Policy

Thoughts 2 Weeks Before the Election

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

Three things came to mind as we close in on the midterm election.  1.  What must be a Democratic election nightmare, an expose from somewhere showing the women coming forward to tell lurid stories about the young Bret Kavanaugh were a put up job. 2. Healthcare is in the forefront but with no plausible solution from either side. 3. Picking a side in a Moslem religious war wasn’t great idea.

1. Weeks have gone by and zero additional negative claims or info has surfaced about Justice Kavanaugh.  Stranger we know little more about his accusers.  The last two accuser’s stories were so weakly supported even by the accusers themselves they were never taken seriously by most people.  Christine Blesey Ford seems to be in witness protection somewhere.  Yet all three were actively involved in an attempt to bring down a sitting federal judge.  The story has to be big enough to gather interest in how all this came about.  Possibly the fact most of the press was on the wrong side with their constant use of “credible accusation” throughout this spectacle may mean they have no stomach for possible further investigation.  Still among for those on the other side, the prospect  of finding the full story would be just too tempting to not follow-up. This has to be causing night terrors among Democrats and maybe some in the #Me Too Movement.

Continue reading →

Healthcare Update and why Dave’s Plan is Best

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

“Medicare for all would cost $32 trillion” ,”stripped down low-cost policies now available”,  “Obamacare loses pre-existing condition protections”, “Democrats will highlight Healthcare in the mid-terms” and “House bill allows for more Health Savings Account (HSA) Flexibility”.  Healthcare has been in the news lately and in political campaigns signifying  noise but little forward motion.  Democrats in many of the mid-term races are making healthcare a centerpiece.  What that means varies between  bailing out Obamacare to Medicare for All.  By easing requirements to cover pre-existing condition and allowing stripped down short-term health policies the administration further destabilized the already wobbly Obamacare.  What these efforts won’t do is bring us closer to a workable health policy.  Just more nails in the Obamacare  coffin without replacing it with a workable healthcare plan.

Charging into the breach, progressives led by Sen. Bernie Sanders and his young Congressional candidate companion, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez with their plan to save the day, Medicare for All.  The idea is everybody loves Medicare so let’s give it to everybody.  On the face of it, it would seem a poor idea to add millions and millions of people to a program that no longer is keeping its head above water.  Adding to the idea’s questionable fiscal sanity was a report by Charles Blahous of Mercatus Center at George Mason University showing the plan would  add $32.6 trillion over the first decade of Medicare for All.  Not deterred, Sen. Sanders and Ms. Ocasio-Cortez proffered Blahous’s report actually shows when all healthcare costs are figured in Medicare for All is a great bargain.  Mr. Blahous apparently wasn’t amused and took to the Wall Street Journal Op-Ed page to show that this clearly was untrue.  Citing not only his work but other concurring studies he laid waste to the Sanders-Ocasio-Cortez talking points.  One would think that would be the end of their use of his report in their talking points, but you would be wrong.  Days after the OP-Ed was published, MS. Ocasio-Cortez appeared on Chris Cuomo’s CNN prime-time show and repeated the same discredited talking point that Blahous’s report shows Medicare for All is a bargain.  Of course Chris Cuomo brought up Blahous’ refutation of everything she was saying. Wrong.  He sat there never uttering a question or fact.  Now in show prep for her appearance this WSJ OP-Ed surely would’ve come up. We always thought Cuomo was a dim bulb but where were the producers?  Cuomo just thanked Ocasio-Cortez  profusely  for her appearance and  insights.  Apparently Bernie and Alexandria will repeat this refuted talking point at every opportunity. Such is the state our healthcare discussion.

Continue reading →

Organize Now. Candidates Later

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, The Future Party, Uncategorized

Some question our suggestion the Future Party start with building organizations in every state led by experienced political workers supported by eager volunteers.  Once established, candidates can then vie in the conventions for the party’s Nominations.  We are well aware of the fact that successful new parties have been built around a personality such as Macron in France and Beppe Grillo in Italy.  The problem is we already have gone down that road with Donald Trump’s take over of the Republican Party.   We feel the best counter to a personality cult party is to offer an alternative. Instead of a disruptive erratic leader, offer quiet competence and solid policies.  After four or god forbid eight years of constant noise and acrimony on both sides, the country just might be tired of it. The better bet for a new party is to offer something quite different.  Further, whatever name personalities out front in the beginning may define the party in ways that turn off would be adherents. The better way is provide a framework potential candidates can see themselves coming out on top in what would initially be three-way races.  If potential candidates see a path forward they will come.  Think of each our two major parties as rivers fed by an extreme stream and a more moderate stream.  Now, mainly do to the primary system and extremes dominating the media, the moderate streams are dammed and out of the flow. Like water, the build up of blocked talented people will find somewhere to go if exists.  We just have to provide a way for these moderate streams to come together to form a mighty new river.

Another criticism is the lack of a statement of principles or platform.  We believe people will gravitate to the Future Party because they are convinced their present extreme parties are headed in the wrong direction and are incapable of solving our pressing problems. Many present independents have already came to that conclusion. Out of control spending, a badly broken immigration system, individual concerns over healthcare and parental leave issues and our political and economic relationship with the rest of the world are just some issues the two present parties have failed to positively address. On these issues there is wide agreement on general principles needed to resolve the problems.  Better to let the new party members themselves come together on a platform they feel they can succeed on. By coming together they would show they can come up with workable plans.  This could appeal to a majority of American and would show the nation who the adults in the room are.  Also, if we set forth a platform in advance we stand to turn off a wide swath of potential party members.

Continue reading →

The Future Party 4

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, The Future Party, Uncategorized

Chicken or egg, where does a new party start?  Worldwide many parties have started around charismatic leaders but given Trump already has the Republican Party do we really need another cult masquerading as a political party?  Yet without a viable candidate can a party get off the ground?  In 2016 the Libertarian Party on paper had a viable ticket with two successful former governors.  The reality of the top of the ticket’s  unfamiliarity with Aleppo, a Syrian city then under bloody siege exposed a lack of knowledge or staff work or both.  Libertarian disinterest in foreign involvement was exposed in the most unsettling manner.  Even against maybe the two most disliked Presidential candidates, the Libertarians made hardly a ripple.  While on the ballot in all states, no mean feat, they just didn’t  have the organization and financing to be competitive. Without it they couldn’t attract winning candidates.

The young Republican Party didn’t come into existence just to elect its first presidential candidate, John C. Fremont. Rather, it was founded over opposition of slavery’s extension into new territories by disgruntled Whigs and free soil Democrats not being heard by the two dominate parties at the time.  First they organized at the state level starting in 1854 and then held their national conventions in 1856 nominating Fremont as their first  Presidential candidate. This gave a home for those politicians uncomfortable or overlooked in their old parties to have a path forward in the new party.  This  empowered  legions of voters not aligned with the agrarian slave holding interests.  The last truly successful party was built from the ground up. It found its leaders along the way.

Continue reading →

Of Pizzas & Cakes

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized

The Supreme Court decision in favor of the owner of the Masterpiece Bakery who refused to bake a custom designed wedding cake for a gay couple.  He had explained his refusal on religious and free speech grounds. His victory wasn’t based on any rights but turned on the animus of the commissioners. As such it settled nothing. This got us to thinking about our 4/2/15 post We’re Confused about Indiana.   Re-reading this post  relating to  a persecuted pizza shop, we still think we were on the right track but realized we had missed the major point.  Simply, the vast majority of these types of cases should-be been immediately tossed out of court.  Hear us out.  In April, New York attorney Steven Molo turned down a request to represent President Trump.  A top-notch attorney was needed to replace the then lead attorney John Dowd and the well credentialed Molo fit the bill, but he said no. He didn’t have explain.  Even the President couldn’t demand his personal service  No was sufficient. Now imagine if President Trump had approached clothing designer Calvin Klein to design his inauguration wardrobe and Calvin said no.  Could the President sue to compel  Klein’s performance in his service?  Obviously not!  There never was a “meeting of the minds” so no contract.  Further the 13th amendment precludes involuntary servitude and even if the President really pushed, coercion doesn’t work under our law. Simply in either case, you can’t demand personal performance.  They could just say no and that’s the end of it.  Did Molo and Klein have to give any reason for their refusal?  No, unless they wanted to but it would be immaterial. Even the President isn’t legally owed an explanation. No is no and that’s the end of it.  But what if either or both said they refused on religious grounds? Say, they’re Catholics and Trump  is unrepentant Presbyterian. Could the President then take his case to the local civil right commission?  Of course not.  This would mean people could be stripped of their right to say no simply because they mentioned 1st amendment rights.  This would lead to the absurdity of losing a right simply by bringing up another constitutional right.  This would be turning the law on its head. Yet, this is exactly where we are. Now, the President has every right to go to Amazon and purchase any book on the law or anything else Molo wrote or go into Macy’s and purchase Calvin Klein branded clothes.  These are offered to all for sale and cash payment completes the contract.  This is general commerce and Molo and Klein can do nothing legally to prevent these sales.  However,  general commerce is different from personal unique services and products and we have always recognized the difference.  One apples and the other oranges.

There are excellent reasons for this distinction. It protects both parties. It protects people from unwarranted demands for their personal skills.  Also, it protects people from foolishly forcing the produce of people who have less than their best interests at heart.  Imagine a President Trump on inauguration day realizing he’s being mocked for an ill-fitting ugly suit.  Worse being perp-walked out of the white house after impeachment and realizing Nolo just might not have given his best advice and efforts.  Further, it prevents the inevitable litigation that would arise and that certainly is in the courts interest.

Continue reading →