BAIT & SWITCH

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

OK, WE’RE CONVINCED

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.

 

On the Move

Humanity has always had a great migratory dimension. If it didn’t we’d still huddled in Africa.  Whether it was out of necessity, to seek economic betterment or curiosity or some combination, we have always been on the move. Yet today the idea of people changing their national location is under fire from one end of the globe to the other. Even the great melting pot, the United States, finds immigration both legal and illegal  under fire. The European Union is grappling with both internal and external migrations. Some nations such as Japan have never favored immigration. What a great time to determine what migratory policies are more likely to lead to “More”.

Throughout history a welcoming attitude towards “Strangers” seems to be associated an entity’s vibrancy and prosperity. Cross pollination of people benefited all. On the other hand those that cut themselves in self-contained entities remained stagnant backwaters. China and Japan limited contact with “barbarians” and lost their place in the upward march of mankind. Only when their leaders realized their own survival depended on a radical change of attitude did they crack open the door. Japan got the message looking down the cannon barrels of American  “black ships” and the Chinese communist party when they saw what happened to their communist brethren in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Opening up to the world while still not welcoming large numbers of “strangers” among them and without institutional changes that would attract them, they used lower wages initially and copying of other People’s innovations to gain “More” for their peoples. The jury is still out whether their restrictive policies can sustain them in the future. If history is our guide the future may be dim without greater opening.

Continue reading

Free Capital to Finance “More”

A great idea without the capital to make  it happen remains just another missed opportunity. Tune in the TV show”Shark Tank” and you get a good idea of the important interplay between ideas and the where with-all to implement them. So what is this lubricant to ease us into a better future? Capital is deferred consumption. Early on someone realized that eating all the grain they found left no seed to plant and surely none to increase the acreage under cultivation. To have more meant setting aside “seed corn”. Put off eating the sheep and you can get more sheep and warmth while you wait. If we have more grain, wool or meat than we can presently use we can trade it for other stuff. In a nutshell, we have “More”.

The problem arose when trades were inconvenient because of time, place or both. Entity A has fish to trade for wine, entity B has wine but doesn’t need fish at the moment. Entity C needs fish and has pretty rocks from which metal could be extracted to trade. Now A finds  it could trade C’s pretty metal for B’s wine. More importantly, where wine and especially fish could spoil and were bulky to store, the shiny metal could be shaped for easy storage or trade and it never spoiled. With these attributes it performed a further function, a store of value.

Continue reading

A Letter to Rush Limbaugh

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. .