Commentary

“I think it’s a disgrace” Trump

Dave Davis Commentary, Uncategorized

“It’s terrible, You wanna know the truth? I think it’s a disgrace You wanna know what’s going on in this country, I think it’s a disgrace” so says Pres. Trump in support of the Memo released from Rep. Nunez’s Republican majority House Intelligence Committee.  He’s right of course, just not in the way he thinks. Nothing before this 3 1/2 page document highlighted how much the right has fallen in line with President Trump.  Legislators,  pundits, editorial boards, website and talk radio hosts are dancing to the Trump tune.  Now the right had every reason to unite with the President on taxes, judges and regulations.  These were on the right’s wish lists long before Trump traveled in their direction to run for President.  However, his problems with the Russian probe are of his own making and have nothing to do with the aims of the right.  Why then are they for the most part rallying to the defense of Trump and this ultra partisan memo?

Last week, traveling to their to their West Virginia Retreat,  Republican members of congress were looking forward to taking  bows on the tax cut and the economy.  Polls were up ticking. They were going to present their agenda going forward as a springboard for success in the 2018 elections.  Instead, this memo drowned out their upbeat message focusing the nation’s attention on Trump’s Russian problems even before its eventual release.  Maybe the wreck of the train taking them to the retreat was an omen.  Why rush the memo out. without waiting for the Democrats minority report as is customary? By not waiting, their memo could only be seen as a partisan attack on the Mueller investigation. Even though they never shared Trump’s pro Putin stance which drew the original scrutiny to his campaign, they were sucked into Trump’s mess.  Amazingly, one of the few recent bi-partisan Congressional Acts, putting additional sanctions on Russia for interfering with our election, lies dormant because Trump to date has refused to implement them.

Continue reading →

Don’t Blame the Founding Fathers

Dave Davis Commentary, Uncategorized

With the recent government shutdown, the pundits are working overtime providing explanations for the mess in Washington.  One of the more popular is the Senate’s archaic rules.  Our old two-party system with its primaries are just too divisive, making compromise more difficult if not impossible. This implies the work of the founding fathers is somehow standing in the way of a functioning government.  In fact, this couldn’t be further from the truth. There is nothing in our constitution about Senate Rules, political parties or primaries. All have at best a mixed record.

In order to have a budget and pay our national bills we presently need 60 votes in the Senate thereby handing veto power over to the minority.  Sounds as if this was one of the check and balances embodied in the Constitution.  Not so. This is just a rule of the Senate itself.  The idea of speaking endlessly to delay or defeat certain legislation goes all the way back to the Roman Senate. Our Senate in its wisdom instituted the rule in 1806 that debate on an issue could only ended by cloture vote of generally 60% of the Senate.  Super majorities were frowned on by both Madison and Hamilton as one of the great weaknesses of the Constitutions ‘s ineffectual predecessor, the Articles of Confederation.  In any case, it was never used until 1837 and then rarely for our first two centuries.  The fact that you had to actually talk for endless hours if not days, probably made it an unattractive option.  One only has to see the worn down and haggard Jimmy Stewart in Frank Capra’s classic movie”Mr. Smith goes to Washington” to know what a filibuster was in those days.  It was only in the 1970s and later the rules changed to where the mere threat of filibuster brings about vote for cloture needing 60% “super majority” (60 out of the 100 senators).  The reasoning was either way the Senate could move on to other business rather than being tied up with endless speech making.

Continue reading →

2018

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized

Some thoughts looking for the new year.  Things that just might make a difference.

  • Markets.  For those in the stock market, this has been a string of good years, capped by a great 2017.  Better still the great majority of market prognosticators are predicting more of the same.  However, markets need new money to go higher.  The only group not already in  is the public at large.  Since the 2008 debacle the public has largely been on the sidelines.  If the bright forecasts and coupled with greed encourage a mass move into the markets their will be no one else down the road to buy at ever higher prices. Historically, the markets are richly valued.   At higher prices logically they  will be more vulnerable to unforeseen shocks.  Super low-interest rates courtesy of the Central Banks have underpinned this long rise.  Now the Fed and it’s counterparts are reducing their portfolios i.e selling.  In the US unemployment rate at 4.1% is really low. To grow, economies need to add workers and this might push up wages and the rate of inflation.  We know workforce participation is low meaning there might be a reserve of workers that could enticed back to work by higher wages but even if they do reenter, they probably don’t have the needed skills and might prove to be costly and inefficient. These factors point to higher interest rates.  Earnings will have to expand in the face of this drag.  Also ultra low interest rates tend to lead to asset bubbles.  China given its enormous use of credit to expand its economy could be the biggest bubble around.  Unrest and/or a trade war could provide the “pop”.  In fact a trade war anywhere could cause major problems. Besides, higher interest rates don’t favor asset bubbles. These are just some things we can see.  Can a very highly priced markets survive the unforeseen?
  • Politics. With the economy in the best shape since the “Great Recession”, it’s amazing the party in power is held is such a low regard.  The president is mired under 40% approval while Democrats are favored by double digits in the generic Congressional polls.  Republicans pass a tax bill putting more money this year in most people’s pockets and according the latest polls, most people dislike it.  What gives?  President Trump is the face of the party whether Republicans like it or not and a majority of people never cared for him.  Since the election, this disapproval has widened and hardened. into active dislike.  Where Reagan’s natural likability greatly helped him over various rough patches, the opposite is true of Trump.  Tip O’Neal the Democratic House Speaker, could be pictured favorably trading Irish stories with Reagan over drinks while such a Trump-Pelosi cordiality is now almost inconceivable.  Right or wrong, Trump is held responsible for the nation’s widening divide.  Given this background, the Mid-Term elections are less than favorable for the Republicans.  The only thing they have going for them is a far greater number of Democrats in the Senate up for re-election.  Maybe the economy will be so good it’ll rescue them, but what if the the markets and the economy go in the other direction?  Can Trump and the Republicans exist after a super Democratic wave?  Still remembering Hillary, Democratic  lack of purpose other than opposing Trump,  the Republicans could still snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
  • World.  Trump departed from a long-held conventional wisdom by recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, so there is hope for policy thinking outside the same old boxes.  However, the destruction of the Islamic State hasn’t made the world safe from terrorism.  So long as there is Moslem extremism. with a background of Sunni-Shia conflict, there is little reason for optimism.  Maybe this why the Iraqi government has invited a continued US presence in the country.  We should only agree if our logistics are run out of Kurdistan rather than Baghdad or Turkey.   American personnel would be a lot safer than in the Iraqi capital and we have to recognize Turkey under Erdogan isn’t our friend.  Once established in Erbil we would be in the position envisioned in our post SSSHHH! A MIDDLE EAST POLICY ON THE QT.  With the present turmoil, think how much greater Iran’s dilemma  if they were looking across the border at a de facto US base in Kurdistan.  One of the affected cities is  Kermanshah, the largest Kurdish speaking city in Iran.  Killing Kurds to maintain Supreme Leader Khamenei  control in the area would have a whole new meaning with millions of US allied Kurds just across the border.  We wouldn’t even need to say a word to cause great anxiety in Tehran.  In the same light, dealing with North Korea and China in a different way could change the conversation.  Instead of thinking of them separately, think of them as one unit.  During the cold war we would never have dealt with Poland or Czechoslovakia as separate entities on nuclear weapon matters.  A nuclear attack from either would result in retaliation on their then master the Soviet Union.  No ifs, ands or buts. In reality, North Korea is just as under China’s thumb as Poland was under the USSR’s.  Treating them separately leaves us  focused on North Korea while leaving China free to expand in the South China sea.  China might be much more cooperative if they knew a North Korean missile hitting the US or its allies would result in retaliation on Peijing or Shanghai.  Would they really let little Kim make war or peace decisions for them?  Dealing with China and North Korea as one unit would pay great dividends.  Let’s make 2018 a year of fresh approaches.

Pre-Holiday Observations

Dave Davis Commentary, Dave's Healthcare Plan, Policy, Uncategorized

With a nod to  Martin Niemoller (see our previous post), when they came for the Duke La Crosse team Senator Franken said nothing. Then they came for Roy Moore,  Franken cheered. Then they came for Franken and no one was there to speak in his defense. This is the same Senator that tweeted  “@BetsyDeVosED‘s decision to reverse guidelines on campus sexual assault threatens students’ civil rights. We must protect our students.”  Yes, those were the same rules severely limiting the rights of the accused on campuses.  Poetic justice? He certainly won’t be the last they come for.

While on the subject of sexual harassment or worse and those accused of these transgressions, so much of what is discussed never made it to any court.  There has never been or  ever will be any legal determination on the claims of Leigh Corfman, Beverly Nelson, Juanita Broderick or Kathleen Willey.  These cases and so many others just come down to the very subjective “who do you believe?.”  Not so in the case Paula Jones pressed against Bill Clinton  The very existence and ensuing testimony of Monica Lewinsky and Pres. Clinton in this case allowed Linda Trip to convince Lewinsky to preserve evidence proving the then President was a liar under oath. This led him to concede throwing in the towel by paying the maximum amount Jones asked.  Further his lies under oath in this case caused him to lose his law license. No question here on who to believe.  The case entailed the claim the then Governor of Arkansas exposed himself to  state employee Jones while soliciting sexual favors.  Sounds similar to so many of today’s accusations.  What seems to be forgotten, the case was initially thrown out of court to the cheers of all the major woman’s organizations and of course Democrats. It was tossed not on the facts of the case, but for lack of standing. The court just couldn’t see how Ms.Jones was damaged.  In a civil case you have to show harm and the court couldn’t see any.    A lowly state employee subjected to extreme sexual harassment by her ultimate boss but only pain in the pocket-book was recognized. How would this play today? Jones persevered without any help from the “feminists” of the day and their allies through the appeals process to an ultimate victory that netted her little monetarily but much ugly commentary.  To this day her detractors have never embraced her.  If they couldn’t support a lowly public employee, who?  Just Hollywood stars and other elites? Have you ever heard anyone call Paula Jones a heroine? Yet she stood up and fought it out at the time in the courts unlike so so many of today’s “heroes.”

We talk about the mandatory the savings embodied in “Dave’s Plan” and eyes glaze over.  “That will never fly” they say. Yet we just ran across this little snippet in the Week, Dec. 8,

Oregon Retirement005

This trend towards mandatory savings accounts is gaining strength here and abroad simply because it’s a necessity to achieve the future we all desire.  Marry this to the major trend towards Health Savings Accounts (HSA) and we’re on our way to Dave’s Plan’s Personal Benefit Account (PBA). (See the entire series under Dave’s Plan) Add a credit card feature and you’re basically there. We just got there sooner.  After all, in a Capitalist Society it really good to have capital. As a wise man we knew once said, “rich or poor, it’s good to have money.”

Some of the program Republicans pined for ages has been accomplished.  A number of regulations have been rolled back and their growth has slowed. Tax relief for business is a reality.  For a country that had the highest corporate tax rate and fallen out of the top thirty countries for doing business, this has given a much-needed boost to our nation’s competitiveness.  A great number of conservative judges have been appointed.  However, one has to wonder if this just might be the high point and now for the ride downhill. President Trump and the Republican Congress could generally agree on these things, but not so much on the other problems that stubbornly remain. The tax cut looks like it will add to the deficit. (4% average annual growth for the next ten years may produce a bonanza of tax revenue but would you bet the nation on it?)  This brings entitlement reform to the fore.  Lots of luck there with a the president on record as a against any reductions.  The bi-partisan Simpson-Bowles plan could be a starting point but does anyone expect Trump to go where Obama wouldn’t (even though he appointed the commission). A bad Health Care plan died once, can they come up with something that would actually work?  Trade policy under Trump could possibly start trade wars offsetting gains on taxes and regulations. Immigration reform has a constituency on both sides of the aisle but Trump and his followers will never go for the increase we despairingly need.  With a record high stock market and a record low unemployment, the President and Republicans have horrible poll numbers.  What if the market and/or the economy take a dip? What would that portend for the 2018 and 2020? Like Obama, much of what has been accomplished can be reversed by a change in the political winds. Eau de Trump still threatens the Republican’s very existence.  Under these circumstances would you  put more money in the stock market now?  We aren’t.  Would you consider taking money out?  We are? Could this kind of thinking by itself u cause the dip?  Yes!  Are you now sleeping better?  We aren’t.

We’ll save our comments on the Middle east and wedding cakes for later and wish everyone Happy Holidays.

 

 

 

 

 

Hang Him High

Dave Davis Commentary, Uncategorized

Wow! A senate candidate with a history of  sex with a slew of underage girls, can’t help but think this guy is toast.  The fact that he held some far out positions we heartily disliked only made the picture in our minds worse.  Drum this guy out of the race! The praise of the Washington Post’s reporting in exposing this “pedophile” to use a term prevalent on all the cable shows, only works to seal the deal. That this goes back 35-40 years ago doesn’t matter, these gals are telling the truth.  But a press conference held by the candidate Roy Moore’s team planted some small seeds of doubt.  We fully expected to see each of Moore’s supporters  and other supporters such as Breitbart contentions smacked down by the Post and others.  We’re still waiting.

The slew of underage girls turns out to be just one.  The others range from 16 to 28.  True for the most part Moore was considerably older and this is frowned on in certain circles, but it isn’t illegal in Alabama. College faculties might be decimated if we carted off faculty members dating their young students to the hoosegow. Remember college freshman range from 16-20 with 18 as the median.  May-December may not be our cup of tea but hardly shocking.  A teacher or professor having a relationship with his or her student on its face implies unequal power and should be discouraged, but its hard to see this in the Moore case. None of these people worked for or were dependent in any way on the then Assistant DA., Moore.

Continue reading →