I Hold These Truths To Be Self-Evident (But Many Apparently Don't)

I'm writing this on election eve, 2018. As you head to the polls tomorrow (or, if you voted early, as you watch the election coverage on TV and follow the myriad social media rants about it), remember these truths:

• All politicians lie, at all levels, from both parties (and the Independents and "secondary" parties). To wit (and I could go much further back in history, and deeper down the level of elected official, but this will at least get you started):
• "This is the biggest tax cut in our nation's history."
• "You can keep your health care plan and your doctor."
• "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."
• "Read my lips: no new taxes."
• All Presidents blame their predecessor for everything that goes wrong during their administration, and they've begun taking credit for everything that goes right under the subsequent administration. There are some kernels of truth in that, but most of it is BS, and it's self-serving at best.
• If the Democrats win control of the House, the Senate, or both, the world as we know it will not end. Nor will it end if they don't. You'll still have your family, your home, your health and your puppies. (Or kitties, if you're a cat person - and if you are, I love you anyway.)
• Increasingly, each party, once it regains control of the House, the Senate, the White House, or any combination thereof, spends most of its political capital trying to undo whatever the previous House, Senate or Administration did. (Some of this is okay in terms of bad policies, but much of it has become about nothing more than undoing the previous legacy, like little kids who win at a playground game suddenly deciding to re-write the rules because, hey, they won.) And they do it because we not only let them, we encourage them. It's time to move forward, and to break the cycle of doing and undoing the same old stuff.
• Journalism is dead. All media reporting is biased. We choose our outlets to affirm us, not to inform us. If you want the truth, research relentlessly, fact-check suspiciously, and go to source documents when they're available. Take time to read them fully. Do it with an open mind. Check your bias at the door. Be willing to have your mind changed.
• Nazis are Nazis, Hitler was Hitler, the Mafia is the Mafia, fascists are fascists. Just because you're a member of one party or the other doesn't necessarily mean you fall into one of those groups. Similarly, the overwhelming majority of Republicans are not racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, or evil, but a small number undoubtedly are. At the same time, a small number of Democrats undoubtedly are racist, sexist, anti-Semitic or evil, though the overwhelming majority of Democrats are not. If you claim otherwise, you're painting with too broad a brush.
• Everyone should vote their conscience, and if they do, there is no wrong in the way they vote. So don't try to claim that if someone votes for candidates you oppose that those voters are wrong, bad, evil, Nazis, racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, fascist, or that they should be ashamed of themselves, or shouldn't be able to live with themselves, or sleep at night. Bash all the candidates you want, but if you value your right to vote, respect everyone else's. Be glad they exercised their hard-fought right to vote in the first place, and don't denounce them because they don't see the world as you see it. Our brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, grandparents and ancestors didn't fight on the battlefield or in the suffrage or civil rights movements to earn us the right to vote Democrat or Republican; they fought to secure us the right to vote as we choose. Group-think only exists within Communism, and even then it's not voluntary. So embrace our differences and understand that what unites us is far greater than what divides us.
• Social media has gotten way out of hand. So pledge to avoid the memes (I'm tempted to embark on a mission to correct every misinformed or just plain false meme I see on social media, but I won't; I don't want to alienate my friends, and I don't have that much free time), the extreme, over-the-top name-calling (see the sixth bullet point above), and the extreme rhetoric. Stick to the facts. Keep calm. Self-medicate if you need to. Remember that it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth (or keyboard) and remove all doubt, and that we rarely regret what we didn't say.
• Political rhetoric has gotten out of hand as well. Don't let that justify stooping to the level of a Donald Trump or a Maxine Waters. What-aboutism is a dangerous disease, and if you don't innoculate yourself against it, you risk atrophy of the soul.
• As a friend once said, no one is as bad as you think they are, and no one is as good as you think they are.
• At the end of the day, Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, white or black, male or female, gay or straight, young or old, Christian, Jew, Muslim or atheist, we are all Americans. It's high time we started acting like it again.

My Biggest Mid-Term Nightmare

With less than a week to the 2018 mid-term elections, there's a lot to talk about. The 24/7 cable news cycle is moving fast these days, and it's hard for a busy Curmudgeon to keep up. There's a lot to be said, but I want to cut to the chase and address the most frightening scenario from the mid-terms, at least to me.

No, this election isn't about immigration, illegal or otherwise. It isn't about the 14th Amendment, the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court, legal abortion, Socialism, the media, rhetoric, protests, or even the current state of the economy, at least not to me.

It's about what happens if we wind up with a Democrat majority in the House, the Senate, or both.

Don't get me wrong; the prospect of that in and of itself does not frighten me. See, I've lived through Democrat majorities in both houses of Congress, Democrats in the White House, and a liberal majority on the Supreme Court. I've lived through elections where the people I voted for lost.

And, you know what? I never cried the next day. I never even got angry. I never believed that life as we know it would end. Heck, I never even worried that our Republic as we know it would end.

No, I just said, "Oh well," hoped for the best, prepared to be disappointed in this policy decision or that, and worked to jump over whatever hurdle was placed in front of me: high taxes, excessive regulations, rapidly rising health care premiums, whatever.

(The same can probably be said for most Republican voters - I've never seen huge marches and protests and general outrage after Democrats took control of the House, the Senate or the White House. I guess that's another distinction between the two parties today. Republicans accept the outcome of the election and move on.)

The worst thing to me isn't the fact that Washington would basically get nothing done for the next two years; we've seen that before. I understand why that's a good thing to Dems: they don't want any aspect of Trump's agenda, be it immigration reform, health care reform, spending cuts, or further tax cuts, to succeed. That's okay, there's still the veto.

The most frightening thing to me isn't Sen. Schumer or Rep. Pelosi having the gavel they so covet. (Actually, Rep. Pelosi, who seems to wax near-orgasmic when talking about the gavel, may not get it even if the Dems win the House. And Schumer spends as much time in front of the camera now as he would if he were Majority Leader. Let's face it, the only thing he loves more than the gavel is the microphone.)

It's not Feinstein as Judiciary Committee Chair. The only Justice likely to leave the bench in the next couple of years is RBG, and I don't think Feinstein could find a more liberal judge to replace her. Besides, the appointment wouldn't be Feinstein's to make. The worst she could do is engineer another hijacking of an appointment.

(A quick aside about Feinstein: even if we accept the premise that she didn't leak Dr. Ford's letter, she at a minimum failed to safeguard it. I work in the area of risk management for credit unions, and their biggest concern these days is cyber-risk, of ensuring the security of their members' data. If my credit union gives my data to a fraudster, it is liable. However, if it doesn't adequately safeguard my data and a hacker gets his hands on it, guess what? The credit union is still liable. Failing to safeguard confidential information is nearly as bad as deliberately releasing it, and makes one no less culpable.)

No, it's Maxine "you're not welcome anywhere, anymore" Waters. But not because she advocates public harassment of anyone you disagree with. Not because she calls for impeachment as frequently as a chain smoker coughs.

It's because she'd be Chair of the House Financial Services Committee.

Why is that my biggest fear, you ask? Well, I'm a finance guy, and I know the importance to the overall health of the economy of the financial sector, and the importance to the country of a healthy economy.

The current chair, Rep. Jeb Hensarling, has an economics degree and has run businesses in the financial sector. Rep. Waters has a sociology degree and, since earning it, has been in politics. She's never worked in the financial sector. (Prior to earning her degree, she was a garment worker, a telephone operator and a teacher - all noble professions, but perhaps not adequate preparation for governing our financial sector.)

The biggest issue is her role in creating the housing crisis that led to the most severe economic downturn in most of our lifetimes, one that put millions out of work, caused thousands to lose their homes, and cost workers and retirees untold sums from their retirement savings.

So sit back, grab a drink, and let the Curmudgeon take you on a history of the true genesis of the housing crisis. (Take a break here, if you need to, and don't keep reading if you just want to take my assertions at face value. But if you want to really understand the housing crisis, read on. This is the Curmudgeon's area of expertise.)

*************************

In the olden days, before I was even a Curmudgeon, lenders kept all the mortgage loans they made on their books. Then, in the 1960s, they began packaging and selling them as mortgage-backed securities (MBS). In the 1980s, investment banks began slicing and dicing the cash flows from mortgages into bonds with different characteristics intended for investors with different needs, and those bonds were called collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs). I won't burden you with the complexities of these bonds, but I spent most of my career intimately involved in analyzing, buying and selling, managing, and hedging MBS and CMOs. I know the difference between a sticky jump-Z, a residual, and a busted PAC. I've built mortgage prepayment models. I get this stuff.

Initially, virtually all MBS and CMOs were issued by the Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA, or Ginnie Mae), a government agency backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, which only bought and packaged FHA and VA mortgages; the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA, or Fannie Mae), a quasi-agency backed by the implied full faith and credit of the government, which bought "conventional" mortgages; and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC, or Freddie Mac), another quasi-agency backed by the implied full faith and credit of the government and which also bought "conventional" mortgages.

What's important about this?

• All three agencies have the explicit or implicit backing of the U.S. government, and that means you, the taxpayer.
• All three bought high-quality, relatively safe mortgages.

In the case of Fannie and Freddie, "conventional" mortgages require sane down payments of at least 10%, or private mortgage insurance (PMI) for loans with lower down payments. All require proof of income and assets, and carry stringent underwriting guidelines intended to provide greater assurance of the borrower's ability to repay regardless of economic conditions. As a backstop, the down payment or PMI requirement covers the taxpayer in the event the borrower defaults. If the lender has to foreclose and sell the property, for example, the home's value would have to decline by more than 10% for the borrower - and by extension, Fannie and Freddie - to take a loss.

Ginnie, Fannie and Freddie also had minimum capital requirements as a further backstop against losses.

Now, in the aftermath of the dot-com recession of 2000-01, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan's Fed cut short-term interest rates to 1%, a previously unheard of level. That made mortgages very cheap - as low as 5-6%, which sounds high today but was unheard of until 2002. And the Greenspan Fed held rates at 1% longer than they should have. (For those of you lamenting that the Fed today is raising rates too fast, pay attention, and be careful what you wish for. Rates held artificially low for too long inflate bubbles.)

What resulted was a housing bubble of mammoth proportions. But it wasn't just cheap mortgages that were the problem. No, it was exacerbated by a handful of Democrat legislators who decided to erode the safety of the traditional, conventional mortgage, and put taxpayers at risk by loosening the standards for what kind of mortgages Fannie and Freddie could buy, all in the name of a social engineering experiment that attempted to alter the course of an immutable economic measure.

That measure is the homeownership rate. Throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, it remained range-bound at around 64%. Why not higher? Some people can't afford to buy a home, for example those just starting their careers. Some people shouldn't be homeowners - they don't have the financial wherewithal to make a mortgage payment and pay for the upkeep and insurance on a home.

This data series is naturally mean-reverting, meaning that there will always be about 35% of the population that can't afford a home, and shouldn't be trying to until they have the means. (That may sound heartless, but losing a home because you couldn't afford it in the first place is hardest on the homeowner, who loses their place of residence and suffers a major hit to their credit rating.) If you do something to artificially increase a mean-reverting series above its mean, there's going to be an inevitable and painful correction. Supply and demand rule. (Proof: after the correction that resulted from the housing crash, guess what the homeownership rate is today? About 64%.)

Beginning in 1995, the homeownership rate began to rise. This resulted from the Greenspan Fed cutting short-term rates to 3% in the wake of the 1990-91 recession, and again holding them there too long, which made mortgages historically cheap at that time. But then, in the early 2000s, Congress got involved, and made matters worse in the name of increasing homeownership.

First, they allowed mortgage lenders to dramatically relax their lending standards. They were able to make loans with no down payment, or even for more than the purchase price of the home. They didn't have to require proof of income or assets. They didn't have to meet total debt-to-income ratios. They didn't have to require PMI.

In other words, lenders were allowed to make loans for more than the value of the house, to people who didn't have the income to make the payments, who had no other assets, who had huge amounts of credit card and auto loan debt, and who didn't pay for PMI. They did this by structuring loans such that the borrower only paid interest for the first few years, then interest and principal payments would kick in. Or loans where the borrower paid no interest initially, then a rate of interest above the market rate kicked in. In both cases, those borrowers often found themselves unable to make those new, higher payments, and they'd default.

That kind of lending activity was crazy, but that alone wasn't sufficient to tank the economy and threaten the financial system. At that time, Fannie and Freddie couldn't buy those loans. The lenders couldn't hold them on their books beyond the ability of their capital to absorb the losses (and who in their right mind would want to hold those loans in portfolio anyway?). So they packaged them and sold them as MBS and CMOs.

But these were so-called private-label bonds. That meant that the issuer wasn't Fannie or Freddie, it was a mortgage company like Countrywide Mortgage or an investment bank like Bear Stearns, two firms who failed spectacularly in 2008. So the risk was isolated to those lenders and investment bankers who made or securitized or invested in private-label paper.

Then, Maxine Waters, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank stepped in. Dodd had a bachelor's degree in English Literature, and was Chair of the Senate Banking Committee. Frank had a degree in government, and chaired the House Financial Services Committee. Both were career politicians. Neither ever worked in the financial sector.

Dodd, Frank and Waters decided to try to increase the homeownership rate - a noble social cause for someone who's clueless about economics and mean reversion - by allowing Fannie and Freddie to buy the crap loans that lenders were now allowed to make, again thanks to the senseless relaxation of lending requirements by this triumvirate of morons. (The homeownership rate peaked at 69% in 2004, which proved unsustainable.)

Barney Frank went so far as to say, "When it comes to increasing the homeownership rate, I'm willing to gamble with the taxpayers' money." Folks, any politician who states a willingness to gamble with the taxpayers' money has abrogated his or her fiduciary duty to we the people, and should be run out of Washington post-haste. But Frank and his two compatriots did just that - they gambled with our money, and we lost. They didn't.

When Fannie and Freddie were allowed - even instructed - to buy these subprime mortgages, the volume mushroomed. The housing bubble ballooned, as more and more people bought houses they couldn't afford, while Fannie and Freddie supplied the liquidity to buy those loans. More investment banks bought and sold the crappy bonds that Fannie and Freddie were issuing. The ratings agencies slapped triple-A ratings on those bonds, because hey, they were issued by Fannie and Freddie. (And the ratings agencies themselves had their own corrupt conflicts of interest going on, but that's another story.)

The result was a catastrophe that we all remember, all too well. It wasn't the fault of investment banks, though they played a role. It wasn't the fault of predatory lenders, though they played a role. It wasn't the fault of real estate developers and builders, though they played a role. (So did thousands upon thousands of supposedly poor, unsuspecting borrowers who willingly and knowingly lied about their incomes in order to buy a McMansion that they knew they couldn't really afford.)

The genesis was the social experiment conducted by Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, and Maxine Waters at the taxpayers' expense. (I'll also lay blame at the feet of Republican lawmakers and President Bush, who let it all happen.)

Dodd is no longer in the Senate. Frank is no longer in the House. Neither was voted out; both retired.

Maxine Waters is still in the House, and she's poised to become the next Chair of the Financial Services Committee. Her total cluelessness about all things financial isn't the only thing that bothers me, nor is her role in creating the most recent financial crisis.

Just recently, she issued an ominous warning to banks and investment firms, telling them that she's going to hold that Chairmanship, and that when she does, "I'm going to do to you what you did to us."

Except she did it to us, not them. She paved the way for the housing collapse to happen. The banks and investment banks just did what she allowed, and even encouraged, them to do.

Even with all that, I'm not too worried. President Trump will still be able to veto any stupid thing she tries to do, whether it's increased regulations that would stifle growth, or relaxed regulation that would inflate another bubble.

But even if she does hold that position, and is able to somehow create another catastrophe for the U.S. economy, I won't lose sleep. I may move my retirement assets to cash. Or I may short the market, as I did in 2008, when I was able to earn a hefty return from the tanking market. I sure as hell won't take out a subprime mortgage loan to leverage myself into more house than I can afford.

Having said that, there are a lot of unsuspecting people out there who don't understand their finances, and might make bad decisions on the basis of Congress creating stupid financial rules. Just as Congress created the savings and loan crisis of the late 1980s, Congress - led by Maxine Waters and her ilk - created the housing crisis. Maxine Waters chairing the Financial Services Committee is the scariest thing about a "blue wave" that would result in the House changing hands, and it's reason enough for me to vote red in these mid-terms.

The Caravan

A few thoughts about the caravan of Hondurans heading to our southern border. First of all, I've seen numerous memes mis-characterizing this large group of migrants. Notable among them, one compared them to the Israelites fleeing Egypt and headed toward the Promised Land. The theme was that this was another group of migrants fleeing poverty. (I'm actually glad for that meme, but I'll get to the reason later.)

I guess I must have a bunch of defective Bibles in my house. Because the ones I have all say that the Israelites were fleeing slavery, not poverty. By all accounts, they were pretty well provided for in Egypt. But they were enslaved, so that's what Moses was sent to free them from. Guess I need one of those new Bibles that re-states the story to say they were fleeing poverty, and not slavery.

Another compares the caravan to a ship of immigrants headed to the U.S., probably in the late 1800s or early 1900s. Of course, those immigrants were headed to Ellis Island, to be processed under the rule of law as legal immigrants, and who would eventually seek and obtain citizenship. My own forebears were among their number.

See, this is where civil discourse fails. I'm completely willing to engage in reasoned discussion with anyone regarding the merits of illegal immigration. But when you lead by misrepresenting the facts of the matter, reasoned discourse is impossible. It breaks down before it can begin. There is no reason to be found in being unreasonable, in distorting the facts.

I'm willing to assume that the caravan does not contain gang members or Middle Easterners, even though on-ground reports have stated that among the caravan are people with gang tattoos. But that's not my issue with the caravan.

My issue is grounded in the rule of law. These people are purported to be refugees, asylum-seekers. The problem is that the left has no apparent inkling of the laws of the United States as they pertain to asylum, which states that asylum-seekers are fleeing religious or political persecution.

These people are not fleeing religious persecution. Honduras is a predominantly Catholic country, and I've seen no reports of persecution of Catholics in particular, or Christians in general, in that country.

Nor are they fleeing political persecution. Honduras is a democratic republic, as is the U.S., and appears to hold free and fair elections. There are no reports of political persecution in that country, contrary to, say, Iran or Russia.

No, they are fleeing poverty. They are seeking better economic opportunity in the U.S. Indeed, reporters who have gone to Mexico to interview them have asked why they want to go to the U.S., and all of the answers I've heard have indicated that they're seeking better economic opportunity.

As an aside, that should speak to the economic opportunity that America offers, which should be an argument in favor of the policies of the current administration. Yet the same people that argue that these immigrants should be allowed into the U.S. in the absence of any legal standing, would also have you believe that the current administration's economic policies are bad, and disadvantage U.S. citizens. Well, if those policies are bad for U.S. citizens, why do so many people want to risk life and limb to come here illegally?

Sorry, Dems; you can't have it both ways.

So my argument against allowing this large group to come here is based on the fact that they do not meet the well-established legal litmus test for asylum. Plain and simple.

I also won't call this an invasion, as some have; after all, these people do not appear to be armed. I do wonder how they manage to be so well-organized. Stories have been floated about that indicate they have been organized by special interest groups within Honduras, and may be funded by Venezuelan interests. I don't know whether that's true or not, or to what extent it is.

What I do know is that it seems highly unusual that 7,000+ people from Honduras could be so well-organized on their own. If it were that simple for the Honduran people to organize, one would think that they could organize in even larger numbers to bring about positive change in their country that perhaps might make it a better place to live.

It's also curious that they declined offers of amnesty by the Mexican government. Mexico is willing to take them in, and presumably offers better economic opportunity than Honduras, plus they could save a lot of walking by not having to come all the way to the U.S. Maybe they all have Fitbits and need the steps. I don't know.

Finally, the timing is also suspect. Why did they choose to make their exodus right before the U.S. midterm elections? They won't get here before election day, but the timing puts them front and center as an election issue. Interestingly, it's one that has at least as much chance of benefiting the GOP as it does the Democrats.

There will be scores of ACLU lawyers waiting just on the other side of the border to help them craft their stories, to help them shift from "I'm seeking better economic opportunities" to "I'm seeking asylum from persecution." It will be a colossal s***-show. I don't disagree with the decision to send troops to the border, but I do pray this doesn't turn into a staged humanitarian crisis for political gain by the left.

Beyond all that, I will say this: there may be instances of children being separated from the adults who bring them across the border, and that will naturally ignite the collective hair of the left. Of course, we don't know whether those adults are actually those children's parents, or whether they're just random people using the children to cross the border in hopes of being released with them, or - God forbid - whether they're human traffickers intent on selling those children into sexual slavery. (Don't scoff, my Democrat friends - it's happened. The cases are documented.)

So here's my question for the Dems: would you be willing to risk the chance that one child is trafficked into sexual slavery against the practice of separating children from adults at the border? Or is your opposition to "ripping babies from their mothers' arms" so absolute that you believe everyone who brings a child across the border should be kept with that child, and allowed to freely enter without deterrence, even if that child winds up being trafficked?

I'm not willing to risk one child being trafficked into the horror of sexual slavery. If you are, then what that child ultimately suffers is on your head. You bear responsibility for it. You choose.

And if that's your choice, then don't even begin to tell me that where Justice Brett Kavanaugh is concerned, you stand with "the victims," because your position on this matter demonstrates that you're willing to sacrifice the victims for your political position.

You can't have it both ways. You choose.

The Curmudgeon Offers a New Distinction

In a previous post, I offered a distinction between the Democrat and Republican parties, based on their respective platforms (in a nutshell, and based on what those platforms have traditionally been, and not what they have become in today's polarized world). Herewith, I offer a distinction based on the vitriolic rhetoric that has sadly overtaken our two-party system today.

Let's start with President Donald Trump. Yes, his rhetoric is over-the-top, as I've noted many times - in my most recent post, and in posts dating back to when he was a candidate, when I repeatedly criticized him. That rhetoric formed the foundation of why I ultimately found myself unable to vote for him, even as I knew that Hillary Clinton would have been an unmitigated disaster as a President - self-serving to the core, dishonest, and corrupt beyond perhaps any aspirant to the highest office in the land that this country has ever seen, at least in modern history.

That same candidate, now a washed-up political failure, recently stated that it is impossible to be civil toward those with whom you disagree, if you are a Democrat. She stated quite clearly that civility can only be re-introduced when the Dems control the House and the Senate.

No one - no one - on the left called her out for that outlandish statement.

Eric Holder offered that, if Republicans go low, Democrats should "kick them."

No one - no one - on the left called him out for that outlandish statement.

Sen. Cory "Spartacus" Booker extolled Democrats to "get in the face of" Republican elected officials.

No one - no one - on the left called him out for that outlandish statement.

Rep. Maxine Waters has repeatedly called for Democrats to harass Republican elected officials and cabinet members in public places. She has said explicitly that they should let those people know that "they are not welcome, anywhere," as if our public places - restaurants, gas stations, grocery stores - are the exclusive domain of Democrats, and that anyone whose opinion differs is not welcome in America.

No one - no one - on the left called her out for that outlandish statement.

We have seen groups of angry protesters (for the sake of argument, I won't call them "mobs," but this is the textbook definition of mob behavior) harass Republicans in public places, attempting to disrupt their peaceful meals with their families or other daily activities. This has happened to Ted Cruz, Betsy DeVos, Sarah Sanders, Mitch McConnell, Kirstjen Nielsen, and many others.

(I won't mention those who have been threatened with or have been victims of violence, such as the Trump family, Sen. Rand Paul and Sen. Susan Collins; I addressed that in my last post. Suffice it to say that that brand of crazy exists on both sides.)

Imagine you're out to dinner with your family at your favorite restaurant. You're minding your own business. You're not wearing your Obama hat. You're just trying to have a nice, quiet dinner with those closest to you.

Then some angry mob (okay, I said it) storms in and starts shouting at you, disrupting your family time. The management of the restaurant does nothing to stop it. You eventually have to get up and leave. Is that okay?

Here's the deal: we have never seen angry Republican protesters chase Democrat officials out of restaurants. Never.

We have never seen a Republican Senator or Representative condone such behavior, much less advocate it. Never. (Yet Cory Booker and Maxine Waters have.)

We have never seen an American university refuse to allow a liberal speaker to come to their campus to present his or her ideas to the student body. Never.

If that had ever happened, the Curmudgeon would have been the first to condemn it, because I respect each individual's right to believe what they want to believe. (For the record, Nancy Pelosi was chased out of a campaign event by protesters, and Maxine Waters, after she made the outrageous statement above, was hounded by a conservative in the halls of the Capitol. That's quite different from being harassed in public, when you're off the clock and dining with your family.)

I have been told (not to my face; oh, no; the left is far too passive-aggressive for that) that I should be ashamed for supporting this or that aspect of the current administration's agenda. How I can live with myself for that has been called into question.

So here's my message to you:

If you are a  Democrat, and you have ever posted a partisan comment or meme on social media, but have not condemned this behavior, you should be ashamed of yourself, and I don't know how you can live with yourself.

This is not America. This is not civil discourse. This is not democracy.

But Democrats, despite their party's name, have no interest in democracy. They are only interested in furthering their cause at all costs. They cannot accept the outcome of a free and fair election, or of the legitimate appointment of a Supreme Court Justice.

So, again, if you are a  Democrat, and you have ever posted a partisan comment or meme on social media, but have not condemned this behavior, you should be ashamed of yourself.

But I know you won't be.

That's okay. I'll be ashamed of you on your behalf.

The bottom line is this: we don't see this kind of behavior being conducted or condoned by Republicans, but we do see it being conducted and condoned by Democrats. (And yes, if you post your partisan crap on Facebook but don't condemn this, you're as guilty as those who do this stuff.) That is the clearest distinction between the two parties today.

Crazy Does As Crazy Is

I've been planning to post about the numerous confrontations of liberal protesters chasing Republican Senators, Representatives and cabinet members out of public places for a while now. However, a trip to California with my lovely wife took precedent over that post, and in the ensuing days, a disturbed individual sent a number of pipe bombs in the mail to prominent Democrats, including the Clintons, President Obama, George Soros, Robert DeNiro, and others. So I'm going to address that first, then we'll get to the public confrontations in another post.

I absolutely and unequivocally oppose political violence, harassment or threats of any kind, whether from Democrats or Republicans. And specifically, I hereby publicly denounce the actions of the mail bomb terrorist (I won't name him; he isn't deserving of the notoriety he sought).

I believe in civil discourse, which is in short supply these days. I believe in the free and fair exchange of ideas. I believe you ought to be able to be in favor of legal abortion, opposed to the Second Amendment, angry that Donald Trump is President, and upset that Brett Kavanaugh is a Supreme Court Justice, without fear of retribution, harassment, threats of violence, or even criticism for your views.

But at the same time, I expect you to believe in my right to oppose abortion, be in favor of the Second Amendment, supportive of many of President Trump's policies (if not the man himself, or his rhetoric), and glad that Brett Kavanaugh, a highly-qualified Constitutional jurist, is on the high court, without being criticized for my views. Fair enough?

I didn't think so.

Regarding the mail bomber, I reserved offering up an opinion until at least the basic facts were known, which made me a near-solitary voice in that regard. Now that he and his leanings are known, I will make these observations:

• The core issue is that this is an obviously disturbed individual.
• Yes, this was a partisan political act of terror (not "workplace violence," as the left characterized the radical Islamist San Bernardino shootings).
• So was the attempted homicide of 24 Republican Congressmen in 2017 while they were practicing for a bipartisan baseball game intended to bring the two parties together, a shooting that nearly killed Rep. Steve Scalise, and was perpetrated by a former Bernie Sanders campaign volunteer who was upset over the GOP's intent to repeal Obamacare.
• No one on the right - no one - blamed Bernie Sanders for that attack. Not Rep. Scalise. Not one Republican Senator or Representative. Not President Trump. Not one Fox News talking head, not even Sean Hannity, whom I can't stand, but who said on several occasions that it wasn't Sanders' fault.
• While the bombs were clearly not "hoax devices," as the FBI appropriately pointed out, it's unlikely the bomber intended them to detonate. No detonating devices were attached to them, unlike, say, the bombs mailed by Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, or the more recent Austin bomber. And the perpetrator clearly wanted to be caught - he had a prior record of bomb threats, and knew that his fingerprints were in the FBI database, yet he didn't use gloves: it was a latent fingerprint on one of the devices that ultimately led to his capture. The truth is that we will never know his motives; even after he's interrogated, he may not tell the truth, as admitting he intended for the bombs to detonate could result in a harsher penalty. But the bottom line is that no one was hurt, and for that I am thankful, and credit the response of law enforcement, which all too often gets a bum rap from the left.

So who's to blame? If you ask CNN or MSNBC, it's Donald Trump. However, just one day after Rep. Scalise was shot, Nancy Pelosi blamed that shooting on Donald Trump's rhetoric. Sorry, Dems; you can't have it both ways. Donald Trump, as distasteful as he usually is, is not the root of all evil in the world. There is partisan hatred on both sides (peruse Facebook if you don't believe me), and it has resulted in violence on both sides.

Let's break down the blame game, then we'll peel that onion back a layer at a time:

• We can blame Republicans en masse, but then we'd have to blame Democrats en masse for the Scalise shooting. We can take that to ridiculous extremes. Throughout the history of our republic, there have been 19 attempts or plots to assassinate Presidents, including four that were tragically successful. Of those 19, 11 of the targets were Republicans. So the math would tell us that Democrats are more likely to commit acts of political violence than Republicans. We could apply the same math to the fact that the Congressional shooter targeted 24 Republicans, while this bomber only targeted 13 Democrats. Extrapolating those numbers to a conclusion would only make sense to the left, but it doesn't work for them. The fact is that it's meaningless. Both sides have their crazies.
• We can blame Donald Trump's rhetoric. To be sure, it's over-the-top, excessive, and inflammatory. But Donald Trump has never advocated blowing anybody up. True, during his campaign he advocated or encouraged physical violence against some of the vocal protesters at his rallies. Yet there was little of that, and it was largely matched by violence from those on the left outside those rallies (including a woman here in Kansas City who actually punched a police horse). I hear arguments from the left that any encouragement of violence could ultimately escalate to the kind of violence that results in bombing, shootings, or other means of taking the lives of those with whom one disagrees. Fine. Then you must accept that calls for "getting in the faces" of Republican Senators or Representatives, as Cory Booker made, could also escalate into life-threatening violence. You must accept that calling for chasing Republicans out of public places, letting them know that they're "not welcome anywhere," as Maxine Waters, did (as if our public places are the exclusive domain of Democrats), could also escalate into life-threatening violence. Furthermore, Robert DeNiro, one of the bomb-package recipients, said "I'd like to punch Trump in the face." That, my friends, is advocating violence, and could spark some deranged individual to attempt assassination. (Which, sadly, would probably make too many on the left happy.) Others, including Madonna, have also suggested violence against the President, who has received a package containing castor beans, which are used to make ricin.
• We can blame Trump's characterization of the media as "the enemy of the people," and many have. But first, let's note that CNN was not actually one of the bomb mailer's targets. His very specific target was John Brennan, who happens to now work for CNN. CNN was just the mailing address used. This terrorist didn't actually target the network.
• We can blame cable news in general. While Trump's characterization noted above is over-the-top, his claims that the media is dishonest are clearly not. If you believe otherwise, you should be drug-tested. Fox on the right; CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS and others on the left; they all distort the truth at best, outright lie at worst, and inflame the worst of our biases, fears and anger.
• We can blame social media. All the memes, all the inflammatory posts, this blog and others - any could be read by a disturbed individual, and could so inflame that individual's partisan ire (Democrat or Republican) that he or she takes up a rifle and heads to a baseball field to kill Republicans, or makes a bunch of bombs and mails them to Democrats. Or shoots JFK. Or Ronald Reagan. If you make partisan posts on social media, you bear some responsibility. So do I, for posting on this blog.

Now, let's peel that onion:

• We have a two-party system. The two parties have disparate ideologies, which have grown further and further apart since I was a young curmudgeon. That's part of our political system. Does it contribute to incidents such as this? Yes. Should it be eliminated as a result? No.
• Trump's rhetoric is over-the-top. It often makes me cringe, shake my head, or feel embarrassed that he's our President. It's the reason I didn't vote for him. Yet the rhetoric of Booker and Waters as noted above; of Chuck Schumer, who has taken lying and spin to an art form; of Nancy Pelosi, whose incoherence is occasionally punctuated only by outrageousness; of John Brennan, who, in spite of having been CIA Director, apparently doesn't know the definition of treason; and of Madonna and DeNiro and Kathy Griffin and Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg and Alec Baldwin, who have apparently forgotten that their job is to entertain us, and if we want their political opinions we'll ask for them; is all equally over-the-top. Yet you don't hear the left complaining about their rhetoric. They either applaud it or laugh at it.
• We can blame cable news, but we're stuck with it. Suffice it to say that no one on cable news has advocated violence against those with whom you disagree (yet).
• And we can blame you and me. If you've ever posted a partisan thought or meme, you're part of the problem. I'm part of the problem for posting on this blog. Yet we all have free speech, and that's a right that is sacrosanct.

So what are we left with?

A deranged individual who committed a crime. This perp is no different than the guy who shot Rep. Scalise, or the guy who shot all the people at the concert in Las Vegas, or Charles Manson. They were all motivated by the voices in their heads, be they liberal, conservative, racist, motivated by hate, motivated by the Beatles, or just plain crazy. Blame guns, blame bombs, blame Trump, blame cable news, blame social media, blame you, blame me, yadda yadda yadda. In the end, there are crazy people in the world, and they do crazy things. This is one of those unfortunate incidents.

How the Curmudgeon Got His Mojo

Yes, the title of this post is homage to Rudyard Kipling, one of the favorite writers of my youth. At the end of this post, I'll pay further homage with what may be his best work, and a piece that is very timely for all of us today.

First, the Curmudgeon wishes to set forth some mea culpas. Foremost, I often accuse the left of painting with too broad a brush.

Well, I do it, too.

Many of my posts label all Democrats, liberals, and those on the left as the same. Yet I know many reasonable Democrats. Some of my best friends and dearest loved ones are registered Democrats. I myself was once a registered Democrat, as I'll point out below. It does sometimes seem to me that the percentage of reasonable Democrats is similar to the percentage of Elizabeth Warren's Native American DNA (which is less than mine, by the way).

However, that's probably not the case. And I also know that a good many conservatives and Republicans are also unreasonable, and post the same uninformed memes and articles that many on the left do. We are divided. It is ugly. It needs to change.

I don't believe it will.

Second, I respect those whose opinions differ from my own. They are among my cherished friends and loved ones. I love them no less, and I hope we can all still be friends, and that our love for one another will prevail over all else, including our ideological differences. There are those among my loved ones of whom I am very proud for their stands and their work against various injustices, some of which I agree with, some of which I don't. My respect for them is the same nonetheless.

And third, in case anyone has missed the point, I am sarcastic to a fault. So, much of what I say, while intentionally over the top, is said with a healthy dose of sarcasm. I hope we all can laugh at ourselves. I laugh at myself on a daily basis - then, at my advanced age, I usually forget why I'm laughing.

Now, let me address the topic of this post. How did the Curmudgeon become a curmudgeon? I'm not talking about the economic aspect; I've already explained that. But how did I become a conservative? I hope my account of this journey will serve as a lesson to younger readers (and maybe older ones), to think for yourself, to really examine the positions of the two parties that control so much of our lives (and probably shouldn't), and to wrestle with the issues and come to their own conclusions about what ideologies they support, and which ones they don't.

I grew up in a family of confirmed Democrats. My Dad was a Democrat - I'd call him a Truman Democrat; he was, as far as I know, a strict party-line voter, but I have to believe he'd be appalled at what that party has become today. I'm sure he was pro-Second Amendment, and was anti-legal abortion. I don't believe he'd have supported open borders, and I'd like to believe he'd be against shouting conservative politicians and cabinet members out of restaurants.

As a result of my upbringing, when I was old enough to vote, I registered as a Democrat. In the first Presidential election I was old enough to vote in, I voted for Jimmy Carter. I even wrote a paper in support of Carter in my freshman English Comp class in college - which resulted in the worst grade I've ever received for a paper I've written, in part because I used Carter's own writings as support for my paper, and in part because the instructor was a die-hard conservative. (For the record, I've rarely received a poor grade for written work - if I can do nothing else, I can write.)

Then, I transferred to another college, and I progressed through my academic career there. After several changes of my major, I settled on business. I was working on campus, and my boss - a member of the faculty there - engaged me in a conversation about my political views. (That would probably get him fired today.)

He asked me what my party affiliation was. I replied that I was a Democrat. He asked me why. I told him that I was "born a Democrat."

He said, "No one is born a Democrat or a Republican. You're born black or white, you're born rich or poor, you're born right-handed or left-handed. But your political party affiliation is a matter of choice."

He then asked me if I understood the differences between the two parties' platforms, and I had to admit that I didn't. I'd always just accepted that I was supposed to vote "D" across the board because my parents did.

So he explained the two platforms to me, in very simple terms. He said that Democrats believe that the government can and should provide for all of our needs - health care, housing, employment and income, etc. - and that those who were more successful should pay higher taxes so that those who were less successful had the same things that those who were more successful had.

He then explained that the Republican platform was based on the ideal that America provides the opportunity for everyone to have those things - that we all have an equal right to the opportunity to have those things, but not equal right to the things themselves. That the Republican party believes that the government should provide for basic needs - security (military and police and other first responders), infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc.), and so forth. And the government should take care of those who absolutely cannot take care of themselves. But that, beyond that, we should all have equal opportunity, but those who work harder, work smarter, and are able to succeed, should be able to enjoy the fruits of their labors without excessive taxation.

In other words, the Republican platform was not the Marxist ideal of "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" (we all saw how well that worked out for the Marxist
Soviet Union), but one of rewarding those who worked harder in availing themselves of the opportunities that a free-market, capitalistic society afforded.

As President Gerald Ford said, "If the government is big enough to give you everything you want, it is big enough to take away everything you have." That resonated with me. I didn't need the government to give me everything I wanted; that, I could grab on my own, given the opportunity. But I damn sure didn't want it to take away everything I had. King George would have wanted that. I didn't.

Here I was, a recent college grad entering an MBA program. I aspired to be a manager, maybe even a CEO someday. (Be careful what you wish for; I eventually became a CEO and the gig isn't all it's cracked up to be.) I figured I might make a decent living. I came from humble beginnings. Neither of my parents graduated from college, but they paved the way for me to do so, even if they couldn't pay for it.

I wanted to be able to keep whatever I earned, or as much of it as possible. I saw many of my high school classmates who didn't even enroll in college, who took the safe route of working in grocery stores or gas stations in our hometown, rather than taking the risks I took in taking out student loans, working hard through college, and trying to climb the ladder. I didn't want to be one of them, and I didn't want to have to subsidize them. I believed that the government should tax only to the extent it needed to, in order to provide defense, security, infrastructure, education, and means for those truly - truly - unable to provide for themselves, regardless of the opportunities afforded them. And that, in order to maintain taxes at that minimal level, government should spend only frugally.

So I switched my voter registration, and in 1984, I voted for Ronald Reagan.

I maintained that registration until about 2009. At that time, I felt that the Republican party had abandoned its roots. I felt that both parties had abandoned their roots, in fact; that both were solely interested in maintaining a permanent majority. Particularly, I felt that the Republicans had abandoned their platform plank of fiscal conservatism, and that runaway government spending had become an albatross hanging around the collective neck of all Americans, one that would require excessive taxation to fund the government largesse and pork that plagued Washington (and plagues it to this day).

It's important to note that, during the time I was a registered Democrat, I voted straight party-line, as I had been taught. But during the time I was a registered Republican, I voted my conscience. I voted for some Democrat candidates and some Republicans. I voted for Independents. I voted for Ross Perot for President in 1996. And in the 2016 election, I voted for Evan McMullin for President. I have never been a straight party-line voter, at least not since the days I was a registered Democrat.

Fast-forward to today. What I've seen from the Democrat party in the last several years - especially since Donald Trump, whom I voted against - has become President, has been so extreme, so vitriolic, so un-American, that I've become a straight party-line voter. I registered as a Republican in the recent primary election, reluctantly, because I wanted to vote in some key local races, for Republican candidates that I believed were better suited for office than others running on the GOP ticket. I may well change my registration to Democrat in the 2020 election, to vote for candidates that might derail any potential serious challenger to the Presidency or other key offices.

I don't like Donald Trump. I wouldn't want to have a beer with Donald Trump, other than for entertainment value. Much of what he says makes me cringe, or smack my head. But I'm on board with the policies of reduced regulation and taxes, of peace through strength globally, of truly fair trade, of respecting our military and police, of securing the American way of life for those born here and those who seek to come here through legal means, and of ensuring a Judicial Branch that is truly independent and Constitutionalist, that have become a hallmark of his administration. I can get past the rhetoric. What matters to me is the policy. That affects my life, and my children's and grandchild's futures. The rest of it is fodder for cable news soundbites, intended solely to pit right against left.

And so, until the Democrat party shows any sign of true willingness to work across party lines for the American people, and not solely for a permanent majority that will line the coffers of its elected officials, I fear I may become a straight party-line voter. That saddens me, as I have always believed that in a true Democratic Republic, one should weigh each candidate on the merits, and vote accordingly. Sadly, we're far from a Democratic Republic today. We are now Fox News vs. CNN and MSNBC.

However, the whole point of my discussion with my college professor is this: don't choose your party affiliation based on that of your parents or your spouse. You weren't "born" Democrat or Republican, and you don't marry into a political party. Think about what's important to you and choose for yourself. And if neither party appeals to you, there's nothing wrong with being Independent. (And for heaven's sake, above all else ... if you find that Socialism appeals to you, take some more history classes until you get over that phase.)

Now, on to Rudyard Kipling's best work:

If you can keep your head when all about you   

    Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,   

If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,

    But make allowance for their doubting too;   

If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,

    Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,

Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,

    And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;   

    If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim;   

If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster

    And treat those two impostors just the same;   

If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken

    Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,

Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,

    And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings

    And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,

And lose, and start again at your beginnings

    And never breathe a word about your loss;

If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew

    To serve your turn long after they are gone,   

And so hold on when there is nothing in you

    Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,   

    Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch,

If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,

    If all men count with you, but none too much;

If you can fill the unforgiving minute

    With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,   

Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,   

    And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!

Truth, Whole Truth, and Nothing But Truth

I'll get to the point of the title of this post toward the end. But first, let me say that I intend - and sincerely hope - that this is my last post on the topic of the Kavanaugh confirmation debacle. Whether it actually is depends in part on how far the Democrats go in their never-ending refusal to accept outcomes not in their favor. Also, depending on what comes before the Court in the coming years, I may mention Justice Kavanaugh from time to time in the context of his role in key decisions made by the Court. But I hope the sordid and sad process that unfolded over the last several weeks is behind us all.

First, let's get my thoughts on the allegations against Justice Kavanaugh out of the way, once and for all. The simple truth is that none of us will ever know what, if anything, happened to Christine Blasey Ford when she was in high school. Anyone on either side of the issue that claims otherwise is delusional and foolish. We were not there; we do not know.

I don't disbelieve her because I'm some woman-hating chauvinist pig. In a recent post, I clearly stated that my tendency is to initially believe the accuser. I can't necessarily say that I disbelieve her at all. But what I can say, with authority, is that the witnesses to the events of that night whose names she herself provided not only have no recollection of the alleged event, but have no recollection of a party during which it could have happened. The named witness closest to Dr. Ford goes so far as to say she's never met Brett Kavanaugh.

Out of deference to those whose sensibilities I might offend, I won't go so far as to say whether I believe or disbelieve Dr. Ford at all. However, to the extent I might disbelieve her, let's just say that the reasons would be related to the timing of her allegations, the lack of corroborating evidence, her testimony, and her recollection of events.

The FBI investigation was criticized by the left for being incomplete. Chief among the complaints was that the FBI did not interview Dr. Ford's "beach friends" to whom she recounted her story. Let's unpack that.

Let's say that I claim that I was a victim of a crime when I was in high school. My recollection of many of the details surrounding that allegation are unclear, and my testimony regarding what I do recall is fraught with inconsistencies and outright falsehoods (such as the assertion that brain chemistry eliminates the possibility of false identification, which has been refuted in numerous cases and is patently absurd).

However, I do recall several people being present when the alleged incident occurred. The problem is that none of them recalls ever having been present at a time when such an incident could have happened.

So many years later, I tell several friends that this happened to me. The only thing they can corroborate is that I told them that this thing happened.

Given that the contemporaneous witnesses whose names I provided have no recollection of any circumstance under which the alleged incident could have occurred, and my own fuzzy recollection of when, where, how, etc., what's the point of interviewing people that I told my story to some decades later?

Here's an analogy. Someone committed a crime against me when I was in high school. My three best friends were there, and while they didn't witness the event, I allege that they were at the scene of the alleged crime. Yet none of them recalls ever having been all together with all the players I named at any scene where any such crime could have occurred, and one of them - my best friend - claims to have never met the person whom I claim was there, and committed the crime.

So I also say that, decades later, I told several of my new friends that this had happened to me, so many years ago. What can they corroborate? Nothing more than that I told them it happened to me. Given that the people I said were present at the time were unable to corroborate the incident I allege, what good is the testimony of people I told my story to many years later, who didn't even know me when the alleged incident happened? The FBI doesn't have unlimited resources to chase down stories that do nothing to corroborate an alleged incident.

If we are at a point where uncorroborated allegations are accepted as iron-clad evidence, then I wonder why Hillary Clinton hasn't been indicted, and why Barack Obama wasn't disqualified from being President for having not been born in the U.S. Interestingly, liberals had no issue with the rule of law that presumes innocence until proven guilty in those cases. Those same liberals wanted to assume Brett Kavanaugh guilty until proven innocent.

The reason, of course, is two-fold. First, it has to do with sore loser syndrome. Democrats lost the election, but they can't accept that. Since the day Donald Trump won the 2016 election, Dems have been calling for impeachment (on no grounds), alleging collusion with the Russians to steal the election (without a shred of evidence), and clamoring for elimination of the electoral college (which bit them in the butt in 2000 and 2016, but they're the electoral college's biggest fans when it works in their favor).

Then, when Trump nominated not one, but two judges to the Supreme Court, the Dems pulled out every dirty trick in the book, and some that hadn't been written yet, to try to block those appointments. (Remember Spartacus!) To be fair, the GOP also played dirty with the Merrick Garland appointment. That's part of the reason the Dems went low on the Gorsuch and Kavanaugh nominations: tit for tat. The other reason is Roe v. Wade, as I've noted before.

It's interesting to me that all the machinactions of the party of sore losers during the Kavanaugh confirmation process did little to change the outcome. Instead of Judge Kavanaugh being confirmed by a vote of 53-47, which was the likely outcome before Dr. Ford's allegations were leaked by the Democrats, he was confirmed by a vote of 50-48. And that would have been 51-49 had one GOP senator not been walking his daughter down the aisle at the time of the vote, and had a GOP colleague not voted "present" in deference to his doing so.

My final observation regarding those who are inclined to believe the accuser in the absence of any corroborating evidence: it frightens me to think that those people may someday be called to jury duty. God help us all.

On to Feinstein. Her Democrat colleagues rallied around her and said she'd have never leaked Dr. Ford's letter to the media, exposing Dr. Ford's identity against her wishes and subjecting her to the scrutiny and embarrassment she suffered. Even some GOP senators, including Lindsey Graham, stated that they did not believe Feinstein was the leaker.

Fair enough. Let's just say this, since I work in the field of risk management consulting for credit unions. If an employee of my credit union intentionally leaks my personally identifiable information (PII) to a third party who then uses that information to defraud me, the credit union and that person are criminally liable for my losses.

Now, let's say that the credit union and its employees do not intentionally release my PII, but they are careless in safeguarding it, and it's breached. They're still liable for my losses, for reimbursing me for identity theft protection, and they're subject to civil litigation and reputation risk when I light them up on Facebook and in the media for being careless with my information.

Feinstein was given a sacred trust by Dr. Ford, to safeguard her identity. Somehow, that got leaked. No matter how you slice it, Feinstein did not take sufficient care to safeguard Dr. Ford's identity. She did not take sufficient steps to prevent it being leaked, even if she did not leak it herself. (Think about it: Chairman Grassley was able to ensure that the results of the FBI investigation were not leaked.) Therefore, no matter who ultimately leaked the information, Feinstein carelessly let it happen. She is culpable. She is liable. Dr. Ford should sue her for the many millions Feinstein is worth.

Okay. Now that Judge Kavanaugh is Justice Kavanaugh, there's been no small amount of speculation that, if the party of sore losers wins back the majority in the House and the Senate, he'll be impeached.

Poppycock.

First, they'd have to prove him guilty of some impeachable offense. Given the lack of any credible corroborating evidence against him, that's highly unlikely. And impeachment would require a two-thirds majority of the Senate voting for it. Even if the Dems win back the Senate - which they're unlikely to do at this point, having so damaged their own credibility and so mobilized independent and GOP voters against them - there's no way in hell they get a two-thirds majority. Case closed.

Much has also been made (by the left) of what will be Justice Kavanaugh's legacy on the Court. Will this cloud forever hang over his head? Will he be forever tainted by Dr. Ford's allegations?

Let's just say this: no one would have brought up Anita Hill in regard to Justice Thomas this year were it not for Dr. Ford's allegations. This debacle will fade into the dustbin of history just as the debacle surrounding Justice Thomas' confirmation did. And those who think differently, self-righteous as they are, probably couldn't name the rest of the Justices on the Supreme Court, save for Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the patron saint of liberal judicial activists and the heroine of those who don't know jack about the law or the Supreme Court. The left will move on to some other hair-on-fire topic by the time the mid-term election results are in.

Now to the question of how Justice Kavanaugh's confirmation may tilt the Court. Note this: not one liberal has ever complained when the Supreme Court was stacked with liberal, activist judges. Not one. No, that's perfectly fine with them. But now that the Court appears to be slanted toward the conservative side, they're all up in arms with cries of, "But the Court is supposed to be balanced and impartial!"

Hypocrites.

And still, they have little to fear. As I noted in a previous post, there's hardly any correlation between the party of the President who nominated a judge to the Supreme Court and the decisions that Justice makes. Justices appointed by Republicans were among the majority in the landmark Roe v. Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges cases (both of which should never have been decided by the Supreme Court, having been states' rights issues).

So there's no reason to fear that Roe will be overturned. But I hope it is, because it should be; it's a states' rights issue.

Okay, so now let's get to the topic of the title of this post. During, and in the aftermath of the Ford-Kavanaugh hearing, there were many references to "her truth." Sen. Cory "Spartacus" Booker thanked Dr. Ford for speaking "her truth." In the aftermath, I've seen many revelations of "my truth."

Let me break this to you gently: there is no such thing as "your truth," "my truth," "her truth," or "his truth." (Curiously, I've seen no references to "his truth." Is truth in the present environment a strictly feminine attribute? Is today's reverse sexism so complete that truth is the exclusive domain of females? What if I'm a woman, and have gender reassignment surgery to become a man. Do I sacrifice my preeminent domain over truth?)

You may not have been called upon to testify in an arbitration case or a courtroom proceeding, but I have. However, at a minimum, surely you've watched an episode or two of "Law and Order," which in today's devoid-of-education world, makes you an expert.

Have you ever heard a witness in a courtroom proceeding asked, "Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give is your truth, your whole truth, and nothing but your truth, so help you God?"

The answer is absolute: no, you have not. Witnesses, complainants and defendants are sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help they God.

There's a reason for that: there is only the truth. There is not your truth, or my truth. There may be your story, your version of events, your testimony. But there is only one truth, the truth. That is the basis for the rule of law, and it requires corroboration. Period.

************************

Bonus round: Kanye West.

Look, I don't like rap music, so I'll never be a Kanye fan. However, I respect his right to his views as much as I respect Taylor Swift's right to her views. (For the record, while I like some country music, I don't like her stuff either; I have a hard time being a fan of any artist who requires pitch correction.)

And on the topic of Taylor Swift, before we give her too much credit for the tens of thousands of voter registrations that followed her endorsement of a Democrat candidate for office, lets point out that she made that endorsement on the day that registration closed in about 20 states - in other words, those registrations had more to do with a deadline than with Taylor Swift. And that's a good thing; God help us all if the voting public takes its cues from a celebrity.

Don Lemon of CNN chuckled when one of his guests, commenting on Kanye's support of President Trump, said that "this is what happens when Negros don't read." Similarly, Mr. Lemon chuckled when another guest called Kanye the "token Negro of the Trump administration." And Mr. Lemon later called Kanye's meeting with the President "a minstrel show."

To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Lemon is the only African-American host of a show on CNN. If, say, Sean Hannity of Fox News called Mr. Lemon the "token Negro of CNN," or called his CNN segment "a minstrel show," he'd be fired, and for good cause. Yet Don Lemon gets a pass from the left, and from his employer.

Even though he's clearly the biggest racist on television today.

A Strong Economy, Interest Rates, the Fed, and the Stock Market

This post will prove that the Curmudgeon can and does write about economic topics from time to time, and isn't just a political curmudgeon. Kudos to a good friend - I'll call him Martin Gibson; he'll appreciate the inside joke - for inspiring this post with a very good question.

He inquired as to the Curmudgeon's thoughts regarding the impact of the Fed's interest rate actions on the stock market, and that's a very valid concern. My own retirement portfolio has taken quite a hit over the past several days. And yet I still sleep at night. I'll explain why toward the end of this post.

But first, some discussion of the role of the Fed and why they manipulate interest rates is in order. Mr. Gibson went on to note that some pundits are of the opinion that one man (presumably the Fed Chairman) shouldn't have so much power over the markets, and wonder why a strong economy needs to be slowed down by raising rates to begin with.

The short answer to Mr. Gibson's questions is that one man does not wield exclusive power over interest rates, the economy and the markets; that a strong economy needs cooling down to avoid runaway inflation; and that the stock market is overreacting to the Fed's interest rate actions. If you don't want to learn any more than that, stop reading here. But if you're curious as to how all of this works, and why the Fed does what it does, read on.

Herewith, a primer on the Fed, its policy mandate, and how and why it uses interest rates to influence economic activity.

Let's start with the fact that one man, in fact, does not wield such extraordinary power over the economy and the markets. Rates are set by the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), which holds scheduled meetings every six weeks or so to set policy. The Federal Reserve Board Chairman does chair the FOMC, but all members vote. (The Federal Reserve does a number of other things, including regulate banks, along with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and other regulators.)

The FOMC consists of the Fed Chairman (currently Jerome Powell), the other six members of the Federal Reserve Board, the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (note that the Federal Reserve System consists of 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks), and a rotating group of members that serve one-year terms on the committee. Those rotating members are filled by one President each from each of the following groups of regional Fed Banks: Boston, Philly and Richmond; Cleveland and Chicago; Atlanta, St. Louis and Dallas; and Kansas City, Minneapolis and San Francisco. This ensures that the FOMC isn't "stacked" with, say East coast Fed Bank Presidents. The remaining Fed Bank Presidents participate in the FOMC discussions, but do not vote.

(Note that the FOMC can meet at other times than the scheduled meetings if conditions warrant; for example, during the housing/financial crisis, the FOMC held several unscheduled meetings to adjust rates lower in an effort to keep the economy from going completely off the rails. This only happens when the economy is in trouble; I've never seen, nor can I imagine, the Fed holding an unscheduled meeting during a period when it's raising rates. Note also that I just used the term "Fed" interchangeably with "FOMC." That's not uncommon, and it's probably why there's so much mystery around the Fed and the FOMC. But when we're talking about raising or lowering interest rates, it's technically the FOMC doing it.)

Next, let's discuss the FOMC's policy mandate. The Humphrey-Hawkins Act (technically, the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act) of 1978 was passed in response to the high unemployment and runaway inflation of the 1970s. It set forth four broad policy goals: full employment, production growth, stable prices, and trade and budget balances. It also explicitly stated that the federal government will rely primarily on private enterprise to achieve these goals; if not for that, a statist/Socialist regime could develop.

Now, clearly the government can't directly influence production growth. And it's done a poor job of ensuring trade and budget balances. So it's generally accepted that Humphrey-Hawkins gave the Fed a dual policy mandate: full employment and price stability (meaning low inflation).

These two mandates are at odds with each other. The lower unemployment goes, the higher inflation is likely to go (I'll explain that shortly). So the Fed's mandate requires a balancing act. It also requires some definitions around what is meant by "full employment" and "stable prices." We'll get to that, too, but generally this results in policy targets set by the Fed, and those targets may vary depending on who's Chairman.

(I won't get into Keynesian vs. Classical, Austrian or Supply-Side economics here. Suffice it to say that the authors of Humphrey-Hawkins were Keynesians, and the Curmudgeon is decidedly not. The only thing that Keynes ever got right was his assertion that, in the long run, we're all dead.)

Regarding the conflicting link between unemployment and inflation, there are a couple of ways inflation can manifest itself, and they're usually happening at the same time. One is cost-push inflation; the other is demand-pull inflation.

With cost-push inflation, the scenario goes like this. As the economy improves, business activity increases, and companies hire more people. At first, there's no wage pressure, as unemployment is still relatively high. (Recall the initial period of recovery from 2009 to 2016; there was job growth, but wage growth was stagnant, because unemployment during that period ranged from 10% down to about 5%.)

However, as unemployment moves ever lower, at some point, companies are going to have to pay workers more to attract them, typically from other companies. In other words, the available labor pool from those without a job is drying up, so I have to hire my new workers away from other companies, and that's going to require paying them more than they're currently making.

Now, companies are in business to generate profits (and we won't get into the politics of whether that's evil or not - suffice it to say that if you have retirement or other funds invested in the stock market, you want companies to make a profit). So they aren't just going to absorb those higher wages, they're going to pass them along to consumers in the form of higher prices. So the cost of higher wages pushes prices higher - ergo, cost-push inflation.

In the demand-pull scenario, as more people go to work in a falling unemployment environment, they're going to be more comfortable buying stuff. As the demand for stuff rises, given that productive capacity isn't unlimited, at some point that's going to pull prices higher, hence demand-pull inflation.

Think of those periods of time when there's been extremely strong demand for certain auto makes and models, like the Honda Accord or the Toyota Camry. During those periods, dealers not only didn't discount those models, they sold them above the sticker price. Or think of the current housing market in some locations, like San Francisco. Desirable homes often sell the day they're listed, with so many buyers showing interest that they're willing to pay more than the listing price to get the house. That's demand-pull inflation: those rising auto or home prices result in higher prices overall for autos and homes, leading to inflationary pressures.

So again, the Fed has a balancing act: don't let unemployment get too high, and don't let prices increase by too much.

Now, what represents "full employment" and "stable prices?" Well, the previous Fed Chair, Janet Yellen, defined full employment as 5% unemployment (there's always going to be some unemployment - people who just can't get or hold a job, people who are between jobs, etc.). Yellen also set an inflation target of 2%, measured by the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) deflator, excluding food and energy prices - the "core" deflator. Rather than define it here, let's just accept that it's a measure of inflation.

Sidebar: why exclude food and energy prices? As one economist has noted, "core" inflation - excluding food and energy prices - only matters to people who don't eat or drive. However, food and energy prices tend to be more volatile. Weather conditions can affect food prices, for example a drought in wheat-producing states, or a freeze in citrus-producing markets. And energy prices can be affected in the short run by everything from holiday travel to hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico. So a stable price measure should exclude those categories.

Chairman Powell hasn't stated any different targets for full employment and stable prices, so we'll assume that 5% unemployment and 2% inflation are still in play as policy targets.

Now, we're going to talk about why and how the FOMC uses interest rates to influence the economy, including a little history lesson; then we'll take a look at where we are today relative to those targets, and where we've been historically; and finally, we'll examine what it means for the stock market, and why the reaction of the past few days has been so dramatic, and whether it'll bounce back.

First, we'll talk about why the Fed, in general, influences economic activity. Then we'll take that stroll down history lane, before talking about how the Fed uses interest rates to manage the economy.

As noted above, when the economy really gets rolling, inflation can ensue, and that can be disastrous (just ask Venezuela, where the inflation rate is more than 650% - meaning that the loaf of bread that costs you a buck today will cost a buck-fifty in less than a month, and will cost $6.50 in a year). So the Fed seeks to slow down economic activity to bring inflation in check. Conversely, when the economy is going in the tank, the Fed seeks to stimulate economic activity, providing an artificial boost in hopes of reducing unemployment and bringing the economy out of recession.

The economic cycle goes like this, starting with the low point of a recession (defined as two consecutive quarters of negative output growth, as measure by GDP, or gross domestic product): trough, expansion, peak, contraction, trough, etc. What the Fed tries to do is smooth out that cycle, so that the troughs never occur, or at least aren't as severe, and the peaks aren't as lofty. We want stable growth, with peaks and valleys to be sure, but they don't have to be Mt. Everest and the bottom of the ocean.

As you probably surmised in 2008, the Fed has a lousy track record of eliminating the troughs, largely because they have an uncanny track record of fueling bubbles, but that's a topic for another day.

Now, the history lesson. Prior to 1979, the Fed primarily used the supply of money to influence the economy. The Fed has a virtually unlimited supply of money, and can always use the Treasury to print more (which would lead to inflation if left unchecked, but I digress), so during slow economic times, the Fed would inject more money into the economy by making more money available for banks to lend. And when the economy started to overheat, the Fed would simply rein in the money supply, leaving less money available to lend to businesses and individuals, thus slowing economic activity.

In 1979, President Carter appointed Paul Volcker as Fed Chairman (the smartest thing Carter ever did, by the way). You younger folks may know Volcker as one of President Obama's economic advisors (whom the President unfortunately ignored).

Two things characterized Chairman Volcker. One, he was a monetarist, whereas most of his predecessors had been Keynesians. What that means is that he believed that interest rates, rather than the money supply, were the best lever to influence the economy.

Two, Volcker was a tough old cuss who wasn't afraid to give the economy whatever medicine it needed in order to cure its ills.

The 1970s were marked by high inflation, primarily as a result of prolonged oil shocks that resulted in then-astronomic gas prices. To rein that in, Volcker knew that the Fed would have to slow the economy. Since he favored using interest rates, he began to increase the Federal funds, or Fed funds rate. This is the interest rate at which banks lend to and borrow from each other; banks with excess funds from deposits loan money to banks with excess loans and a shortage of deposits, and the going rate on those overnight loans is the Fed funds rate. (Consumer rates, like the Prime Rate that is the basis for credit card and commercial and other loans, are based off the Fed funds rate, thus it affects all economic activity.)

So Volcker "hiked," or "tightened" - meaning his FOMC raised the Fed funds rate. And boy, did they. The funds rate went as high as 20%, nearly doubling in a month. Mortgage loans were in the high teens. You could get a ten-year certificate of deposit paying 16% interest. The economy slowed rapidly, and inflation came down from 10% to a manageable rate.

The Fed funds rate remains the primary arrow in the FOMC's quiver today. The committee sets a target level for the rate (now, they use a range). At the depth of the 2008-09 recession, they moved the target to a range of 0%-0.25%. Yes, dear reader: zero. Money was free. Banks could borrow funds at no cost.

To put that in perspective, in 1992, when the Curmudgeon was just beginning his journey in the world of economics, the FOMC under Chairman Alan Greenspan cut the funds target ("eased") to 3%, and those of us who watch the Fed swore we'd witnessed history in the making; we'd never see rates that low again.

Then, in response to the dot-com bubble recession of 2000-01, the Greenspan FOMC cut the funds target to 1%. And we Fed-watchers said, "Okay, this is it - we'll never see rates this low again."

And then the FOMC under Chairman Ben Bernanke went to the zero-to-twenty-five-basis-point range (a basis point is one one-hundredth of a percent).

There's a lesson in this that you need to save for later, especially if you're under 30: the rate environment we were in from 2008 until December 2015, when the Fed began raising rates again (or "hiking," or "tightening"), was highly, highly unusual - abnormal, even. So if you're a millennial waiting for rates to return to "normal" before you buy a house - don't. This isn't the new normal, it's the old normal. The rates of 2008-2015 were the new abnormal, and we may not go back there in our lifetimes (though I'll never say "never" again).

Okay, now about where we are relative to the targets of 5% unemployment and 2% inflation. First, let me say that the unemployment rate has only been at or below 5% about a third of the time throughout the 70 years it's been tracked. That's one-third of more than 800 months of data. So it's somewhat unusual to see 5% unemployment.

Today, we're at 3.7% unemployment, the lowest rate since 1969. Only 70 of those aforementioned 800+ months of data have seen the unemployment rate at or below 3.7%. That's less than 10% of the time throughout history, and it all happened more more than 49 years ago. So unemployment is extremely low today.

And that raises the risk of inflation. We're well below the Fed's target, so the FOMC felt comfortable beginning to raise rates in 2015, and it continues to do so today, at a very measured, gradual pace. Rates aren't skyrocketing. The FOMC has raised the upper bound of the funds target range from 25 basis points (bp) to 2.25%. That's still extremely low, historically. Mortgage rates today for a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage are below 5%. That's still extremely low, historically. Ten-year certificate of deposit (CD) rates are around 3%. That's still extremely low, historically.

Get it? Rates are low.

Now, beginning with Chairman Yellen, the Fed began being very transparent in what they were going to do with regard to interest rates. They provided "policy guidance" to the markets, essentially telegraphing the path of rates in the future based on their expectations regarding economic activity. The current Fed guidance suggests an upper bound of the target Fed funds range of around 3.00-3.50% by 2021, before they expect to have to start easing again.

Remember when I said Fed-watchers were shocked at a Fed funds rate of 3% back in 1992? Even at the projection in the previous paragraph, interest rates will be very, very low, historically speaking. Keep that in the back of your mind for a few minutes, while we talk about inflation.

An inflation target of 2% is also historically low. The long-run average inflation rate is just over 3%, and the current rate is right at the 2% target. Future expectations are that the inflation rate will remain tame.

Okay, now let's consider the impact on the market, especially after the last few days. The FOMC raised the funds target last Thursday. But, you know what? They told the market they were going to do it. It was in the policy guidance. So the market shouldn't have been surprised. That's lesson one.

Lesson two has to do with whether, with rates at these levels, economic activity is going to slow dramatically, if at all.

The idea is that at higher rates, people will stop borrowing to buy homes, cars and trinkets, and the economy will tank. But if you correlate borrowing against interest rates, you'll find that borrowing frequently increases as rates rise. Why?

The single most important indicator of consumers' willingness to borrow is their confidence in their employment outlook and their income growth. If I'm pretty sure I'm going to have a job for the next three years, and I'm going to get raises, I'm willing to borrow, whatever the going rate (up to a point, and given the historically low level of rates today, we're nowhere near that point). However, even if rates are 1%, if I think I may lose my job in the next six months, I'm not going to take out a loan.

So when rates are rising, it's generally because the Fed is tightening. When the Fed is tightening, it's because the economy is strong. When the economy is strong, consumers are confident in their job outlook. And when they're confident in their job outlook, they're willing to borrow. And that's why higher borrowings correlate with rising rates.

So given that inflation is historically low, the labor market outlook is incredibly strong, and rates are still historically low, there is nothing to suggest that economic activity is going to tank.

In other words, based on Lessons one and two, the market is totally overreacting. Plus, it had reached successive records, and was probably due for some profit-taking. That's healthy.

So fear not: the market will be back. Your IRA will recover. The economy is fine, rates are low, the job market is strong, inflation is tame, and the Fed is doing what it's supposed to do - and telegraphing it to the market in advance, so there's no need to be surprised by any of this.

Now, an extra credit lesson for those who want to read just a bit further, and have a good laugh in the process.

I said that one man doesn't wield exclusive power over the economy. However, sometimes the FOMC doesn't need to raise or lower rates to influence economic activity. The Fed Chair, or one of the other FOMC members, will sometimes give an interview and drop clues as to what the Fed could or might do. This is known as "jawboning," and it can wield extraordinary power to move the markets. And that's why FOMC members are very careful about what they say, and they all stay on the same page in saying it.

I've always thought that power would be an extremely cool thing for a young, single Fed Chairman. Can you imagine the pickup line? "Hey babe, in two sentences, I moved the market by 500 points today."

One final bonus for those who've read this far. Throughout history, every time the unemployment rate has reached or gone below 5%, once it started rising again, within seven to 12 months, the economy entered recessionary territory.

Every. Time.

I don't know what that means necessarily, other than that at some point the economy so overheats that an expansion has run its course, the Fed has tightened to the point that economic activity begins to slow dramatically, and that a recession ensues.

But I do know that once the unemployment rates starts moving back up, I'm going to be shifting my portfolio to a much more conservative stance.