The Terrible Twos

The upcoming political debate has been described as a potential cage match but we speculate it will be more akin to a couple of toddlers in a sandbox.  More particular, it could be promoted as the Terrible Two in their terrible twos.  

We call these “debates” but, honestly, we should call the series of public displays of complaining and blaming the “Urinary Olympics”.  There will be little policy discussed as the Terrible Two spit and throw sand.  Most answers will be dishonest and disingenuous as will questions be bias.  Gone will be honest and reason debate on policy, as each candidate further shreds the Constitution.

The debate can be expected to achieve a level of viewership comparable to a major sports event.  It will probably be the most watched presidential debate in the history of debates – unfortunately for the wrong reasons.

Sunday Football & Freedom

Disagreement, discussion, debate. These are all things that should be celebrated as we have the opportunity in this country to freely disagree and debate our differing opinions. This is something that every citizen of the United States should participate in – respectfully of course.  We can have round table discussions and peaceful protesting to address dissent among the people in which the other side may be argued against but each party is still respected.

Colin Kaepernick’s action to sit during the national anthem to address his opinion of the unfair treatment of the African American community in this country has gotten quite a bit of media attention recently. His opinion can be respected, but his display has disrespected those who put their lives on the line for people of this country.

Whether you agree or disagree, respect is the backbone of discourse to insight progress.  When that respect is lost, true progress is forgone and pointless complaining replaces it.

Commander-in-Chief Forum

This week MSNBC presented a Commander-In-Chief Forum with an interview of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump by Matt Lauer.  However, the title belies the real mission of the show.  The questions ranged from – among other items – Clinton emails, Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome, the Veteran Affairs Administration, veteran suicides, and rape in the military.  Questions about the sequester effect on military readiness, approach to current conflicts, deployment and development of weapon systems, and engagement strategy were essentially absent.  Instead of asking these questions pertinent to the role of Commander-In-Chief, Matt Lauer wondered about Vladimir Putin’s compliment of Trump.

Today, on September 11th, is a day that marks the turning point of the nation’s response to terror.  President Bill Clinton saw terror as something for police action, but 9-11 transformed it into military action.

In light of this, we need to first remember the constitutional role of the Commander-in-Chief.  Only Congress can declare war while the president executes the war.  Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states the "President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States."

The Commander-In-Chief when executing a war has to have a clear mission, a strategy for the mission, an ability to assure the resources for the mission, and a capability to communicate the mission to maintain the public’s support of the mission.  The MSNBC forum failed to show how either candidate is qualified for the job of Commander-In-Chief.

In essence, the show was more about advocacy for social programs for veterans than a probative interview in the duties and responsibilities of the Commander regarding our national security.

Men and women who volunteer to serve are a special class because they choose to put themselves in harm’s way for political causes – some just and some misplaced.  Honor, glory, duty, bravery, courage and dedication are characteristics of these men.  It would do the nation well if the political class had these characteristics too.

Too Much Spice Makes Nothing Nice

Government should act as a spice: used sparingly in the recipe of prosperity it enhances the public good but, too much overpowers the natural flavors and, in excess, will poison.

Politicians proclaim how more spending and bureaucratic controls will stimulate demand, but there is no example to demonstrate how more taxes create more demand and incessant regulations create productivity.  As we discuss in our book, Vigilance The Price of Liberty, economic growth is dependent on productivity. Productivity flows from innovation. Innovation comes from investment. Investment needs lower taxes that enable investors to take risk.  Therefore, past a modest point, taxes choke investments which strangle the innovation that drives productivity and grows prosperity.

Too much government works against itself.  For example, the highest taxed people, if you compare by percentage, are the poor.  Welfare programs that provide disability income to some 10 million people, provide them a financial disincentive to break from the disability hand-out because for each dollar they earn in honest work, they lose a dollar in hand-out.  Rational financial response: don’t work.

The point being, most of what government does simply does not, cannot and will not work. With anemic GDP growth at the lowest level since the Great Depression, here is a collection of charts received today that paint the overall picture:

So what is the answer?  The best solution is less government.  One that is used as a spice to enhance prosperity, not a poison to success.  So when thinking about what you want this election cycle, maybe by asking less of government is more prosperity.

Complaining: The Drug of the Millennial

It seems each generation has an “addiction”.  For my grandfather’s generation it was smoking, for my parent’s generation it was drugs, and for Millennials it appears to be complaining.  Like all addictions, complaining began with an enabler: lack of discipline, participation trophies and, most of all, the idea of not just starting on an even playing field, but requiring an equality in outcome no matter the input effort.

We now have a generation that is addicted to complaining. You didn’t get your way? Complain. You didn’t get the grade you wanted on an assignment in school? Complain. You lost a game? Complain.

Millennials have forsaken hard work, dedication and respect as the tools to move through society and gain prosperity.  For too many, complaining has become a route to reap rewards from the ambition of others.

According to surveys, Millennial's number one issue in the workplace is fairness.  But fairness is in the eyes of the beholder.  Translated, it can be taken to mean, if I get my way it is fair, otherwise it is not.  This concept of fairness is juvenile and, as working adults, needs to be left in the childhood sandbox where it started.

We subscribe to the notion of equal opportunity that removes artificial barriers.  But beyond that, prosperity takes tremendous individual effort, risk and some luck!  Try scaling a mountain.  The ones that make it to the top all started with the equal opportunity to try.  But on the path from the base to the summit, weather, skill, strength and determination make the difference between those who make it up the mountain and those who do no…fairness has nothing to do with it.

Presidential Policies – A Non Sequitur

A non sequitur is a conclusion that does not follow from its premise.  For example, summer is a wonderful time which makes dogs better than cats.  The premise, summer, is not connected in any logical way to making dogs better than cats.  Presidential policies too are replete with non sequiturs.

Donald Trump wants to stem the flow of foreign trade with China and Mexico.  He derides these countries for taking American jobs.  He degrades the “stupid” bureaucrats in Washington for making bad trade deals, like NAFTA, and scolds Carrier Corporation for moving its manufacturing to Mexico.  For Trump, NAFTA is the premise that caused Carrier to move - this is a non sequitur.  Carrier moved because of the excessive tax and regulatory burdens imposed on it by the government.  NAFTA just made Mexico a potential place to move to, but NAFTA was not the premise for the move.

Hillary Clinton would cure anemic economic growth with, among other big government programs, infrastructure spending to the tune of about $55 billion a year.  Her premise is that government spending has a multiplier and any government spending will increase demand.  This is a non sequitur.  President Obama and the Congressional Democrats allocated close to a trillion dollars in economic “stimulus” in 2009 – with a portion dedicated to infrastructure – yet their touted “recovery summer” of 2010 did not materialized: unemployment spiked over 10% when they assured us that the stimulus would hold unemployment to under 7%, and workforce participation sank to the lowest level since the 1970’s.  So the premise that government stimulus will spur demand and accelerate economic growth does not follow.

Partisans will cheer their candidates and not stop to question policies they accept as dogma.  However, non-partisans need to be clear minded and question the premise before being agreeable to the policy.

The Poison of Populous Partisans

On August 1st Hillary Clinton held a rally in Omaha, NE.  In attendance and on-stage to promote Clinton’s campaign was renowned investor Warren Buffet.  One of the items Mrs. Clinton focused on was increasing taxes on the wealthy – what Buffet has also proposed.  She railed against the wealthy, proclaiming that the wealthy had to pay their fair share of taxes, and she would not tolerate Trump’s tax cuts for the wealthy.  She exclaimed “We’re going to write fairer rules for the middle class”. Then, with a stern and determined look on her face, she pointed her finger into the crowd to emphasize as she shouted “And we are going to raise taxes on the middle class!”  The crowded erupted in applause, as she looked at them in an air of certainty and, Buffett, seated behind Clinton, clapped profusely to show his approval too.

This miss-step by Clinton, to raise taxes on the middle-class, unfazed the crowd as their cheers continued.  Nor did anyone tap Mrs. Clinton on the shoulder to correct her vow to raise taxes on the middle class.  She gave it no heed either, as she continued her speech.   This is the poison of partisans who do not even listen to their candidate, as they are deaf to the candidate’s words while they cheer in delight.  These people have a “mob” mentality and, like locus, will devour anything in their path.

Political partisans, especially those of the populous bent, should be feared.  Populism is an enemy of democracy.  As we have covered in Vigilance The Price of Liberty, the Bill of Rights was specifically written to protect our liberty from encroachment by government and – the tyranny of the masses a.k.a. populism.

When candidates Trump and Clinton insight populism, they actively work against what the Constitution stands for.  Promoting division by demonizing success, pitting the classes against the masses, and brow beating identity politics is divisive and dangerous to liberty and prosperity.

We need to carefully listen to the candidates and have open discussions to challenge their views.  We must be objective and free to be persuaded by fact and reason.  And unless we tune-out the partisans and parties we face the threat of sacrificing our freedoms to fear and jealousy.