Yesterday I switched from your program and ultimately settled at NPR’s Weekly Review. It was then that I realized that a bond with an old friend had been irretrievably broken. No we have never met, but having tuned you in when possible for decades believing I had a reliable on air small government free market soul mate, for me it was a relationship. While your program went national after the Reagan Revolution had already taken place, you provided a daily dose of not only your thoughts but those like minded conservative thinkers. Talking not only of your meeting  William F. Buckley, but reading from contributors to his National Review. You quoted endlessly from Thomas Sowell’s books and columns. Even when you were off we were treated to  your most popular guest host, Walter Williams. All this did much to further the cause. Without  many other capitalist media sources, you provided a megaphone for free market ideas and exposing the follies of big government. Yet here I was listening to you mocking Thomas Sowell and all those “establishment elites” contributing to National Review and it’s  like minded sister publications. How could they talk about media ratings whores that just might include you? The thought that you might fit the description came to me when I heard you speak of Baseball’s Arizona Diamondback owning Kendricks who were willing to spend millions in  order to stop Donald Trump even if it meant losing ticket sales without any comprehension or understanding of their convictions from you. Chicken or egg, which came first for you, following some of your audience drifting into Pat Bucannan nativism  or did you get there all by yourself to attract the “blame it all on others crowd” to bolster your ratings? It doesn’t matter. Here you are endorsing, a mercantilist big government nativist. Thomas Sowell , the other “Elites”or I haven’t changed our convictions, so it has to be you. Look in the mirror and tell us what you see. Is it a man who changed out of conviction? Then you owe it to your audience to explain your journey to from  free markets to protectionism and all the rest. Is it being a media ratings whore? Others such as Glen Beck, Mark Levin and those Wisconsin talkers all risked losing listeners but went with their convictions but  not you if you still believed in free markets. Or maybe you see a Trump slogan spouting guy in sun glasses who refuses to listen to rational argument. Repeating the hoary argument of anyone is better than Clinton when you can’t possibly know what in fact Donald Trump believes or would do in office puts you behind the sunglasses.. “I’m against  raising  the minimum wage/I’m for raising the minimum wage” “I’ll open the coal mines, but I’m for Nuclear power” and on and on. At least with Hillary we know where she stands and can oppose her. With Trump you’re probably sleeping with the enemy and all that portends. In any case, it isn’t just a choice between the two. Conservatives vote Republican because it is closest to their convictions, but now many will find the Libertarian Party and their  candidate philosophically closer than either and they will have that choice in every state. After all, this is a year where anything can happen. Well, what about the Supreme Court you cry? One thing we know is that the Trumps are a close knit family. Who would Trump go to for advice on appointments, his left leaning judge sister or some “loser”conservatives?  What would you bet your future on? A libertarian would be a much safer choice to appoint judges that would limit government excess. Empty slogans not reason. At least the sun won’t get in your eyes.

I don’t expect an answer and if you comment on the air I won’t hear it.  Just getting some closure to a long term relationship. I’ll post this on the Blog detourontheroad.com so in the future people will know why I have no Idea what Rush is saying and have no interest in finding out. .

Trump’s Health Plan-Nothing really new here.  There’s no way this plan would have a positive effect on health care costs other than being able to buy policies across state lines. This of course has been part of virtually every alternative plan including our “Dave’s Plan”,but by itself it can’t hope to make a meaningful reduction of costs. Remember our plan (for new readers find under Policy the series describing the plan) aims to actually bend the cost curve down by on one side making people spend for healthcare out of their own savings (Personal Benefits Accounts PBAs) while relieving providers of the bulk of paperwork and credit risks associated with healthcare. These kind of market pressures have resulted in lower costs in other fields and we have no reason to believe it won’t have the same effect in healthcare.On the other hand, by covering preexisting conditions, tax breaks and further expansion of medicare, the Trump Plan could indeed cost even more than Obamacare. Dave’s plan initially could also add to cost but only because it covers everybody, but it does it with exactly the same cost per person as Obamacare. Future costs will be reduced by it’s powerful market features. Add complete portability and leveling the playing field between small and large businesses and we really have a plan that empowers individuals in their own healthcare. Against this, Trump’s Plan seems to be a grab bag of previously advanced ideas without serious intent. It’s probably a good thing that the plan’s ideas are so old that the statute of limitations probably prevents him from  being sued.

Trump winning-People have said we were wrong in our prediction that Trump had topped out.(Hitting the Ceiling 3/3/16 Commentary) We concede nothing. Trump has been winning more delegates in a divided field, but he has done it with virtually the same 30-40%. He is now faced with having to acquire the needed 1237 delegates before the convention or be faced with some ugly alternatives and unless he can expand his base it’s unlikely he gets there. With his increasing opposition from women,  foreign policy flubs and total incoherence on abortion expanding his base is increasingly a mirage. If he is unable to win on the first ballot, he’s done.  Trump has no chance on future ballots. The delegates just aren’t his people. Trump needs to win Wisconsin and then get over 50% in New York to be a winner taking all to have a clear path to 1237. Stumble on either and the path looks like a contested convention. Losing both would be a Trump’s worst nightmare. On the eve of the Wisconsin Primary it doesn’t look promising for Trump. Polls show him with a wide over 50% lead in New York  but this could be a double edged sword. a slippage especially under 50% and all the news will be how he is slipping which could further his downward momentum. At some point he’ll have to confront the possibility of a convention 1st ballot loss. If he can’t reach 1237 before Cleveland on his own he’ll have to use his supposed negotiating skills to make a deal or deals to get there. The problem is with who? Continue reading →