Examining the issues and how the candidates relate to them is crucial as we enter the home stretch of one of the strangest presidential elections ever. The last post exposed abortion as an emotional issue, lacking honest discussion. It’s important to approach such emotional problems with a balanced, rational perspective, considering the future demographics if abortion lacks any guardrails. Neither side offers depth to the debate, leaving us open to easily foreseen errors.

Unlike abortion, both candidates have four-year governing records so that we can compare their governing principles and results. Both faced domestic and foreign challenges, and the public had the basis to judge the results.

Domestically, the Trump administration turned over a growing, non-inflationary economy. The pandemic recovery might have been even more robust if Blue States had opened up at the same pace as Red.

Initially relying on his bureaucratic medical advisors, Trump made a hasty decision to shut down most of the nation and provide compensation to offset the resulting losses. However, he soon reversed his stance and favored reopening schools and businesses. Unfortunately, most Blue states were slow to follow, and we are still grappling with the prolonged effects of the lockdown, particularly in education. The impact of the pandemic on our economy and education system cannot be overstated.

Even with Trump’s lockdown and compensation overspending, by the time Biden took over, the nation was on its way to returning to the favorable economic conditions evident before the pandemic. By Biden’s inauguration, a million people got COVID-19 vaccine shots daily. No matter what the Kamala says, Bided-Harris came in on a favorable wave.

Continue reading →

The oddest thing about this presidential election is that nominees base their programs on highly discredited ideas. Price caps, tariffs, and industrial policy underlie Trump and Harris programs. One might think that finding what works and building on these have a better chance of success, but both have gone in the opposite direction.

In her first economic speech, Kamala Harris positioned her inflation-fighting program on a FTC crackdown on grocery price gouging. Rather than overspending by the Government resulting in too much money chasing too few goods, the accepted reason for inflation is those rascally grocers jacking up prices to fatten their profits. Better, the Government can control inflation by determining the “correct price.”

Price controls have a long history, going back to Roman times or earlier. They have uniformly failed, often making the situation far worse. High prices signal markets to increase supply or provide substitutes. Capping prices at a lower level sends the opposite signal, resulting in less supply, increasing shortages, and black markets. Marxist countries such as the USSR, Cuba, and Venezuela suffered from the Government dictating prices.

In an era of “Super Abundance,” as documented in the same-titled book by Tupy and Pooley I’ve been recommending, you must work hard to have so much less. Richard Nixon discovered this through his wage and price controls in the 1970s. Shortages and lines were a feature of our lives. Autos in long lines at gas stations brought home this policy failure to every community.

Upon his election in 1980, Ronald Reagan dumped the price caps on oil. Many projected the price of a barrel of oil would soar to over $100. Instead, the price ultimately bottomed out at around $10. The market reacted to price signals and brought forth price-reducing supply.

Why would anyone replicate a failed policy? Kamala Harris’s boss, Joe Biden, proposed rent control, an even worse policy. Will the Democratic nominee pursue this? What other prices will she cap?

In any case, why pick on grocers? Of the top five places most people purchase groceries, who’s a gouger? Walmart? Costco? Who should the FTC go after?

Not to be outdone in resurrecting bad policy, Trump is touting tariffs as a cure-all. Keeping out foreign products will foster making things here, producing good-paying jobs. Foreigners who have been taking advantage of us will pay huge taxes into our coffers-America first. What’s not to like? After all, didn’t we have high tariffs in the past to protect our industries?

Continue reading →

We are living in historic times. Sometimes, this is good, and other times, not so much. With some things baked in, such as Joe Biden’s dump, bad economic policy, and confused foreign policymaking, trouble is in the cards. “When troubles come, they come not single spies but in battalions.” (Claudius, Hamlet Act IV, Scene V). So it is today. A never-ending war in the Ukraine, joined by a widening war in the Middle East and the news of a weakening economy, has all the earmarks of a perfect storm.

Thank goodness, with our top-notch leadership, we have little to fear. Of course, I jest. Led by a vain old fool, the administrationc ontinues to make the wrong choices. By designating Biden’s compliant vice president as its nominee, the Democrats are doubling down on failure. Given a chance to bring in somebody new from their outside group of Governors who promised to give them a fresh start, they all jumped on the Kamala bandwagon.

While she’s getting the predicted sainthood treatment from the Democrats and legacy media, she’s been part of the Biden-Harris administration, and that’s not lost on the general public. Added to this mess, she has her own baggage. Can she pretend to be something else besides the San Fransico progressive she’s always been?

Selecting Minnesota Governor Tim Waltz as her vice president will not change perceptions. Instead, it will affirm that the ticket is running to the left. Waltz is a guy who feels that being a socialist is just being neighborly.

Continue reading →