Dear Mr. President: Please Make Good Choices

No, this isn’t a plaintive plea for the President to be mindful of his use of Twitter, or his comments, or the labels that he applies to those with whom he disagrees. Sadly, this President is beyond any hope of reforming such behaviors.

Nor does it refer to his judicial nominations, which have been nothing short of brilliant, at least from this anti-activist, Constitutional originalist’s vantage point. It doesn’t even refer to his cabinet picks, many of which have been quite good (Pompeo, Chao, Mnuchin), some of which have been quite bad (Tillerson), and others of which fell victim to forces beyond his or their control. To wit, Jeff Sessions was a decent choice for AG, but then came the Mueller investigation, and Sessions rightly (from a legal perspective) recused himself, which drew the ire and frustration of Trump, the consummate Washington outsider – all of which doomed Sessions’ future as AG.

Likewise, Kirstjen Nielsen wasn’t a bad choice for DHS Secretary, but with the Dems’ (and some key Republicans’) opposition to border security, no progress could be made. And with the media using photos of children in cages that were taken during the Obama administration to make the claim that BABIES ARE BEING RIPPED FROM THEIR MOTHERS’ ARMS!!! (never mind the fact that the Left couldn’t care one whit if a child is trafficked into sexual slavery; that doesn’t affect its ultimate collective aim of turning America blue), Nielsen was in a no-win situation. The same will prove true for the next DHS Secretary, until someone in this country wakes up and does something about border security.

(And as an aside, lest I be accused of being a racist, I’d feel the same way if Canada’s economy were the shit-show that is Mexico’s or Nicaragua's, and if our northern neighbors were overrun with drug cartels, aided and abetted by a corrupt government, and white Canucks were pouring across our northern border in the same numbers that we’re seeing on the southern border. It has nothing to do with race for me, nor is the central issue gang members or terrorists. It has to do, plain and simple, with sovereignty and the rule of law. Either you have those things or you don’t, and if you don’t, you’re not a country, you’re a human landfill for those nations who consider their poorest citizens nothing more than trash.)

No, I’m talking about the two worst decisions President Trump has made since his inauguration: the nominations of Herman Cain and Stephen Moore to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. Neither is qualified to serve on the Fed, and either would be a liability in the role.

First, to Mr. Cain. I like the guy. He’s smart, and was a good businessman. He knows something of the inner workings of the Fed, having served on the board of directors of the Kansas City Fed bank. I generally agree with his political positions, though agreeing with one’s political positions should have nothing to do with determining whether that individual would make a good Governor of a truly independent Fed.

Next, to Moore. I know less of him, but he’s a supply-sider, as am I, so he must be okay. Unlike Cain, he also has a graduate degree in economics, though not a PhD (more on that later). However, he’s apparently not much of a student of the science. An advocate of using commodity prices rather than overall prices as a gauge of inflation – folly to most economists, including this one – he attributed a commodity price rule to former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker, who never advocated such a rule. Moreover, he referred to that rule as “the Volcker Rule.” The Volcker Rule actually relates to restricting commercial banks from investment trading activity; in other words, it would reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act, which was repealed in 1999, during the Clinton administration.

Finally, after Moore’s nomination to the Fed was announced, he said, “I’m kind of new to this game, frankly, so I’m going to be on a steep learning curve myself about how the Fed operates, how the Federal Reserve makes it decisions, and this is a real, exciting opportunity for me.”

Sorry, but my view of the Fed is that it’s one of those places whose motto should be, “You don’t get trained here, you get here trained.” Because one false move can affect the entire world and everyone in it.

Neither man is a PhD economist. Now, I should be the last person to say that one has to have a PhD in economics to hold a position as an economist. Armed with nothing but a generalist MBA with emphases in economics and finance, I held the title Chief Economist for a national, $35 billion financial institution. And over the course of my career, I’ve corrected the work of PhDs from Ivy League institutions.

However, when it comes to the Fed, I do believe its members should either be academic or private-sector economists, or career bankers, such as current Fed Chair Jerome Powell. I’ll get to the reason why shortly.

Powell was also a Trump nominee, and he was a brilliant choice to replace ivory tower academics like Janet Yellen and Ben Bernanke, who preceded him. He understands the banking system and how interest rates influence money movement and economic activity, but from a more practical vantage point.

The problem with a businessman like Cain, or a political pundit like Moore (Moore is to the right what Paul Krugman is to the left – an economist-cum-political commentator; only Moore is smarter than Krugman) is that all they want is lower rates, all the time.

I don’t have time to get into the whys and wherefores in this post, but I’ve commented on this plenty in the past: easy monetary policy (i.e., too-low rates) is more disastrous to an economy than tight monetary policy (higher rates). The latter can be paused or undone relatively quickly, while the former results in bubbles that wind up being catastrophic, with long-lasting after-effects, and are extravagantly expensive to extricate from. And the usual policy response to a burst bubble is even lower rates. It's a race to the bottom in which everyone loses.

Powell’s rate hikes last year were good policy, even if they caused turmoil in the markets (however, that was short-lived and had as much, if not more, to do with tariffs as with rates) and kept growth from being even higher than it was. Those rate increases kept the economy growing at a strong, sustainable pace (in a mature economy, annual output growth above 4% cannot be sustained without adverse consequences, no matter what any politician claims). More important, those increases paved the way for the Fed to begin unwinding its bloated balance sheet that was inflated by Bernanke’s incredibly risky quantitative easing strategy, which was always going to require the deftest of touches to reverse. In my estimation, Jay Powell is the best Fed Chair since Paul Volcker.

So whom would I appoint, were the decision in my hands? Though he’s no spring chicken, my first choice would be Thomas Hoenig, former CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. In that role, he served on the FOMC, and was often the lone dissenting vote in the face of Bernanke’s flock of doves, arguing for less accommodative policy (in other words, he was against driving rates too low). He’s smart, knows the territory, and is a reasoned voice.

My other choice might be an academic, but not necessarily one from the usual institutions whose progeny populate the Fed. I don’t believe you need a pure ivory-tower academic from U. of Chicago (or, perish the thought, Princeton or Harvard, which produce only Keynesians). Another banker like Powell would be fine, if the right person could be enticed away from the hefty paychecks of the private sector. 

One thing is certain: neither Cain nor Moore is right for the job. Both are bad-faith nominations by Trump in an effort to punish Powell, and sway the Fed toward easier money. And that is neither necessary – because the Fed is in very capable hands with Powell at the helm – nor wise.

Mueller’s Diner Special of the Day: the Nothingburger

I actually wanted to post about other topics, but the Mueller Report is so front and center in the collective political consciousness right now that I’d be remiss to ignore it, plus readers are asking me to address it, so here goes.

In a nutshell, the report was simply a repeat of the 2016 election: Dems were salivating in anticipation of it, because they were so cock-sure of its outcome, which turned out to be the opposite of what they were expecting, and in the aftermath they can’t accept the result.

Once again, the Democrat party has proven that it doesn’t believe in democracy. It only exists to get its own way, and pout when it doesn’t.

The report concluded that there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians, and that while Russia attempted to interfere in our election – which should be concerning to all, but is surprising only to the naïve (in part because we do it to them, too) – Russian influence did not affect the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.

Repeat that until you get comfortable with the fact. Because it is fact.

The Left is raising questions as to whether the report was conclusive on the question of obstruction of justice. First, let’s look at the law.

Obstruction of justice is defined as attempting to interfere with a legal proceeding. It certainly appears that Trump’s actions met that definition. However, let’s dig deeper. Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute states:

“Someone obstructs justice when that person has a specific intent to obstruct or interfere with a judicial proceeding. For a person to be convicted of obstructing justice, that person must not only have the specific intent to obstruct the proceeding, but that person must know (1) that a proceeding was actually pending at the time; and (2) there must be a connection between the endeavor to obstruct justice and the proceeding, and the person must have knowledge of this connection.”

Did Trump have intent when, for example, he asked his personal legal counsel to pressure Rosenstein to fire Mueller? Maybe. Did he know that the proceeding was pending at the time? Pending, heck – it was underway.

But was there a connection between the endeavor, if it qualifies as such, and the proceeding?

The affirmative argument would presume that the Mueller investigation would find evidence of collusion, which was unknown at the time (and which it ultimately did not).

In other words, as others have noted, how can you be guilty of obstructing justice when no crime was committed? Put another way, how can you be guilty of obstructing justice when justice was served – i.e., the outcome of the proceeding was a conclusion of no evidence of the crime in question (collusion)? Ah, but logical arguments are lost on the illogical.

Second, let’s consider intent vs. action. Did Trump succeed in efforts to keep people from talking to Mueller, or in getting Mueller removed? No, and no. As for his motives, let’s not forget that Trump is a businessman, not a lawyer or politician. And as a businessman, he’s used to being able to direct people not to talk to certain other people, or to fire whomever he wants.

(I spent 15 years as a CEO. On numerous occasions, I directed my staff not to talk to the media about certain matters. And when necessary, I fired people. It’s a part of business, and it’s understandable that when a businessperson enters politics and finds that he or she can’t always do that, it’s frustrating. But it’s only natural that they would try; that’s how things are done in the world they’ve always lived in.)

Back to intent. Is that a crime? I’m reminded of my youth, spent in Newton, Kansas. Newton has a “suburb,” if you will, called North Newton, where Bethel College is located. When I was in high school, North Newton had one cop (let’s call him Barney, so as not to name names).

Now, Bethel was a small college affiliated with the Mennonite faith, and North Newton had a population of about 1,100 back in those days. So needless to say, Barney didn’t have a lot to do.

This was back when streaking was popular. One night Barney came upon a male student wearing a trench coat, but bare-legged beneath it, and wearing running shoes. Barney picked the young man up and confirmed that he was wearing nothing beneath the trench coat, so he took him to the county lock-up in neighboring Newton (North Newton had no jail or police station of its own).

Barney led the young man into the sheriff’s office and demanded that he be arrested, since Barney had no authority to make an arrest in the county’s jurisdiction. The Sheriff asked Barney what the charge was, and Barney stammered, “Intent to streak.”

The laughter that ensued is similar to the laughter that should follow the Left’s ludicrous assertions that Trump should be found guilty of “intent to obstruct” – especially since, again, any such attempt would presume the commission of the crime of collusion, which didn’t happen.

One of the more interesting – and widely-discussed – aspects of the Mueller Report is the statement that the report did not exonerate Trump of the allegation of obstruction, and that if the investigation had found evidence that enabled Mueller to so state, he would have.

The Left, of course, has pounced on that, claiming an “Aha!” moment, and conflating the inability to exonerate with a presumption of guilt that flies in the face of Western jurisprudence.

However, it’s interesting for another reason, and one that no one is talking about except yours truly.

Follow carefully. Mueller was in the role of a prosecutor. Prosecutors are not in the business of exonerating people. They seek evidence, and on the basis thereof, they conclude whether they can bring a case, or whether it’s unwarranted.

So Mueller could not possibly have exonerated Trump, not because there was insufficient evidence to do so, but because doing so would be inconsistent with his role as a prosecutor.

And Mueller would never have stated that Trump was exonerated of the allegation of obstruction, because that’s not what prosecutors do.

So why did Mueller include that nugget in his report? You tell me. A swipe at Trump, who repeatedly criticized Mueller and his investigation? A bitter attempt to try Trump in the court of public opinion, having failed in his lengthy and expensive efforts to find him guilty of a violation of law?

I’ll tell you this: Bob Mueller is a smart guy who’s been around the block, and he did a thorough job. And his inclusion of that tidbit certainly wasn’t a rookie mistake. It was intentional. We just don’t know the intent. However, politics were likely involved.

Next, to the whole laughable dust-up over Attorney General William Barr’s summation of the Mueller Report. Barr issued a brief overview of the report when it was first delivered to him. Once the redacted report was released to lawmakers and the public, the Left’s collective hair caught fire over the fact that Barr’s summary did not include every detail contained in the full report.

Well, let’s see, the full report was over 400 pages (with little of that redacted), and Barr’s summary was delivered in a presser. He didn’t take the time to read the whole report.

Yet still, the Left accused him of being Trump’s lap dog, noting he’s “the Attorney General of the United States, not the Attorney General of the President of the United States.”

It’s to laugh.

If Barr were acting in Trump’s interest, he never would have released the report to begin with (he didn’t have to, under the law). Or, he’d have redacted all the parts that were embarrassing to Trump (and there were a number of those). But he didn’t. So he’s guilty only of not reading the entire report to the media after he released it.

Contrast Barr’s handling of this matter with former Attorney General Eric Holder, who publicly stated that he was President Obama’s “wing man.” Or Holder’s successor, Loretta Lynch, she of the infamous tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton when the investigation into Hillary’s deleted emails was in full swing.

I’d say William Barr is significantly more independent than his two immediate predecessors. Plus, he’s forgotten more about the law than every Democrat lawmaker combined will ever know. Had Barr been appointed by anyone but Donald Trump, his confirmation would have been unanimous, so well-qualified is he.

So what are we left with? A report two years and millions of taxpayers’ dollars in the making, which concluded that the Trump campaign did not collude with Russia, that Russian influence did not affect the outcome of the election, and that there is not enough evidence of obstruction of justice to make a case for it.

We are also left with a report that is, in some parts, unflattering to Donald Trump. Big deal – there’s nothing about Donald Trump in the report that the American people didn’t know, including his staunchest supporters. We all knew he was an egotistical, overbearing, autocratic guy. Nothing in the report is going to change anybody’s mind about the man: if they hated him before, they still hate him, because they’d hate him if the report had concluded that he was completely exonerated (even though it couldn’t) and that he’s a really terrific guy. And if they supported him before, they still support him, because they knew about his warts all along, and still believe he was the best candidate in the 2016 race.

So the Dems are going to move on, right?

Wrong. Dem lawmakers want Mueller to testify. Why? Ostensibly, because they want to hear his summary of his investigation.

News flash: he wrote that summary, all 400+ pages of it. Read it.

They also want to hear from everyone he talked to in his investigation: Manafort, Cohen, Stone, et al, even though several of those people have already testified before Congress.

Again, why? The summary of those interviews by the Mueller team is included in the report.

The Dems won the House back in the mid-terms on a platform of health care reform. Have you seen the bill that House Democrats penned to overhaul Obamacare? Neither have I, nor has anyone else, because it doesn’t exist. So why don’t the Dems move on to legislating, rather than investigating? The answer is simple:

Legislating is largely done behind closed doors. Then, when bills are debated, the debates are generally broadcast on C-Span, and the average American doesn’t watch C-Span, nor have the attention span to view the legislative process.

However, when the Judiciary Committees grill a Paul Manafort, a Michael Cohen, a Brett Kavanaugh, or a Robert Mueller, it’s high theater, broadcast on all the cable “news” outlets. It’s a public forum for people like Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and Amy Klobuchar to make widely-televised campaign speeches in front of the American people, thinly disguised as investigative questions. It’s an opportunity to look tough in front of their base. An opportunity to show how anti-Trump they are to a constituency whose sole policy prescription is to see Donald Trump voted out of office, for the high crime of not being a Democrat.

Democrat lawmakers say they want answers. You think they’re telling the truth? Tell you what – when they do parade Mueller and others in front of their committees, take out a stopwatch and time their questions, and compare that to the time they allow their witnesses to answer them. You’ll find that the lawmakers talk far more than the witnesses do. They don’t want answers; they want airtime.

I could go on to discuss what should happen in terms of investigating what was behind the whole collusion myth, or why the Obama administration knowingly allowed Russian interference in our election process for two years and did nothing about it, but I’ve already subjected you to 2,000 words, so I’ll save that for another day. Suffice it to say that it appears the Teflon coating on the Clinton Machine has yet to wear off.

A Shutdown Solution

It's been a long hiatus, but I simply haven't enough time to respond to every trifling matter that ignites the collective hair of the left.

The concept of a government shutdown pisses me off. Whatever your views on it, I invite you to consider, as I do, that it is simply wrong to use people's livelihoods as a political football. Maybe it's because I have relatives who are Federal employees, and I don't like seeing them have to wait for back pay while they work, or to be furloughed and have to work like hell to catch up after the furlough ends, even if they do get back pay.

Maybe it's because I've had my own livelihood threatened due to corporate politics, and I tend to go full-on Braveheart mode when somebody messes with my livelihood for their own gain.

Or maybe it's because I'm a states' rights advocate, and requiring people to work without pay violates the wage and hour laws of every state. Yeah, I get it - as Federal employees they're exempt in this instance. But, were I an attorney, that wouldn't stop me from filing a class action suit against every Federal agency, the Congress, and the administration in response to any shutdown that requires people in my state to work for no pay, and have to wait for back pay, assuming their union's negotiating skills are good enough to secure it. Let the courts sort it out.

So I have a solution for this ongoing shutdown issue (I don't mean just the current shutdown; I'm referring to the fact that it's been used as a pawn in the political game of chess across numerous administrations now, with both parties controlling the White House, Congress, or both).

First, we have to accept the irrefutable fact that the shutdown is not solely the fault of the President - Congress shares the blame. That's true now, it was true when Obama was President and the government shut down, it was true when Bush was President and the government shut down, ad nauseum. The problem is not one party or another, it's not Trump's fault or Schumer's fault or Obama's fault or McConnell's fault or Bush's fault or Pelosi's fault. Not in isolation.

The blame rests on the shoulders of all politicians who employ this gambit for political gain. At issue is that they're unwilling to do what they were elected to do: govern, which requires compromise. But compromise threatens the ability to get re-elected, which is the end game in Washington.

Second, we have to recognize that it's all too convenient for these politicians to employ this gambit, because they go unaffected. And that's what needs to change.

So, if they're going to allow a government shutdown, the following conditions apply:

• The salaries of all elected officials, and their aides, are likewise suspended, but there is no back pay. After all, they're Federal employees too. That includes cabinet members and diplomats.
• Air Force One is grounded. And travel to a Senator's or Representative's home state is on their own dime. No taxpayer-funded trips home. In fact, they're all required to continue working until the shutdown ends. No trips to Camp David. No recesses. And all fundraising activity is suspended until the shutdown is over. Any contributions received are forfeited, and will go to reduce the deficit.
• White House staff are furloughed, except for the Secret Service. Capitol Police will also work. Both groups will be guaranteed back pay. No cooks or maids at the White House. No Congressional cafeteria. And definitely no Congressional gym or golf course.
• If a member of Congress allows a shutdown to happen and then leaves office, pension payments are suspended, again with no back payments.

Now, as to what to do to fix the current crisis. I've written before on immigration policy so I won't go into great depth here. But let me remind readers that I'm in favor of legal immigration. I have family members and friends who are or were legal immigrants, including my forebears. I believe in immigration.

But we are a nation of laws, and nations have borders. I've traveled to more than 30 countries, and every time I crossed a border, I had to show a passport or at least a cruise ship card (which requires a passport to obtain) to verify my identity, the purpose of my stay, and the duration. I've also had to clear security. Every. Single. Time. All nations have borders, and those borders are enforced everywhere but on the southern border of the U.S.

Also, let's take fear out of the equation. The concern should not be that those crossing our southern border illegally are murderers, rapists, drunk drivers, drug dealers, human traffickers or terrorists, although any of those may be valid concerns.

The fact that one has crossed our border illegally makes one guilty of breaking the law. We have laws restricting entry into our country, and if those laws are broken, that individual should not be allowed to remain in our country illegally. Period.

Given that, my solution (and note that it does involve compromise, but that's the strange bedfellow of the political process; you may disagree, and that's fine - I disagree with some of these premises myself, but propose them in the interest of compromise, and getting something done):

1. Build the damn wall already. Call it a slatted fence, call it a picket fence, call it a garden hedge, call it Fred for all I care. But build it. At various points in time, Obama (the revered King of the left), Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, and other Dems have called for a barrier on our southern border. So that's how they can save face in spinning why they compromised: it's not about denying a Trump campaign promise, it's the Obama/Clinton/Clinton/Schumer/Pelosi/Biden wall. It's the wall they wanted all along. They can spin that without recourse, because their followers will lap up any revisionist statement they make as though it were mother's milk - after all, those followers had no issue with a wall when their party's leaders proposed one. The border patrol wants a wall. The border cities where there is a wall have seen reductions in illegal border crossings. It's not the only solution, but it's a solution.
2. As for who pays for it: if the new trade deal with Mexico results in just an 8% reduction in our trade deficit with Mexico, it will indeed pay for the wall, in one year's time. So it's easy to demonstrate that the trade deal will, in fact, result in Mexico paying for the wall. (If the deficit is only reduced by 4%, then Mexico pays for the wall over two years' time, etc.)
3. Grant amnesty to the DACA population. That wouldn't be my preferred policy, but again, compromise is necessary. However, they have to pass a background check and maybe meet other criteria, like having valid government ID, etc. Heck, I have to meet those criteria to get a job, why shouldn't they?
4. Include funding for other security measures. Pelosi says we need drones, not a wall. Well, drones won't do what a wall does to prevent illegal border crossings, but nor will a wall give us the intel that drones will. So include funding for drones, technology to scan vehicles for drugs, an increase in border patrol agents, whatever is needed. I'm not for more government spending, so let's cut spending in other areas that are unnecessary. It isn't hard to find the fat that needs to be cut in order to make border security comprehensive. Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi aren't afraid to spend money - recall that Nancy supported spending more than $700 billion on the Obama-era stimulus package, and said "We need to pass this bill so we can see what's in it."
5. Address reforms in TPS status for immigrants from Central American countries on the list. Make it easier for them to gain asylum - if they cross the border through legal ports of entry and can present a qualifying case. Wanting a job isn't a qualifying case.
6. On the flip side, end chain migration. Make it a felony to cross the border illegally with a minor in tow. That felony being punishable by immediately providing transportation back to Mexico, with a felony charge on your record in case you try to come back in. If Mexico won't help solve the problem, Mexico can own the problem.
7. End sanctuary policies. If a law enforcement officer in a sanctuary city, county or state interferes with ICE, that official can be arrested by ICE, and is banned from working in law enforcement for life, and is subject to federal fines and incarceration. End federal aid to sanctuary locations. California wildfires? Tragic, but if aid is cut off because California wants to pretend it's a sovereign nation by defying federal immigration laws, the crisis is on the shoulders of California lawmakers. Contrary to what some Californians believe, California is no better than Iowa.

There are probably more things I could come up with, but that's a start. It's a compromise, but it's a workable compromise, and it accomplishes what those on the left and the right say they support: increased border security. And either side can spin it to their advantage, so Congress: do your jobs, compromise, negotiate, then spin. It's what you do. Don't worry about the repercussions; your partisan constituents will love you no matter what you do.

Illegal immigration is a problem - no one on the left or right can deny that - and it is wanting for a solution. So I leave you with the problem-solving approach of my one-year-old grandson, who would probably do a better job running this country than anyone we've elected.

My daughter was working with my grandson, Aiden, on using a shape-sorting bucket. You know, those plastic buckets with different shaped cutouts in the lid, and plastic blocks matching those shapes. You put the shaped blocks through the shaped holes in the lid to get them into the bucket - the problem to be solved being getting the blocks in the bucket.

My daughter showed Aiden the round block, and put it in the round hole. Into the bucket it went. Then she did the same with the square block. Then, she handed Aiden the triangular block. He tried the round hole, but to no avail. Then he tried the square hole, again to no avail. He paused, looked at the bucket thoughtfully, and then ...

He lifted the lid off the bucket and dropped the triangular block into it.

The moral of the story? Don't worry about the hurdles in front of you, just solve the dad-gum problem.

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.