This week we had both Trump and Clinton present their economic plans. Since then we have been inundated with media contrasting and comparing them. We saw it differently. What struck us was how similar the plans were in fact and tone. First of all their shared hostility to trade. Both turned thumbs down on the pending Trans Pacific Partnership trade agreement while vowing to upset agreements already in place such as NAFTA. In our series on “More” we pointed out governmental entities can gain “More” in only three ways. 1. Take from someone else  2.Trade for it  3. Innovate. As we have seen, the latter two often go hand in hand.  Before you can talk about how it’s distributed “More” has to exist. If you aren’t creating “More” you are dividing the same old pie with those closest to power grabbing the biggest slices. Without incentive to even maintain, the entity will stagnate or implode. Cuba and Venezuela are just the latest examples. Trade is at the heart of capitalism. Obviously these two have no acquaintance with Adam Smith and David Ricardo. (What do they teach at the Wharton School of Business?).

Both would severely penalize businesses relocating operations beyond our borders. It takes by most estimates more than $100,0000 in invested capital to create the average private sector job. Who would  want to invest in production in the US if like the Hotel California you can check in but never checkout? We’ve historically benefited from foreign investment but this would be an enormous beware sign. The same problem would affect US corporations that hold huge amounts profits overseas that otherwise might take advantage of Trump’s lower Corporate tax rate. The US has already dropped out of the top-tier of countries rated best to do business. This could position us to bring up the rear. How is this a plausible plan to expand employment? Likely it would have the opposite result.

Continue reading →

“I can’t even imagine a third party president. How would he or she operate without any support in congress?” We hear that a lot. In the past we also wondered how this could possibly work. Wouldn’t both establishment parties gang up destroy anything the president proposed? If the Johnson-Weld ticket actually won this could well be the outcome and 4 years would go down the drain without anything accomplished. Maybe the only the only good from it might be the chastened establishment parties putting  up future candidates that don’t make us gag.  That alone would be reason to vote for them. With Johnson-Weld, however, one could imagine a much different outcome. As fiscal conservatives but culturally liberal they could propose much needed legislation that appeals to the opposition parties, just not the same ones.

Let’s take two areas absolutely in need of resolution, entitlements and immigration. If not resolved they will truly damage the nation. Just down the road entitlements will virtually eat the national budget. Anyone looking at the numbers knows this is frighteningly true. Yet Democrats will fight any attempt attempt at reform. Republicans in the house have tried to face up to the problem but the Dems ran ads showing them pushing granny off a cliff. To make matters worse their own presidential candidate mirrors the democrats “no touch” policy. Immigration can’t even be brought up in the Republican House, even though the lack of a cohesive policy is literately tearing the country apart. Consecutive two term Republican and Democrat Presidents failed to move the ball on either nor  is it likely to change if either party wins in ’16. By contrast Johnson-Weld actually favor tackling both and therein lies hope.

Continue reading →

Strange, the idea of supporting the Libertarian Ticket elicits little negative feedback from Democrats. Maybe they’re just unaware of the Libertarian Party or they don’t realize that they take about an equal amount of votes from them. Not so from Republicans. Beyond the “but Hillary is worse” nonsense, they point to Trump’s  policies presented in scripted and teleprompter supported major speeches. On Taxes, energy, healthcare, foreign policy and supreme court justices he appears to be  reasonably inline with longstanding conservative ideas. Even if you have to hold your nose over his numerous disqualifications,if you support these you’ve got to vote for him. We suggest they look a little closer. In every case they reflect well known conservative thinking, just regurgitated by Trump. By taking Steve Moore’s  and Larry Kudlow’s  ideas on taxes,he  gains both credibility and their active support. Same with John Bolton on foreign policy and the Heritage Foundation on the Supreme Court justices. He takes your ideas and you’re flattered and align with him. The bait is set and you and those who believe in you are hooked. Didn’t anyone notice in each area, he later left himself an out to go in entirely different direction? “I’m for lowering taxes but I may raise them, just an opening bid to negotiate with foreign powers, and I may add people to my list of judges later.” He can just change direction when he perceives it to be in his interest or go where he really wanted in the first place. Just wait for the Switch.

For instance,let’s take a realistic look his supporters main pillar,Trump and the Supreme Court.   Trumpsters support their position with the mantra, “Hillary wins and the court will be ultra liberal for decades.”  They may have to toss their principles on everything else but at least they’ll have prevented runaway government. Really? When has Donald Trump ever done anything that wasn’t in his own interest? He changes positions to align with his interests of the moment, even  changing in an amazingly short time. Given his expressed positions, why would he appoint Antonin Scalia type  justices? You can’t get past the 1st amendment without grave apprehension on where Trump would go. He wants to greatly expand the libel laws to prevent  press criticism, threatened the owner of the Washington Post with anti-trust and would impose a religious test on who could enter the US. We’ve seen his lack of respect for the separation of powers when went after the judge in his Trump University fraud cases and mentioned he would be president when the case went to trial. He’s for greatly expanding eminent domain. Sounds like he would appoint judges favoring an expanded view of government and his presidency. Why would he appoint judges that would rule against him? The Trumsters are kidding themselves.

Continue reading →

The Republican leaning media has convinced us that Hillary Clinton is totally unworthy to be President of the US. Just some of her failings such as  Whitewater Billings, lying to the parents of the Benghazi  victims, her  private server and the Clinton Foundation are enough to disqualify her from ever occupying the Oval office . Of course, the list is much longer. How can we elect someone whose proper residence is a jail? However, we are also aware of the arguments of the Democratic leaning media proving Donald Trump shouldn’t even be considered for the top job. An authoritarian bigot who seems to think the Constitution is a suggestion and whose shady business practices might be punctuated by a jury finding him a fraud, Trump would be a disaster. Well, they’re right. Trump should never be president. Our two great political parties have given us unacceptable choices.

How did the Greatest Country on Earth get in this position? Duopoly. Without  real competition our two major parties didn’t need to put forth the effort to insure they offered the best possible product. That’s the way it is with limited competition. After World War II GM and Ford dominated our auto choices. (yes there was Chrysler but they just followed along behind). By the end of the sixties we had cars where nothing fit and fell apart before their auto loans were paid off. The companies got big profits and their unions got outlandish wages and benefits. The consumer got screwed. Along came some foreign cars than actually were a value and the landscape changed. Cars like the legendary Datsun 240Z showed us what our money should buy. The Big Two had to either improve or go out of business. Under the gun of real competition they now produce cars that they can be proud. It’s time to look for that Datsun. Unless some people are willing to break ranks and and try something foreign to them nothing will ever change.

This election we have a real third choice, the Libertarian Ticket of Gary Johnson and William Weld. They will be on the ballot in all 50 states. If for no other reason than to punish the two major parties for giving us unacceptable choices and delivering the message, “never insult us again”, vote for this ticket. But there are many more reasons to take this action beyond penalizing the two party political establishment. Johnson and Weld , both have been successful two term  Republican Governors in blue states. They actually have more executive experience than the two major party candidates combined and records of successfully working with the opposition. Having a President who is neither Republican or Democrat opens up possibility of tackling our most intractable problems. Entitlements and immigration are just two things we desperately need to confront now before we suffer real damage. The two major party candidates refuse to even  entertain entitlement reforms even with the absolute knowledge they can’t be sustained in their present form. The fight over immigration is tearing the country apart. (actually as we pointed out in recent post “On the Move” entitlement reform is in part dependent on immigration reform). With someone in the White House that favors both, we’d have someone to mediate solutions. More importantly, the parties would have someone to blame for the benefit of their respective bases. In this endeavor, William Weld in the Senate would be invaluable in forging the needed compromises as no vice-president before him ever could. With a ticket that is fiscally conservative and culturally liberal, they simply would have far more room to horse trade.  Just maybe it would give us a needed timeout from partisanship to achieve reasonable and needed outcomes.

This is supposed to be the year of the outsider and this ticket surely fits the bill better than the ultimate insider Hillary Clinton and the man who by his own admission paid often and well to obtain crony capitalist benefits, Donald Trump. Beyond change,we could actually solve some of our problems and bring the nation closer together. This would be tall order but for the guy who conquered Everest and cast 750 vetoes, Gary Johnson is tough enough to do the job. He and Bill Weld just might be inline with where the  majority of Americans actually are. If you take a look and compare, you’ll buy the Datsun.

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. .