan, with 10% down, is .76%, compared with the pre-Obama executive order rate for FHA loans of .85%.  In other words, if I put 10% down on a home and have a "Good" credit score, I pay only .09% less in mortgage insurance premium than a borrower who puts down 3.5% and has a "Poor" credit score.

That .09% difference isn't nearly enough to make up for the additional risk.  And Obama's order would have meant that more risky borrower, with the "Poor" credit score and who put just 3.5% down, would pay .16% less in mortgage insurance premium than the higher-quality borrower with more skin in the game.

That doesn't begin to cover the additional risk associated with an FHA loan, and thus it puts the taxpayer at risk.  Nor does it make sense: should a driver with a clean driving record pay a lower premium for auto insurance than a driver with a bunch of tickets and accidents on his record, who presents a higher risk of future accidents?

Okay, now to the calculations.  A premium of .85% on the maximum FHA loan amount in Johnson County, KS equates to $218.33 added to the borrower's monthly payment.  A premium of .60% equates to $154.10.  Thus the difference is $64.23.

Or, if we assume a 3.5% down payment on the national median existing home price, the loan balance would be $226,678.50.  On that balance, a .85% premium adds $160.56 to the monthly payment; a .60% premium adds $113.34, for a difference of $47.22.

Folks, if $47 to $64 a month means the difference between being able to buy a home or not, you're probably not ready to be a homeowner.  Save a little more money, or wait until your income is a little higher.  Then you can actually afford a house.

Now, the National Association of Realtors (NAR) stated that rescinding President Obama's order would result in some 40,000 people a year not being able to buy a home (yet).  Looking at the numbers, those are 40,000 people who aren't yet ready to be homeowners.  But note that it's the job of the NAR - a trade association for realtors - to lobby hard for anything that results in realtors making more money by selling more houses, with no regard for what happens to those homeowners, the lenders, the FHA or taxpayers as a result.

Suffice it to say that the NAR's chief economist proclaimed that the housing market was in recovery in 2009, when in fact it was still in free-fall.  Promising news for realtors, but far from the truth.

Also, consider this.  Existing home sales in November 2016 (the most recent data) reached a post-crisis high of an annualized 5.61 million units.  (We use existing home sales because most FHA borrowers don't buy newly-built homes.)  And since most FHA borrowers are first-time buyers (and those are the folks that the sensationalist reports focus on), let's apply to that number the first-time buyer rate of 32% of all home buyers.  That's about 1.8 million first-time buyers a year.

So, if we believe the NAR, just 40,000 of 1.8 million borrowers - about 2% - might not be able to buy a home if the mortgage insurance premium is .85% instead of .60%.  Considering that there are about 122 million Americans who pay federal income tax and are thus on the hook for FHA defaults, I'm okay with that.

The bottom line is that a mortgage insurance premium of .60% for an FHA loan not only is insufficient to cover the increased risk of an FHA loan, it's less than the average mortgage insurance premium paid by borrowers who put down nearly three times as much, and have credit scores more than 100 points higher.  That's not equitable to those borrowers or to taxpayers.

President Obama's intentions were good, but he was attempting to tinker with numbers that he apparently didn't understand, in order to increase homeownership.  The homeownership rate historically trended around 65%, and for good reason: some people just aren't ready to be homeowners (like those who can't afford an extra $47 a month to cover the risk of their own loans).

When politicians attempt to tinker with that natural trend - as Barney Frank, Maxine Waters and Chris Dodd, the architects of the housing crisis, did in the early 2000s - disaster can result.  The trend in homeownership rates is mean-reverting, so when you artificially boost it higher, something will happen to revert it to the mean - defaults and foreclosures, in this instance.  But first, it may revert well below the mean, as happened in the recent crisis.

The Fed recently increased interest rates by .25%.  That will do far more to price would-be homeowners out of the market than holding the FHA mortgage insurance premium at .85%, because it affects ALL homebuyers, not just FHA borrowers.  But no one is calling for Janet Yellen's scalp for raising rates.

Likewise, home prices rose by more than 5% over the past year, and that too will do more to price would-be buyers out of the market than yesterday's executive action, because again, it affects ALL homebuyers.  But nobody's bitching about the housing market regaining strength.

So Elizabeth Warren et al can crow all they want about what a heinous act this is.  But if they understood the math and the risks involved, they might think better.

Know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.

Methinks Thou Doth Protest Too Much

First, let me say that I respect the right of every American to engage in peaceful protest.  Many of my relatives, including my Dad, put themselves in harm's way to protect that right.

This post is about the reasons behind the protests and the outcome thereof.

From the time of Donald Trump's candidacy, the left turned out in droves to protest at his rallies and events.  Granted, many of them were paid by organized left-wing organizations, intending to disrupt his candidacy.

I'll also grant you that a number of his supporters also engaged in hooliganism, sometimes with his encouragement.  That encouragement is one of the reasons I couldn't bring myself to vote for him.

The protests intensified when he won the GOP nomination.  Protesters attempted to block people who wanted to hear what he had to say - some of whom had not yet made up their minds, but merely wanted to hear both candidates' views from their own mouths - from their equally hard-won right to hear him.

That's plain wrong.  There's an old saying about rights:  Your right to punch me in the face ends at my nose.  In other words, you have your rights, but when the exercise of your rights infringes upon mine, you no longer have your rights in that regard.  It's like the right-of-way at a roundabout or a four-way stop.

To not want people to hear what a political candidate might have to say borders on totalitarianism.  Had Trump supporters attempted to block people from hearing what Hillary had to say at her rallies, Godwin's Law would have been invoked post-haste.

At a protest in my home metro of Kansas City, a young woman actually punched a police horse in the jaw, for which she earned a face full of pepper spray.

My punishment would have been more severe:  mucking out the police horse stables, clad in shorts and barefoot, on her hands and knees.  With a spoon.  Ten hours a day for a year.

What was the outcome of those protests?  Nada.  Trump won the general election by a very comfortable electoral vote margin.

So the protesters turned to protesting the electoral system, saying that presidential elections should be decided by the popular vote.  Clearly, they didn't think it through (most of them couldn't even articulate the reasons behind the brilliantly designed electoral system, nor explain the distinction between federalism and a republic of states).  They didn't consider the ramifications of allowing some 50 U.S. counties to dictate who would lead the 3,000+ counties that make up this nation.

Nor would they.  All they care about is ensuring that a Democrat always occupies the White House.  But more on that later.  The bottom line is that the same people who called for replacing the electoral college with the popular vote would run headlong in the other direction if a Democrat won the electoral vote but lost the popular vote.  They would become the electoral college's staunchest defenders.

So, the protesters next turned their attention to the electors.  Electors in states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania - states that typically vote blue - received email, regular mail, phone calls and death threats.  At least one of them was stalked in his car.  They were implored to vote against the will of the majority of voters in their states, which would have represented an absolution of their duty.

Unsurprisingly, Hollywood got involved.  A bunch of celebrities, most of whom nobody recognized, led by Martin Sheen (you know, Charlie's dad - ever wonder where Charlie got his crazy?), made a video insisting that the electors be "patriots" and "do their duty."  In other words, they wanted them to absolve their obligation to vote the will of the majority of voters in their states, instead honoring the will of a handful of Hollywood celebrities.

Sadly, some of the electoral votes were public.  And the protesters showed up there, too.  In Wisconsin, after the electors fulfilled their responsibility, one apparently deranged woman jumped to her feet, screaming, "This is MY America!"

It reminded me of another crazy - Stephen the Irishman of Braveheart fame - when he declared, speaking of Ireland, "It's my island!"

The electors in all states did their jobs - in fact, more faithless electors abandoned Hillary than did Trump - and Trump won the electoral vote, fair and square.

So the protesters next turned their attention to the confirmation hearings of Trump appointees.  A guy in a KKK outfit showed up at Jeff Sessions' hearing (the same Jeff Sessions who bankrupted the Klan in Alabama).  Another seemingly deranged woman showed up at Rex Tillerson's hearing.  How did these people get in the room to begin with?

Bold prediction: the outcome of those protests will be nil.  Once the Dems have exacted their pound of flesh in terms of confirming Trump's appointees more slowly than the GOP confirmed Obama's, we're going to see every single Trump nominee confirmed.

So that brought us to Inauguration Day.  As if they could change the course of history, reverse a process to which America has held true since George Washington left office, they protested the inauguration.  It turned predictably violent.  They smashed the windows of a Starbucks.

Guess they really needed their hot cocoa.

But - Donald Trump was sworn in.  He is now President of the United States.  And guess what, protesters?  You can carry your signs and chant "Not my President" all you want, but until you renounce your citizenship, he is your President.  Just as Barack Obama was mine, in spite of my strong disagreement with his policies.

Let me explain what irks me the most about the inaugural protests.  Donald Trump is a businessman.  His campaign cost vastly less than Hillary Clinton's, yet he defeated her.  His transition came in ahead of schedule and under budget, and the new administration returned the unused funds to the Treasury, saving you and me, as taxpayers, millions of dollars.

This is what businessmen do.  Politicians don't care what their transitions and inaugurations cost.  To them, taxpayer money grows on trees.  But a businessman who's used to negotiating with contractors to build hotels ahead of schedule and under budget pays attention to the bottom line.  That's how Trump has been able to already get Boeing to agree to building Air Force One and fighter jets below the cost that America has paid in the past.  Previous Presidents didn't care what Boeing charged, they just paid the tab.  Trump negotiates.  And we the taxpayers benefit.

Likewise, his inauguration was intended to be frugal.  He had three inaugural balls, compared with double-digit numbers of balls for his three predecessors.  However, his inauguration was the most costly on record, at $200 million.  Why?

Increased security in preparation for the protesters, who, true to form, resorted to violence.  Last I heard, two D.C. policemen have been hospitalized as a result.  So these sore losers have cost you and me money.  That pisses me off.

And I say "sore losers" because what these protests are really about is the fact that too many on the left cannot accept the outcome of a free and fair election, if in that election, a Democrat does not win.  They want the White House in perpetuity.  They care not about the quality of leadership, but about the letter behind the name.

I have no doubt that the level of vitriol would not be as high if the Republican that won were not Donald Trump, who admittedly has been over the top in many of the things he said during the campaign.

But the vitriol would still be there.  The left will protest every election that does not go their way until the end of time.

That's okay.  The outcome will be the same.  Protest all they may, they will occasionally lose.  And no amount of signs, marches, broken windows or punched horses will affect that outcome.

Excuses Are Like ...

You know the saying:  "Excuses are like (a part of the anatomy that rhymes with "grass pole") - everybody's got one."  Except in the case of the Democrats' excuses for why Hillary lost the election, the saying should be "Excuses are like the hairs on your head," because there are so doggone many of them.

On this inauguration eve, let's enumerate them as we know them - debunking them along the way - then present the real reasons Hillary lost the election.

1. The Russian Email Hack.  I already debunked this in a previous post, so let's just summarize.  It's highly unlikely that the contents of those emails swayed Hillary voters to change their minds and vote for Trump in sufficient numbers to carry traditionally blue states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.  But if they did, it was the contents that swayed the voters, not the fact of the hack.  Those contents have never been disputed by the Clinton campaign, the DNC, or any rational liberal (wait, was that an oxymoron?).  And those contents revealed that the DNC conspired against Bernie Sanders in the primaries, that Clinton staffers insulted Catholics and Latinos, and that DNC chair Donna Brazile obtained debate questions and provided them to Clinton in advance.  In other words, Clinton and the DNC are just pissed that they got caught.
2. James Comey's revelation that the FBI was re-opening the Clinton email investigation following the discovery of 650,000 emails on Anthony Weiner's laptop.  I debunked that one, too, so another summary: Clinton should never have used a private email server, and could have had no plausible reason to other than to either hide information from the government, or share government information with whomever she pleased.  The Weiner emails might well have been relevant.  And Comey claimed, at the 11th hour, that the emails had all been reviewed (650,000 emails in about a week - riiight) and that the investigation was once again closed.  So any fence-sitters would know going into the polls that Hillary had yet again been exonerated by the FBI (which, by the way, operates under the purview of the same Attorney General who met on an airplane with Clinton's husband, former President Bill Clinton, purportedly to talk about grandkids and golf).  So they'd have had no reason to vote against Hillary on the basis of Comey's earlier revelation that the investigation was re-opened, because it was closed prior to the opening of the polls on election day.
3. Bill Clinton blamed it on "angry white men."  Like the angry white man who wagged his finger at an interviewer and stated, "I did not ... have sex ... with that woman"?  Of all the people I know that voted for Trump, not one would I characterize as angry, and a number of them were women.  Bill of all people should know the difference between a man and a woman.

So why did Hillary really lose the election?  My underlying premise is that that's exactly what happened: those who voted for Trump were primarily voting against her, not for him.  She lost, more than he won.  Here's why, in order of importance:

1. This election was about a repudiation of the Obama presidency.  I don't mean this as a slam on Obama per se; this happens regularly in U.S. politics.  Many people were tired of Bush II after eight years, so they voted against the Republicans.  Obama was the Democrat candidate, so he won.  Often, after eight years of one party being in power, people want a change of direction, so they vote for one.  Note also that while Obama won re-election in 2012 by a wider margin of victory than his initial win in 2008 (thanks in part to record-low voter turnout on the part of Republicans in 2012, which was to some degree due to the fact that Mit Romney generated as much excitement as drying paint), Obama's platform continually cost the Democrats.  First in the 2010 mid-terms, then in the 2012 down-ticket races, then en masse in the 2014 mid-terms.  Finally, in 2016, Obama's party lost the White House, seats in both houses of Congress, and large numbers of seats in state legislatures and governorships.  In all those elections, the voters spoke loud and clear regarding Obama's policies.
2. Hillary's baggage.  Corruption has followed her throughout her political career, and America did not trust her.
3. The fact that Hillary is, and always has been, one of the most polarizing figures in American politics.  She's as caustic as sulfuric acid.
4. The fact that Hillary, in her elitist arrogance, took flyover states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania (the land of Obama's "God and guns" clingers) for granted, assuming they were forever blue.  So she ignored them, instead campaigning in places like Florida, but also in California and New York.  Why she campaigned in the latter two states - other than to hobnob with her buddies - is beyond me, as the population centers in those states will never vote red.  In other words, Hillary's campaign strategy was about as effective as Obama's foreign policy.

Oh, the left will blame it on everything but the truth.  And that's okay.  As long as they ignore the truth, they'll continue to make the same mistakes, and that'll make it harder for them to regain power.

After all, those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

More Musings on the HEARings

First up: the grilling of DOCTOR Tom Price, the nominee for HHS Secretary (I capitalized DOCTOR to emphasize that he's more qualified than anyone questioning him to serve in this role).

Sen. Al Franken went for an "aha" moment when he revealed that Dr. Price (himself a member of the House since leaving private practice) had owned stock in a tobacco company, thereby profiting off the misery of millions of people who willingly buy cigarettes and somehow wind up with lung cancer.

Oh, the humanity.

But the "aha" turned out to be on Franken, when the committee chairman later noted that Franken, through a mutual fund he owned, also invested in the same tobacco company.

Oops.

Only Democrats would elect a comedian to the Senate.  This is not meant to disparage all Democrats, as I do not believe all Democrats would elect a comedian to the Senate.  However, I can't find one comedian that Republicans elected to the Senate.  Well, I guess they did elect a pro wrestler, Jesse Ventura, as governor.  But both Franken and Ventura were elected in Minnesota, so maybe it's just a Minnesota thing.  By the time election day rolls around there, it's so darn cold that it's hard to think straight.

Franken's best work was as Stuart Smalley, and it's all been downhill from there.  Maybe he'll run for President.  His campaign slogan can be, "I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me!"

Next, the vapid questions the Senators ask.  "If confirmed, will you uphold the responsibilities of your office?"

"No, I plan to ride my Big Wheel through the streets of D.C. while singing 'Close to You' at the top of my lungs."

Sheesh.

But again, it's all about scoring sound bites.  All of the nominees will be confirmed.

Finally, along the same lines, why do the questions begin with a lengthy soliloquy stating the questioner's own positions on the issues that will face the nominee?  They're not up for confirmation, are they?

It's because they want to score those sound bites, and they love nothing more than the sound of their own voices.

You know how to get a Senator to come and talk to you?  Bring out a TV camera and a microphone.

One final related note: in his press briefing, Press Secretary Sean Spicer was asked why Mr. Trump was planning to stay in his own hotel the night before the inauguration.  Another brilliant question.

Um, gee, could it be because a) the White House's current occupants won't have moved out yet, and b) he can stay at his own hotel for free, thereby not costing the taxpayers any money, since he's there to be inaugurated as President and thus is there on our dime?

The fact of the matter is that Trump could sleep with the homeless in Franklin Square, and Democrats would fine some nefarious intent.

An Illegitimate President?

Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) has decided to boycott President-elect Donald Trump's inauguration, citing as his reason that Trump is "an illegitimate President."  The stated reasons for his assertion are that Russia interfered with our election by hacking DNC emails and exposing their contents to voters, and FBI Director James Comey's revelation that an additional 650,000 emails had been found on Anthony Weiner's laptop, both coming in the waning days of the Presidential election.  According to Lewis, these factors apparently are what resulted in Trump's electoral victory.

In the interview with liberal TV commentator Chuck Todd of NBC and MSNBC (the media mouthpiece of the Democrat party), Lewis also noted that this would be the first inauguration he's missed in his 31 years in Congress.

John Lewis is a lying partisan hack.

I don't say that to disrespect his status as a civil rights hero.  His partisanship and dishonesty have done enough to tarnish any good he may have done in the past.

See, Lewis has missed another inauguration during his tenure in the House - namely, that of George W. Bush.  His reason?  That Bush was not a legitimate President, because of the imbroglio over the Florida election (which Al Gore challenged in the courts - after he'd already conceded - and lost).

In other words, when a Democrat loses a close election to a Republican - especially if said Democrat won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote, as did both Gore and Hillary Clinton - Lewis pouts, like so many of his party brethren who don't like democracy and can't stand not getting their way.  His motives are purely partisan, and nothing more.

But let's give this civil rights hero-cum lying partisan hack the undeserved benefit of the doubt, and examine his assertions that purportedly support his charge of illegitimacy.

First, the Russian hack.  To date, we the people have not seen evidence of it, but given that the Russians and Chinese successfully hacked U.S. institutions from the Energy Department to the White House (with no strong response from the Obama administration), it's certainly plausible.

Those who state it as fact also go on to say that nothing happens in Russia without Vladimir Putin's knowledge and approval, thus Putin himself must have ordered the hack.

Really?  Nothing goes on in a country with nearly twice the land mass of the U.S., and 144 million people, without its President's knowledge and approval?  Do you think nothing happens in the U.S. without President Obama's approval?  Did Obama know of and approve the numerous hacks of U.S. financial institutions?

Granted, Russia is a very different nation, and Putin a very different leader, than the U.S. and Obama.  But if Putin knew everything that goes on in Russia, the CIA wouldn't have Russian citizens who serve as informants, and I guarantee they do, just as the FSS has American assets (without President Obama's knowledge, at least of who and where they are).

Also, why would Russia want Donald Trump as President vs. Hillary Clinton?  The U.S., under President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton, stood idly and fecklessly by as Putin took ever-bolder moves on the world stage.  You'd think Putin would want such a passive leader in the White House, one that wouldn't stand up to him as he continued to reinstate Russia as a dominant global power.  Not a guy who has named tough-minded generals to head the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security, another hawkish general as his National Security Advisor, and a West Point grad and Army officer who patrolled the Iron Curtain as CIA Director.

Then there's the fact that Russians also attempted to hack the RNC, but the RNC's firewalls were apparently better, because those attempts were thwarted.  Maybe we should support the party that has proven it can safeguard its information from foreign interests.

If Russia (officially) did hack the DNC - with or without Putin's knowledge and consent - the fact that they also tried to hack the RNC only proves that Russia was attempting to undermine America's confidence in its election process and its candidates, not that it favored one candidate over the other.  That's bad, and we should retaliate (with more than just sanctions).  But it doesn't render illegitimate the fair and proper election of the candidate that won the majority of the electoral votes.

There are those who claim that Trump himself asked Putin to hack the DNC when he made a comment in jest during a July 27 speech, saying he hoped Russia found the thousands of emails that Clinton deleted from her private server, which never should have been used by a Secretary of State.  (Note that Trump indicated that Russia would be rewarded mightily by U.S. media if it did uncover those emails - not that Russia would be rewarded by his administration, if elected.)

Yeah, right.  Trump's going to ask Putin to hack the DNC in front of millions of TV viewers.  I'm sometimes amazed at the complete and utter lack of logic that permeates the left.  I shouldn't be, but I am.

And there are the assertions that Trump is fond of Putin, that he thinks highly of him.  BS.  All Trump said was that Putin is a stronger leader than Obama.

That's like saying that Serena Williams is a better tennis player than me.  Heck, the President of France is a stronger leader than Obama - at least he's not afraid to utter the words "radical Islamic terrorism."

And what about the appointment of Rex Tillerson, former CEO of Exxon Mobil, as Secretary of State?  The left has made much of the fact that Putin awarded Tillerson the Order of Friendship,  Of course, that means that Tillerson will remain friendly to Russia in his new role as head of the State Department, right?.  I mean, in his previous role, his job was to make Russia happy enough to let Exxon Mobil profit from developing Russian oilfields.  Why wouldn't he pursue the same objectives as America's top diplomat?

Again, I'm sometimes amazed by the ... ah, never mind.

The key point is this: I don't know anyone who voted for Trump that was swayed by the release of the contents of the emails that were allegedly hacked by Russia.  However, I concede that some voters may have been.  But enough to carry traditional blue states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania?

And what if those emails did sway that many voters?  What, specifically, were they swayed by?  The mere fact that DNC emails were hacked?

No, they'd have been swayed by the contents of those emails, which clearly proved rampant campaign corruption perpetrated by the Democrat Party.  Those contents have never been disputed by the left - not once.  In other words, they're only upset that they got caught, like any common criminal.

They revealed that, under the chairmanship of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the DNC conspired to rig the primary debates to favor Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders.  That, after Wasserman Schultz' fall from grace, new DNC chair Donna Brazile obtained debate questions from CNN and provided them to Clinton in advance of the general election debate.  That Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, naively susceptible to phishing, had emails that revealed everything from Clinton's support for a no-fly zone in Syria (which would also make Putin very happy) to Clinton staffers insulting Catholics and Latinos.

As Kevin Bacon said in A Few Good Men, "These are the facts - and they are indisputable."

So if anything related to the Russian hack of the DNC influenced the U.S. Presidential election, it was the clear and compelling evidence of rampant corruption within the Clinton campaign and the Democrat Party structure.

And that's information that voters should have had going into the election.  So if anything, this only shows that Russia cares more about American voters knowing the truth than do the DNC and Hillary Clinton.

On to James Comey.  What the Democrats don't say is that, immediately before the election, Comey made a public statement that the FBI had reviewed all 650,000 emails obtained from Weiner's laptop (I cringe at even using the words "Weiner" and "laptop" in the same sentence), in a mere matter of days - a Herculean, if not impossible, task - and had found no evidence of wrongdoing.

In other words, the FBI cleared Hillary, just as it had back in June.

Now, if voters were undecided walking into the polls, does it not stand to reason that, Hillary having been exonerated not once, but twice, before the polls opened on November 8, they'd have breathed a sigh of relief and cast their votes in her favor?  After all, to not do so would be to question Comey's veracity in exonerating her.  But if they did that, why wouldn't they question his veracity when he made his earlier statement saying they'd found all those emails and were re-opening the investigation into Clinton?

Ah, there's that pesky logic thing again.

After Lewis' interview with Chuck Todd, Trump (inappropriately, in my view) lambasted Lewis on (what else?) Twitter.  The response from the left was immediate, vitriolic - and opportunistic.

At this writing, 68 Congressional Democrats have joined Lewis in a show of "solidarity," pledging to boycott the inauguration.  At least one of them said, "To attack John Lewis is to attack America," referring to Trump's tweet - which was a response, not an opening volley.

Hmm.  Seems to me that attempting to disrupt the orderly transfer of power - a vital and necessary part of our republican (note the little "r," liberals) process - is more an attack on America than is a counter-attack on a partisan hack.

But again, this is pure partisan opportunism.  It gives these left-wing sore losers an excuse to boycott the inauguration, an excuse they'd all been no doubt looking for, because they cannot accept the results of a free and fair election.

Donald Trump won the election.  He won a strong majority of the electoral votes.  He won somewhere in the neighborhood of 2,600 U.S. counties to Hillary's 500 counties.  Hillary won 88 of the nation's 100 most populous counties, which resulted in her three million vote advantage in the popular vote.  Without those 100 counties, Hillary would have lost the popular vote by more than 11 million votes.

Only those in New York, Hollywood and San Francisco believe that the popular vote should decide U.S. elections (and if a Republican had won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote, those leftists would defend the electoral college to the death - if they had the guts to defend anything to the death).
Like it or not, Donald Trump won a free and fair election.  Subsequent challenges to that election found that his popular vote count actually increased in Wisconsin, and that there were polling areas in Detroit - which Hillary carried - in which more votes were cast than there were registered voters.  Had we recounted all states, we might well have found that Trump won the popular vote as well, and that there was widespread evidence of voting fraud in the areas Hillary carried.

That undisputed electoral victory is all that is needed to declare Trump the legitimate next President of these United States.  And those Democrat lawmakers who will boycott his inauguration do so at their peril.  They believe they're safe, as all of them are from districts that Hillary carried (further proof that this is nothing more than partisan posturing).  But Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania looked like locks for Hillary, too.  Americans are tired of politics as usual.  These fake protesters in Congress risk being taken to task in the midterms.

And beyond that, they're irrelevant.  The GOP controls the House and Senate, not just the White House.  These representatives will find themselves fighting a losing cause for at least the next two years, and likely beyond.  All Donald Trump needs to do is to recite a line uttered by President Obama after he was sworn in in 2009, when GOP lawmakers urged him to work with them:

"We won."

On Hillary Clinton

There was no way in the world I was going to vote for Hillary Clinton.  Not if she was the only candidate in the race.  Not if she personally came to the polling booth and held a gun to my head (given her track record, I would have assumed her to be no more adept at firing a weapon than she was at operating a subway turnstile).

No. Flipping. Way.

It had nothing to do with anything James Comey said in the waning days of the campaign, and it had nothing to do with the damning - and true - content of the emails that the Russians allegedly hacked.  The decision was made before she announced her candidacy (because we've all known she would, since the day she left the White House as First "Lady"), and it was based on the following.

First, I'm tired of the same scions of the Washington power elite holding sway over our government, and over we the people.  In my estimation, JFK was a good President.  A Democrat with cojones when it comes to foreign policy (in other words, an extinct species).  His brother Bobby would have been President had he not been assassinated, and he probably would have been a good one, too.

Then there was Teddy, who tried to get elected President, but the albatross that was Chappaquiddick hung around his neck.  Probably a good thing for America, because Teddy was no John or Bobby.  He inherited the Kennedy philandering gene, but he wasn't the sharpest crayon in the Kennedy box.  For the last 64 years, Washington has had at least one member of the Kennedy clan in public office.  Enough, already.

Then came Poppy Bush, whose son George W. would overshadow his father's one-term presidency with two terms of his own.  And Jeb ran in the most recent election.  (Neil might have, too, if not for his own albatross, the Silverado Savings and Loan debacle.)

Then Bill Clinton.  As noted above, it was clear from the day they left the White House that Hillary would run for President.  That was the pact they made for her standing by her man through the Monica Lewinsky affair (among others).  But more on that later.

And now we have speculation that Michelle Obama will run in 2020.  Why is it that just a small cadre of powerful political families find their way to the White House?  How about a return to the notion of public service as a stint, and not a career?  We seem to be handing down the Oval Office the way New York City cabbies used to hand down their taxi medallions, before the Uber disruption.  (Maybe the Trump disruption will break this pattern.)

Second, Hillary is and has always been a political chameleon, willing to do or say anything to get elected.  She cared only about that - her being elected President - and nothing more.  After leaving the White House, she went carpet-bagging to New York - a place she'd never called home - because there was an open Senate seat in a district that was as blue as Frank Sinatra's eyes.

During her Presidential campaigns, whether it was affecting a southern accent when stumping down South, or conjuring up alligator tears at a coffee klatch attending by a group of women, to make herself appear as though she had a softer, feminine side, she play-acted at whatever role she thought might garner votes.  In the most recent election, she started out by saying that she wasn't going to be President Obama's third term; she was going to be her own woman.  Then, when she realized she needed Obama's supporters to beat Bernie, she did an about-face and made her candidacy all about being his third term.

Which is yet another reason I'd have never voted for her.

Then there's the utter disrespect she showed for the office and institution of the Presidency as she and her husband were leaving the White House,  It was reported at that time that she encouraged staffers to remove the "W" keys from computer keyboards, and one staffer supposedly defecated in a potted plant, with her knowledge.  She also stole china and silverware from Air Force One when she and Bill were dropped off at Andrews Air Force Base (where he staged his now-infamous speech that was intended to upstage the incoming President's inaugural address - so much for the peaceful transition of power).

Then there's her track record.  She was an active First Lady, trying - and failing - to bring about health care reform.  (That HillaryCare could fail more miserably than Obamacare - Democrats controlled both houses of Congress when her plan was shelved - should tell us something.)  Upon winning election to the gimme Senate seat she moved to New York to pursue, her record of missed votes was - well, nearly a record.  She missed almost 10% of votes during her time in the Senate, vs. the average of 2%.  During her failed primary run against Obama in the 2008 election, she missed, on average, nearly 60% of votes.

Moreover, only five bills she sponsored were enacted: two bills to rename Postal Services facilities after military personnel, a bill to establish the former home of Kate Mullany as a National Historic Site (Ms. Mullany started the all-woman Collar Laundry Union in Troy, NY), a bill to rename a portion of state highway near Buffalo after the late journalist Tim Russert, and the Pediatric Research Equity Act, the lone piece of meaningful legislation that she successfully sponsored.

Woo-hoo.  You go, girl.  (Though I was a big admirer of Tim Russert - objective journalism died with him.  His book, "Big Russ and Me," is a great read.)

Then there was the failed presidential bid, after which Obama named her Secretary of State, presumably to keep her from trying to run against him in the 2012 primary.  Highlights of her tenure in that role?  The failed "Russian Reset" and Benghazi.

Next, there are the scandals that have plagued her throughout her life: Whitewater.  Her role in trying to suppress Bill's many sexual conquests, both in Little Rock and in Washington.  The Clinton Foundation.  The private e-mail server, and transmission of numerous classified documents using it.  (Some on the left chalk all this up to Fox News, laughably; "If Fox News says all this stuff about you long enough, people are bound to believe it.  Riiiight.  Where there's smoke, there's fire.  And none of these scandals were invented - there's evidence to clearly prove them out.)

Also, there's her extreme partisanship.  From the vandalism of the White House in response to Al Gore losing to George W. Bush, to her labeling Trump supporters as "deplorable," she has nothing but the most extreme disregard for anyone who isn't a registered Democrat.  And there's the extreme liberal positions of her early days as an attorney.

Finally, though, comes what was my greatest fear should she have been elected: having to listen to that horrible screeching voice for four or eight years, as she shouted her way through every speech.  (I don't want to invoke Godwin's Law here, but I can only think of one other leader in the last 100 years who shouted speeches like that.)

So I had plenty of reasons not to vote for Hillary, and nary a one to vote for her.

In fact, of the people I know who planned to vote for her, I only know of three reasons I ever heard stated:

1. She's a Democrat, and I only vote for Democrats.
2. She's not Donald Trump.
3. She's a woman, and America is ready for its first woman President.

The first point doesn't resonate with me, as I detest partisanship and straight party-line voting.  And on the second, there were other alternatives to her and Trump, as my own vote bore out.

As to the third point: yes, I believe America is more than ready for its first female President.  And, as I've stated before, I'd have voted for Carly Fiorina in a heartbeat.

But we as a nation have experience with electing someone as the first President from a particular demographic, just for the sake of electing the first President from that demographic.

And that didn't work out so well.

More on Trump

A few points I forgot, that I had intended to include in my earlier post (my memory not being what it once was).

Yes, I was disgusted by Trump's apparently mocking a disabled reporter who criticized him.  And while much of what he said about securing our border was spun out of all context, I believe he made some generalizations that border on bigotry, and I don't condone bigotry.  (For the record, nor do I believe all Muslims mean us harm - but I absolutely know that our government can't distinguish between those who do and those who don't.)

I'm also reminded of Hillary Clinton calling anyone who DARED not vote for her "deplorable."  And I recall the candidate Barack Obama calling anyone in Pennsylvania who DARED not vote for him basically a redneck "clinging to their God and their guns."

Folks, bigotry is bigotry, and it's not bound by skin color or faith tradition.  Don't you think for a minute that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton aren't bigoted against what they see as the unenlightened, unwashed masses.  And they obviously lash out against those who don't support them, just as Donald Trump does.  They just do it with a tad more civility - a tad, mind you.

But that mask of civility is transparent, exposing the ugly face of bigotry behind it.

I was also appalled at Trump's remarks about Megyn Kelly, and no, I'm not for a second fooled by his claim that he didn't mean what we all know he meant.  As for his comments about women and his past exploits, while I have disdain for them, I've heard similar things from many men throughout my life.

As for the women who came out of the woodwork in the weeks before the election, I don't believe them for a minute.  Their sudden emergence at the 11th hour is suspect, something the left turns a blind eye toward, while they blame Hillary's loss on the 11th-hour comments by James Comey.  And today, where are those women?  They seem to have disappeared.  Gennifer Flowers didn't disappear after accusing Bill Clinton of rape.  But these women have vanished - probably to a nice beach after cashing their Clinton Foundation check.

Finally, there have been philanderers in the White House before.  Remember Bill Clinton?  To the left, "it was just a bj."  However, he committed an act unbecoming of the office.  Moreover, he committed what for most managers would be the most grievous of offenses.

When I was a CEO, I had a severance agreement and a deferred compensation plan.  I could be fired for running the firm into the ground, and those commitments would still have had to be honored.  However, my contract had a moral turpitude clause.  If I'd committed some sleazy act that tarnished the company's image, I'd have not only been fired, I'd have lost my severance and deferred comp.

Bill Clinton was guilty of sexual harassment.  Monica Lewinsky was a government employee, and as the Chief Executive of America, Inc., Clinton was her ultimate boss.  He abused his power and had sexual relations with her in the Oval Office.  If I'd diddled my secretary on my desk, I'd have violated my moral turpitude clause.  Case closed.

And JFK turned the White House into a whorehouse.  His presidency is viewed by the left as some Camelot fantasy - and he was a good President - but cavorting with starlets lined up by your Hollywood relative, refusing to stop the sexual activity even when the First Lady's plane had landed, only ushering them out of the White House when her Secret Service escort radioed that her motorcade was within minutes of the building, is again conduct unbecoming the office.

So while I'm bothered by a lot of things about Trump, we've seen the same - or worse - from previous occupants of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

And the indignant left gives them a pass.

On Donald Trump

I didn't vote for Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election.  (I didn't vote for Hillary Clinton either, but I'll address the reasons for that in another post.)

I knew going into this election that there was no way I would ever vote for Hillary Clinton, and Bernie's positions are so diametrically opposed to everything I believe that I couldn't have voted for him, either.

I liked several of the primary candidates on the GOP ticket.  Rubio looked good to me, until Chris Christie completely dismantled him in one of the debates.  I thought Carly Fiorina's grasp of the issues and ideas for solutions were excellent, and if she'd emerged victorious in the primaries, I'd have voted for her.  (I guess that dispels the myth that everyone who didn't vote for Hillary is a sexist pig.)

Ted Cruz came across like a smarmy televangelist to me, and Kasich was just a male Hillary with an R behind his name.  The last thing I wanted was more of the same.  And I really loved Christie's response to a debate question regarding how we restore the public's confidence in and support for the military: by having a Commander-in-Chief who supports the military, something that's been lacking these last eight years.

And then there was Trump.  Childish, misogynistic, and woefully lacking in details regarding what he'd do ("We're gonna have a plan, it's gonna be a great plan, you're gonna love our plan ...").  His personal, juvenile attacks on anyone who disagreed with him.  His arguing with Rubio about penis size in a presidential debate, for crying out loud.

Don't get me wrong, I agreed with a number of his positions, more so than I did with Hillary.  We desperately need comprehensive tax reform in America, and we need competitive corporate tax rates if we're going to stem the tide of off-shoring jobs and capital.  Obamacare is a miserable failure that needs to be dismantled and replaced with something sane, something that works.  Our military needs to be strengthened, and we need to reverse the fecklessness of our foreign policy.  And I don't know how effective "The Wall" would be, but we definitely need to address our decades-old illegal immigration problem.

On occasion, Trump would articulate one of his positions in a manner that got me thinking, "Yeah, I could get behind this guy."  Then he'd devolve back into playground mode with a childish barb at someone who dared disagree with him.  His rally speeches were meandering exercises in vagueness and self-aggrandizement.  He seemed to measure his success by the number of people who attended his rallies.

And so, once more, I'd revert to my original position: "I just can't."

However, come Friday, he will be my President.  (He'll be yours, too, so long as you retain American citizenship, and no amount of denial on your part can change that.)  I'm rooting for him, just as I rooted for Obama after his inauguration.  I hope things turn out better this time.

And I believe they will.  Trump has assembled the strongest bench I've seen in Washington in my lifetime.  I believe that's his ultimate strength: using his connections and his persuasiveness to build strong leadership teams, like any successful businessman has to be able to do.  It's okay if his grasp of the issues and the minutiae of the solutions we need aren't down-in-the-weeds detailed, so long as the people that surround him know the issues cold, and can develop the right solutions.  As CEO of a brokerage firm, I didn't have a strong grasp of the regulatory issues - I didn't want to.  But I had a damn good compliance officer who did, so I was able to sleep at night.

I expect Trump to be more hands-off, serving as the face and the voice of the Presidency (which ensures that the next four or eight years will be damned entertaining, to say the least).  I don't see him driving us headlong into nuclear war, as some partisan sensationalists do.  His personal wealth is tied up in real estate assets in major markets that would be prime targets in a retaliatory action.  Would he really jeopardize his money, which seems to be the most important thing in the world to him, besides his family?

And I expect the team around him will do an excellent job of executing the initiatives set forth in the campaign.  Those on the left don't want to see that happen, but that's life in a republic.

So in the end, no, I didn't vote for The Donald.  But I'm looking forward to watching his administration restore the America that I love to its proper position on the world stage.  It won't be easy, but few things that are necessary and worthwhile ever are.

Musings on the Confirmation HEARings

Why HEARings?  The idea comes from my lovely wife, who is much more brilliant and witty than I (and a whole lot easier on the eyes).  She believes they're called "hearings" because the sole purpose is for the Senators asking the questions to be heard, to toss out sound bites that can be used to further their own political careers.

I wonder why we don't just give them five minutes each to pontificate, and approve all the nominees by acclamation.

My musings based on what I've heard thus far:

·         I'd rather have Jeff Sessions, Rex Tillerson, Gen. Mattis, Mike Pompeo, and Dr. Carson in their respective roles than any of the people lobbing questions at them.

·         On Rex Tillerson: why not a business executive as Secretary of State?  Speaking from experience, as a CEO you have to excel at diplomacy and negotiation - and Tillerson was CEO of a far larger organization than I was, with global reach, nearly 10,000 employees, a more knowledgeable board of directors, and more assets and income to manage.  He's had to make deals with heads of state, from both friendly nations like Canada and hostile ones like Russia.

·         I had to laugh when ranking member Ben Cardin tried to school Tillerson on what he'd face as Secretary of State: being in charge of a very large organization with some of the most talented employees in their field.  Yeah, I think he's got that role knocked, Senator.  Exxon Mobil has a few pretty smart engineers in its employ, and about three times the State Department's workforce.

·         When Tillerson was asked about his views on sanctions when he was at Exxon Mobil vs. now, I thought his answer was very good: appropriate sanctions, properly targeted and broadly supported by allies, can be effective.  His opposition was to the weak and one-sided sanctions that have been deployed over the past eight years, that served to harm U.S. business interests while benefitting the target nations.  But if I were him, I'd have simply pointed out that my views as head of one organization, with one set of priorities, might differ from my views as head of another with a very different set of priorities.  What, do they think that if he'd left Exxon Mobil to go to British Petroleum he'd continue to serve the interests of Exxon Mobil?

·         I had to cringe when Marco Rubio (who's apparently forgotten that he's not campaigning anymore - or maybe he is) tried to get Tillerson to label Putin a war criminal.  When Tillerson said he'd have to see the evidence, Marco basically said it can be found in news reports.  Yeah, Marco, that's a really good idea: an incoming administration labeling a foreign head of state a war criminal based on what the media says.  (For the record, he probably is, but if I were the Secretary of State nominee, I'd want to see the evidence - in the form of credible intel - before I applied the label.  Isn't diplomacy part of the job?)  If that's Marco's tack, thank goodness he lost the primary.

·         Cory Booker became the first sitting Senator to testify against another sitting Senator - Sessions - in a confirmation hearing.  We know this, because before deciding to testify, Booker's office researched the Senate records to make sure he was.  While his testimony was largely benign, only implicitly accusing the guy who desegregated schools in Alabama and bankrupted the KKK there of being a racist, it was clearly political opportunism.  Booker might as well have just announced his candidacy for President in 2020.

·         Mattis will be one hell of a Defense Secretary.  We want him on that wall, we need him on that wall.

·         Pompeo is a smart dude, and will bring a sense of humor and humility to a tough job.

·         Ben Carson at HUD is a head-scratcher to some, but smart people can figure out how to run divergent organizations.  Probably better than politicians can.

·         How can all those deranged nutbags get into a room where a bunch of our elected leaders are sitting (I mean the protestors, not the Senators)?  Was there some Democrat aide in the back of the room opening the door at opportune times?  I'm glad none of them was wearing a Semtex vest.  Sheesh, just close the hearings to everyone but the cameramen, for crying out loud.

The End of an Error

I'm not going to be watching President Obama's farewell address tonight.  I know what he's going to say, and I can parse that from the truth of the matter (this is not a specific slam against the outgoing POTUS per se; all politicians' speeches require - for those informed and not partisan - some degree of ability to parse truth).

I do feel somewhat vindicated that his Presidency turned out exactly as I expected it would when he first ran for the office in 2007.  I predicted that this was a candidate who lacked the requisite experience to fulfill his charge.  And his record has lived down to that expectation.

President Obama began his career as a community organizer - a somewhat nebulous job title.  Oh, I can study what he actually did in the role, but I struggle to see it as a solid foundation for taking on the role of leader of the free world some 24 years later.  (To be fair, I became a CEO at the age of 39, and 24 years earlier I was a high school student whose guidance counselor advised him to not waste his time on college prep courses, because he'd never go to college.  However, it's what I did in the interim -  including two college degrees and some very relevant job experience - that mattered in the end.)

So what did Mr. Obama do in the interim?  Well, after three years of community organizing, he went to Harvard Law School - quite an achievement in its own right.  He then taught at the University of Chicago Law School, another venerable institution, for 12 years, while remaining politically active.  So by the ripe old age of 35, his resume included community organizer, attorney, and toiling in the ivory tower of academia.

Then, he ran for the Senate in his home state of Illinois.  A consummate campaigner, he was elected in 1996 and re-elected in 1998 and 2002.  He took a detour to campaign for the U.S. House of Representatives in 2000, but lost.  Even as he was gaining re-election in 2002, he had begun an exploratory campaign to seek a U.S. Senate seat, which he ran for beginning in 2003, winning election in 2004.

Eight years, five political campaigns.  Given the time required to devote to a political campaign, one is left to wonder how he had time to actually serve his constituents.

Two years after being sworn in as a U.S. Senator, he announced his candidacy for POTUS.  He missed 38% of Senate votes in 2007, and 64% in 2008.  But he gave a great speech as the keynote speaker at the 2004 DNC, which solidified his position as a rising star in the Democrat party.  And, he would be our nation's first African-American President, which was also compelling.

And thus my concerns back in 2007.  Like many Americans, I believed we were more than ready for an African-American President.  But I didn't want us to pick just any candidate to fulfill that place in history.  Let's have someone with the necessary experience, I silently pleaded.  Not someone whose greatest demonstrated abilities to date were public speaking and campaigning.

He's certainly good at both.  I recall listening to his inaugural address, thinking, "Maybe I was wrong."  It sure sounded good.  But after it was over, a nagging line from "Braveheart" crept into my head:  "Fine speech - now what?"

And the "now what" has exposed his inexperience.  Yes, the economy is stronger today than when he took office.  As I've noted previously, it's a fool's errand to assume a cause-and-effect relationship there.  Considering where the economy was when he took office, my dog Max could have been President for the ensuing eight years, and the economy would have improved (especially with the help of a Fed that held rates at zero for a period of time equal to the prior three interest rate cycles combined, and pumped three trillion dollars into the economy).

Obamacare?  A noble idea, horribly executed.  (As a former CEO, I know that's the clearest sign of inexperience: smart people - which Obama certainly is - coming up with great ideas, but screwing the pooch when it comes to execution.)

Foreign policy?  Feckless and lacking direction.  Again, a sure sign of inexperience:  "What should we do?  Hal?  Hal?" (another movie reference, by the way).

And on and on.

So, President Obama has proven to be everything I expected him to be, and disappointingly, nothing more: a compelling speaker (with a teleprompter), a consummate campaigner, but sorely lacking in the experience needed to lead, to manage, to execute.

I also expected him to be the most divisive President to date, and he's fulfilled those expectations as well.  We are more divided - left and right, black and white, rich and poor - than we've been since the '60s.

We the people should have known better than to commit this error (twice).  Mr. Obama's campaign refrains were even more vague than Donald Trump's, and that's saying something:

1.  "The failed policies of the last eight years."  (That one would be repeated throughout his first term, as President Bush was blamed for everything from the housing bubble to shooting J.R.)

2.  "Hope and Change."  (We hoped; nothing changed.)

3.  "Yes We Can."  (Borrowed from Bob the Builder.)

Mr. Obama began his presidency with the now-infamous apology tour, where he visited leaders around the world, apologizing for America being America.  Guys like Vladimir Putin, Hu Jintao, Kim Yong-Nam, and the ayatollahs began salivating.

He's ending it with a world tour of defending his record, trying to preserve his legacy.  Good luck with that.  Since the election, he's used the pen and the phone to do all he can to make it more difficult for the PEOTUS to unravel that legacy, but it's inevitable - and necessary.  That's what he'll be doing tonight.  I've heard it before, and I know better.

I heard today that a bunch of Hollywood celebrities have put together a video celebrating his presidency.  Stars like Ellen Degeneres talking about what a good dancer he is, and other substantive accolades.  And it gave me a thought.

President Obama has enjoyed rubbing shoulders with those celebrities during the past eight years.  He's relished appearances with everyone from Jimmy Kimmel to GloZell, the youtube vlogger who drank cereal from a bathtub and snorted cinnamon.  In fact, celebrities may be the only group in America that can look at President Obama and say, "Yeah, he's one of us."

That's when it occurred to me: President Obama used his presidency to become a celebrity.  Donald Trump used his celebrity to become President.  Thus far, that may be the greatest difference between them.

Let's hope and pray it doesn't stay that way.

U.S. Foreign Policy: A Primer

Just a few quick lunchtime thoughts on current American foreign policy, in a nutshell:

Russia invades Ukraine, steals Crimea.
U.S. response: give Ukraine $1 billion, threaten Russia with sanctions, say Russia shouldn't have done that.

Russia hacks into various U.S. government agency databases, including (possibly) the Department of Energy and the White House.
U.S. response: Obama tells Putin, "Cut it out."  (This wasn't effective diplomacy when my brother and I used to fight in the back seat of the car on vacation; I hardly believe it'll be effective when dealing with the likes of Putin.)

Russia allegedly hacks into the Democrat National Committee email servers, exposing the truth about the Clinton campaign, and resulting in the blame for her loss in the Presidential election being pointed at the alleged hack.  (I'll have more to say about the alleged hack and the reasons for the election results in a later post.
U.S. response:  "SANCTIONS!!  BY ALL THAT IS RIGHTEOUS AND HOLY, THERE WILL BE SANCTIONS!!!"

And there you have it, boys and girls.  Invade other countries, annex their lands, and we shake a finger.  Hack into actual government databases, and we say "cut it out."  But hack into our sacred party's cesspool of evidence of back-room plotting and dealing, and you'll get a reaction.

The Golden Globes

First, let me say I didn't watch the Golden Globes.  I never would.  I'm not into star-worship.  I don't care who has a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.  I don't get all weepy when we lose a Carrie Fisher to cardiac arrest at age 60, or a Debbie Reynolds to intracerebral hemorrhage at age 81.  (I don't mean to sound insensitive; it's just that I'm more affected by losing unnamed children at the hands of a suicide bomber, or innocents waiting for their luggage in an airport baggage claim area, than I am by some celebrity dying of a natural cause at a ripe old age, having enjoyed a full and blessed life.)  I don't scream my angst at 2016 for taking so many stars from us, when so many other lives have been lost.  Think Chicago.

A few days ago, my wife and I watched an excellent film on Netflix, "Spotlight."  I had no idea that it had won Best Picture at the Oscars last year.  I couldn't care less.  Most of the Best Picture winners I've seen have been hot garbage, and I've seen a good many enjoyable films that the Oscars didn't sniff.

It's entertainment, after all, and, like beauty, it's in the eye of the beholder.

However, perusing Facebook the morning after the Golden Globes, I did read of much of the hoopla that emanated from it.  So I feel compelled to opine.  First, with a message for Meryl Streep.  Then, with a message for Hollywood in general.  And finally, with a message for Alec Baldwin.

Ms. Streep: let me first say that more people watch football than have seen your films.  I'm sure that sticks in your elitist craw, but it's fact.  (By the way, you were a cheerleader, so at some point, football was important for you, if only in terms of getting you noticed; while the players on the field did the actual work, you got some attention for doing high kicks and shaking your pom-poms on the sideline.)

Second, let me say that what you do is not "art," it's entertainment.  You started your career in theater - that comes closer to art, and I say that as someone who's been involved in theater, and has seen some wonderful (and disappointing) shows on Broadway, the West End in London, and other venues.

However, you detoured into film - presumably for the money.  I don't hold that against you; greed isn't a bad thing, in my view.  However, if you insist on defending movies as "art," how do you justify "Waterworld?"  "Baseketballs?"  The Freddy Krueger movies?  The upcoming "Fist Fight?"

Ah, you say haughtily, but I would never participate in such films.  Okay, how about "The House of the Spirits?"  "Before and After?"  Or "The Bridges of Madison County," that tribute to the romanticism of marital infidelity?

Sorry, Meryl.  You're no artist.  You're a for-profit entertainer.

And on that note, this is how I feel about entertainers.  You make a ton of money pretending to do what the rest of us do, day in and day out, in real life.  Which you apparently don't have the skills or talent or knowledge to do yourselves.  Sure, you can play make believe.  We've all done that, as kids, when we were growing up.  But then we grew up, and made a positive contribution to our society and our economy, while you continued to play-act, to entertain.

That's okay.  That's your job.  It's what I and other hard-working Americans pay you to do.  So do it, already.  Get on that stage or behind that camera and do what I pay you to do: pretend to be something you could never be in real life, but that I and others can be.  Make us laugh.  Make us cry.  Inspire us.  Entertain us.  Give us an escape from the hard work that we do.

Then shut up.  Get back in your box until we're ready to bring you out again, for our pleasure, to entertain us once more.  Because, you see, you don't exist in our consciousness until we invite you to, by going to a theater.  And once the final credits have scrolled, you cease to exist in our consciousness once again.  You are as unimportant as a book that we'll read, enjoy, then sell in a garage sale for a quarter.  (And the book is always better than the movie.)  You are as forgotten as the popcorn we consumed.

If we want your opinion on world events, the political scene, or any other important issue, we'll be the first to let you know.  Until then, do the job we pay you to do, be thankful that we pay you to do it, appreciate that we forgive your occasional bombs as we enjoy your occasional successes, then keep your views to yourself.  We don't care.  You are our entertainers, like so many monkeys as we grind the organ, and you are otherwise inconsequential.

Finally, to Alec Baldwin.  You are unfunny.  You are at your best when you're in a serious role - Ghosts of Mississippi comes to mind - but apparently Hollywood isn't interested in that from you anymore.  Maybe you're washed up in that regard.  Now, you come across as one of those guys desperately trying to be funny, but missing the mark.  You've been relegated to such roles as providing a voice in a Spongebob Squarepants movie.  How proud of your "art" you must be.  You even sucked in those credit card ads, so much so that Jennifer Garner had to come in and replace you.

As you bash Donald Trump (with the worst Trump impersonation ever - Darrell Hammond was far, far better), we're reminded of those sordid recorded voicemails you left threatening your daughter.  At least Trump loves his kids, even if he's divorced from their mother.

Remember, Hollywood, you are my plaything.  I can take you out of your box and play with you - paying to do so, which provides you with a livelihood, for which I'd like some gratitude - or I can ignore you.  Either way, at the end of it, back in the box you go, until I'm ready to be entertained again, at the time of my choosing.  Not yours.  Why?

Because in the grand scheme of things, you are unimportant.