Policy

A Heads Up For Trump

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized , , , ,

The Washington Post reports that President Trump is considering attending the Supreme Court’s oral arguments in the tariff cases scheduled for November 5. It’s hard to see this threat as anything other than an attempt at intimidation. No president ever did this. Something about this executive branch’s effort to menace another branch made me think of another leader’s actions along these lines against another coequal branch of government.

At loggerheads with Parliament over its refusal to fund his endeavors, Charles I of the U.K. raised money through forced loans in defiance of that body and even threatened it. He entered Parliament with soldiers in an attempt to arrest some members. The idea was to wrest the Power of the purse — Parliament’s basic Power — from that body. The result was the English Civil War, where Parliament prevailed. Charles didn’t fare so well:

With the Power of the purse firmly embedded in the legislative branch, the principle migrated to the English colonies, where the Crown appointed the Governors. Still, the colonists elected the legislature that controlled funding. It’s no surprise that the legislative Power of the purse appears in the very first article of our Constitution.

Trump vs. V.O.S Selections —the official case name —is the most important separation-of-powers case since Truman seized the steel mills. To my mind, Trump’s tariffs are so expansive that they dwarf Truman’s action. Suppose a President can proclaim an emergency, which he can solely define, and usurp a revenue source expressly delegated to the legislative branch. In that case, the executive can neuter that branch and destroy our foundational system of checks and balances.

Continue reading →

Rooted in Obamacare

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

The government shutdown is brought on by Senate Democrats refusing to sign on to a clean continuing resolution because of exploding Obamacare premiums. Without an extension of the COVID-19 era coverage expansion subsidies, many people will see their premiums more than double. The heartless Republicans will consign people to lose their healthcare. Of course, some of those losing their subsidy make 600%0f of the poverty level, but everyone is entitled to healthcare, right?

None of this mess should come as a surprise. When the original Obamacare bill squeaked through, President Obama and the Democrats told us this was a way to get close to universal medical care at a reasonable cost.

Obamacare, at the forefront of the shutdown, brought back the memory of why I started this blog. At the time, I, along with a slew of others, disputed these claims. We said the projected costs would prove much higher and would leave many people uncovered. Of course, we’re correct:

Even with the COVID-19 expansion, 27.2 million Americans, or 8.7%, remained uninsured in 2024. Coupling with this failure are rapidly rising costs. Contributing to these costs is widespread fraud.

After the Affordable Care Act (ACA, Obamacare) narrowly passed and went into effect, I happened to inveigh against it at a family dinner, pointing out its numerous flaws and how to improve healthcare. My stepdaughter challenged me to come up with a better plan. In other words, put up or shut up, though she said more nicely.

This reasonable dare prodded me to start this blog to air my public policy ideas, beginning with healthcare. Dave’s Healthcare Plan went online in 2014. Anyone can read it here.

The difference between my Plan and others, including the ACA, is that it integrates health insurance with savings and portability. This view of a person’s financial picture is standard for a financial advisor assessing a person’s economic needs. Without health insurance, you could wipe out your savings overnight. Your savings could make healthcare more affordable.

Continue reading →

Getting Immigration Right

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized , , , ,

Immigration is a continuing flash point in America, but we rarely look at the facts and data. Emotions have led to deadlock on one of our most important policy questions. Let’s start with what we know:

The more we deport migrants, the sooner we will experience negative population growth. A glance at our social programs reveals the disastrous consequences of this path. Social Security will have to cut benefits by 2033 as things presently stand. With even fewer people supporting our retirees, the system collapses. We’ll need more people to fill jobs in an expanding economy.

Once we understand that our future depends on a growing population, the only question is how to achieve it. More births would be beneficial, but no one has yet found a way to increase births in advanced economies. That leaves immigration. However, this conclusion doesn’t mean throwing the borders open and taking in all comers. Done correctly, immigration can be a win-win proposition.

There are approximately 400,000 to 500,000 unfilled manufacturing jobs in the U.S. as of mid-2025. More than 1 million skilled trades jobs are unfilled, a figure expected to continue growing. The cybersecurity sector is projected to have 3.5 million unfilled positions in 2025. The nursing profession faces significant projected shortages, with approximately 1 million openings predicted for the decade of 2022-2032. These figures inform us that we need more skilled workers.  

Instead of the confusing and ineffective visa programs for skilled workers we have presently, I propose that anyone with skills worldwide can register for clearance. Once approved, authorized individuals can receive a visa at any time in the future.

Continue reading →

Don’t Call This Administration Conservative

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized , , , ,

Core principles of conservatism

While the specifics of conservative beliefs can vary, common principles include:

  • Tradition: A preference for long-standing institutions and practices over sudden or radical change.
  • Limited Government: A belief that governmental power and scope should be restricted to protect individual liberty and free markets.
  • Fiscal responsibility: A focus on low taxes, reduced government spending, and minimal debt.
  • Strong national defense: Support for a powerful military to ensure national security and project power abroad.
  • Social conservatism: Emphasis on traditional morality, often rooted in religious beliefs, including support for the traditional family structure and opposition to abortion and certain LGBTQ+ rights.
  • Individualism: A belief in personal responsibility, self-reliance, and individual achievement, viewing society as composed of individuals rather than collective groups. 

When I Googled “Conservative,” these are the principles the AI generated. Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan would find them compatible with their philosophies. The former is the first conservative I was able to vote for. The latter governed as best he could as a conservative. Those of us who supported the Conservative movement of the era have trouble with what the administration is passing off as conservative, when in many cases, they’re the opposite.

When Trump first ran for President, he made certain moves to demonstrate to conservatives that he was one of them. He promised to appoint judges from the Federalist Society’s list. Old Reagan hand Larry Kudlow and Steve Moore were enlisted to deliver an economic program of tax cuts and regulatory reduction. Much to my dismay and that of others, he delivered.

Meanwhile, most of Trump’s first term suffered under the cloud of “Russiagate,” a totally fabricated Russian Collusion charge that depended on a fake dossier paid for by the Clinton campaign. Even with some tariffs levied on Steel, Aluminum, and Chinese imports, and the initiation of misguided COVID lockdowns, conservatives were mainly satisfied with Trump’s performance. Increased defence spending and robust actions against ISIS and Syria meant little aggression abroad.

Even though many conservatives were appalled by Trump’s claims that the 2020 election was stolen, and his action or lack of action on January 6th, the Hunter Biden Laptop cover-up balanced their ire.

Going on to the 2024 election, the ex-president was swamped in lawsuits seemingly designed only to entrap one person: Donald Trump. To conservatives, using the Government’s legal systems to go after a single individual for political reasons looked like banana republic tactics. Putin keeps his opponents off the ballot by invoking bogus laws, but Americans don’t.  

Continue reading →

Aftermath

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized , , , ,

Since Charlie Kirk’s assassination, both parties have been exposed not only for rank hypocrisy but also for their similarity. For instance, Jimmy Kimmel went on his network TV show and said, “We hit some new lows over the weekend, with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and everything they can to score political points from it.” He made this statement, well after the shooter’s mother had explained how he had moved leftward in politics and argued with his conservative father.

Kimmel, his writers, or producers had to know there was no basis for his claim that a MAGA supporter had committed the heinous crime. He lied to his audience. A few days later, ABC suspended him. Conservatives applauded, while those on the left cried that the network was was denying the comedian’s free speech.

This explosive situation recalled a similar divisive situation at ABC some years back. In 2018, Roseanne Barr had posted a rant on twitter against Obama senior advisor Valerie Jarrett, saying, “If the muslim brotherhood & Planet of the Apes had a baby =VJ.” Even though Rosanne quickly apologized, ABC fired her from her hit TV show. At the time, many others and I on the right said ABC should give the comedian some slack, while those on the left saw it as just punishment for what they perceived as a racist remark.

Roseanne’s trials with mental illness are well known. From being institutionalized after a teenage auto accident and other afflictions, her erratic behavior is no secret. However, an off-kilter take on the world may contribute to her comic genius. After her apology, perhaps a suspension while she received some help would’ve sufficed, but ABC showed her no mercy. Adding insult to injury, the network continued the series under another name for seven profitable years without the star.  

Even though Kimmel has not apologized to date for his blatant lie, many on the left demand his immediate reinstatement. We are aware of Rosanne’s mental health issues, but what is Kimmel’s excuse? Yet, so far, he has suffered a lesser penalty. Remember, he isn’t in trouble for telling a joke, but telling an awful lie implicating an innocent group in a murder and then refusing to apologize.

Before those on the right get too far up on their high horse, we hear cheers on the right for FCC Chairman Brendan Carr’s license revocation threats against ABC and its affiliates. His threats might’ve been what cemented Kimmel’s suspension. You can’t construe Carr’s words as anything other than government interference with media content.

Continue reading →