news

Anatomy of a Failure

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, The Middle East, Uncategorized , , , ,

We’ve ceased our offense against Iran, while the same Regime controls the vital Strait of Hormuz. Our Gulf allies are increasingly at the mercy of this ruthless gang. Israel is off bombing Hezbollah in Lebanon, trying to salvage something from this fiasco. Our other allies in Europe and Asia wonder why they’re suffering from this mess when nobody asked them. Yet the Trump administration expects them to clean it up.

How did the most powerful nation on earth end up behind the eight-ball? By breaking every rule for success. Presumably, we had an objective. We had already bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities, putting that program back, maybe for years. We controlled the skies over that nation. Having already mowed their capabilities, there is no need to mow again now.

\What was present was an Iran in dire straits. Sanctions, mismanagement of water resources, and the economy had sparked mass protests. The vast majority of Iranians demanded change. Other than those directly benefiting from the Regime, support evaporated. The Mullahs had never been in a weaker position. What was here was the chance to free the people to form a government that didn’t threaten their neighbors.

The Trump administration took notice. The President told the Iranian protesters we had their back. No question what our goal was, toppling the Regime. We started sending our forces to the area. The head Mullah and many of the key players in his government were killed from the air.

In the meantime, the Iranian government slaughtered in excess of 40,000 protesters. The streets went quiet. This result shouldn’t surprise anyone. We’ve seen this movie many times before. Ruthless dictatorial governments use their monopoly of weapons to trounce unarmed protestors. No matter how bad the government is, it stays in power because nobody can shoot back. Cubans have lived at the subsistence level for decades. Does it even have an economy? Still, the communists persist.

Oil-rich Venezuela has followed the same path. When faced with losing power, there is no limit to the pain the absolute rulers will inflict on their defenseless citizenry. The picture of an unarmed Tiananmen Square protester standing in front of massive tanks illustrates the imbalance.

The only successful revolutions in history took place where armed people existed from the start, or military units refused to fire on the people, and changed sides. Imagine how poorly our forefathers would’ve fared if only the redcoats had arms. Instead, we turned them back at Lexington and Concord. To have a “shot heard round the world, ” you have to have a gun. The minutemen had guns and knew how to use them. The rest is history.

Other revolutions, such as the French and Russian, saw military units refuse to fire on the people and turn against their rulers. No matter how great the air superiority, only armed resistance on the ground can drive out the despots.

Continue reading →

Not The Change We Need

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized , , , ,

Don’t count on things getting better. When we’ve gone through a rough patch, we wish the next election would result in greater competence, but that’s hope over experience. The last election saw a voter revolt against the worst inflation in 40 years, wide-open borders, and the Afghan fiasco, which encouraged bad actors to start two ugly wars. The relatively solid economy and the absence of major fighting during Donald Trump’s first term fostered nostalgia.

Trump promised peace, safety, and prosperity in 2024. A little over one year in, we still have rising prices, albeit at a somewhat lower rate, violence on the streets in cities like Minneapolis, and an ever-widening war in the Middle East. Maybe we didn’t want wide open borders, letting in bad people, but we want the good contributing to our nation, treated humanely, not terrified and abruptly deported.

Given where we are, how is that election working out? More importantly, will the future election bring improvement? Plagued by high prices, poorly conceived international actions that have led to more bloodshed and increased costs, civil unrest, lawfare, executive orders that ignore Congress, and corruption, a change in leadership surely will lead to a different direction.

But will it? Everything we’re complaining about today has its roots in the prior Democratic administration: high prices, almost double-digit inflation. Afghanistan, Ukraine, and Gaza weren’t examples of international stability. The Black Lives Matter riots weren’t peaceful. Forgiving billions in student loans by executive order, the courts were Trump’s second home during the 2024 campaign, and if you wanted Biden’s attention, his son had a painting for you.

Yes, you can argue that the current Trump administration is worse in all these areas, but that is just because Trump exceeded them, not because he initiated them. Just as Trump followed and expanded on the Democrats’ path, there is no reason to believe the Democrats won’t build on and exceed the present administration in these areas. A continuing game of ” Can you top this?”

Instead of a fresh approach to our myriad of problems, the Democratic leaders with the loudest voices promise more of the same. From California to New York City, Newsome to Mandani, and all Blue spots in between, we hear the same old, same old. The rich are getting richer at the expense of the rest of us, and not “paying their fair share.” Corporations, you name the place, are price-gouging, and inequality is growing by leaps and bounds.

Given these diagnoses of our problems, the solutions have a familiar ring to them. Increase taxes on those nasty billionaires and millionaires’ ill-gotten gains. In California, increasing income taxes on the “rich” isn’t enough; we have to tax their accumulated wealth. Investigate companies whose prices have moved up significantly. Stronger price controls on things like rent in New York City. Hike up the minimum wage to give everyone a raise. Close the growing gap between the haves and have-nots by increasing transfer payments.

Continue reading →

The Real Trump

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized , , , ,

We finally have the Supreme Court tariff decision. Even though they took too long in a faster-moving world, it is as predicted. The Court ruled that all tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) were illegal in a 6-to-3 decision. The majority acknowledged what the first article of our Constitution clearly states: that duties (tariffs), like all taxes, are the exclusive province of Congress.

Predictably, the President threw a hissy fit. His main ire fell on two of the justices he appointed, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett,, even going so far as saying their families are ashamed of them or should be. At the same time, he praised the three conservative judges who backed the tariffs, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh. The latter wrote the key dissenting opinion. He made three points: the statute gives unlimited tariff power, the linking tariff power to the ability to conduct foreign affairs, and refunding the money would be “messy.

All three justices claim to be Scalia originalists, meaning simply applying the original intent of the law. What is confusing about the original intent of the first article of the Constitution that gives the power of the purse, including duties, exclusively to Congress? The thinking behind this traces back through British history and law, and the framers’ intent is crystal clear. What part of “no taxation without representation” don’t they understand? The majority in Chief Justice’s opinion stated the obvious.

The contention that the President needs the power to impose a punishing tax on U.S. citizens to conduct foreign affairs would be news to the Founding Fathers. This idea is like a child demanding his way, or he’ll hurt himself. As two recent studies have shown, Americans, not foreigners, pay 90% of the tariffs.

Continue reading →

Twins In The Twin Cities

Dave Davis Uncategorized , , , ,

Donald Trump won the 2024 election on his promise to stop the mass migration across our southern Border. High-profile crimes highlighted that many bad people were among those entering the country. Stopping the flood and removing the bad actors from our country is a big part of Trump’s mandate. The Administration secured the Southern Border and then began rounding up bad actors.

In most places, especially in red states, local authorities worked with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to remove those they apprehended. So far, so good. However, the scope of the deportations expanded significantly. A presidential advisor was said to demand 3,000 deportations a day. The short-order cook, or the dry-waller, who had been here for years without problems, suddenly became a target.

Not prepared for this wide net, we didn’t want to see our neighbors, employees, and people we depend on taken away. Fear spread. We wanted the bad people out, but not our neighbors with clean records.

Many places claimed Sanctuary City status and refused to work with federal authorities, even to get rid of criminals. Letting them back out on the street, rather than deporting them, is a questionable stance, but the deporting of law-abiding, but illegal migrants, changed perceptions. A Trump underwater issue, the expansion appalled most Americans.

At a time when the U.S. is facing declining population growth, this is terrible timing to kick out millions of working taxpayers. Regardless of the initial costs, most who have been here for years are now positive additions. We’ve educated many dreamers who were brought here as children by their parents. Why kick them out when they’re now paying off? Why adopt such an unpopular position? Whatever the initial costs, the security net, and education expenses are in the past, and the payoff is now and into the future. This action is bad. policy. Americans favor immigration:

So why has the Administration taken this tactic? It’s playing to its anti-immigration base. Presidential advisor Steven Miller is the voice of this base, with media support from the likes of Tucker Carlson, Laura Loomer, and Steve Bannon. Crossing the base can doom a political career. The committed turnout in primaries puts anyone who disagrees with them in a challenging position, allowing this faction to punch well above its weight. The result is a political Party saddled with a bad, unpopular policy.

Continue reading →

The Pursuit Of Happiness

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, The Long Journey to "More", Uncategorized , , , ,

While waiting for the long-overdue Supreme Court Tariff ruling, I’ve had time to reflect on why so many Americans have either a dim view or little knowledge of our capitalist economic system. How can a simple, common-sense system be misunderstood by so many?

I’ve been reading Zhang Weiying’s “The Logic of the Market: An Insider’s View of Chinese Economic Reform” to better understand how the Chinese economy compares to our own. Most economists talk in jargon, but the Author explains capitalism in terms of happiness rather than marginal returns and GDP.

In capitalism, people engage in consensual exchange. Consumers and suppliers freely exchange a wide range of goods. As each gets what they asked for, both are happy. You go to the supermarket, you get what you want, and the store gets paid. Both of you win.

However, if goods or cash change hands with only one party happy and the other sad, it’s robbery. Think about that. Someone points a gun at you, demanding your stuff. The thief is happy, but you’re really sad. The point of human interaction is shared satisfaction, rather than gloom.

The gauging of happiness and sadness in society to determine whether an action is successful or just a thief. can be applied to both governance and economics. Most commercial transactions in free-market economies result in happiness for all the participants. You go to Costco, get a hot dog, and fill your cart with goods you value. At checkout, both you and Costco are happy.

Continue reading →