Monday, August 31, 2015

The Competition: Democrats

The democratic field is far less expansive than the republican. However, it has generated its own brand of excitement due to the recent rumors surrounding the possible entrance of Vice President Joe Biden into the race.

Front-Runner


Hillary Clinton has been aiming this shot for a long time. She won election to the US Senate in 2000 and served until the presidential election of 2008. She missed her opportunity that year when so many people considered her a shoe-in.  Somehow, Barack Obama beat the Clinton machine and left her begging for leftovers. She got Secretary of State but left her post in 2013, presumably to give herself some distance from the Obama administration and to prepare for this campaign.

Clinton has been hampered primarily by the Benghazi issue and the cloud surrounding her private Internet server while overseeing the State Department. Only recently has her shot at the nomination been seriously challenged by the potential entry of Joe Biden.

The Old-School Socialist

Bernie Sanders does not mind being called a socialist. He adheres to a leftist, trade-union form of political philosophy that would have made him an anachronistic candidate even decades ago. This approach to politics, long honored in Europe, is simply out-of-place in the US but his appeal to the poor and the under-employed is nevertheless real. Until now, his candidacy has only really been a sideshow.


King of the Gaffe

I remember Joseph Biden running for the 1988 presidential nomination of the democratic party. He and many others lost to Michael Dukakis. Biden tried again in 2008 and was washed out of the running early. In the end, Obama put him on the ticket in a surprising choice. Biden is another relic of 20th century American politics: part of the Irish-Catholic wing that guided the democrats during much of the Cold War.

Since reaching the office of Vice President, Biden has mostly been known for his gaffes. In fact, he made a few awful ones during his own campaign for the nomination. He made the awkward comment that Obama was an articulate, clean black guy.

Somehow, somebody thought it would be a good idea for him to run for the Presidency again. I am not a Clinton fan but I don't see how this is a good idea for the party. It just seems likely to undermine their strongest candidate. Perhaps, though, TPTB don't want her to win.

The Biden candidacy is not yet a fact but it seems to be gaining strength. It seems likely to be the only thing standing in Clinton's way. Without that distraction, Clinton's real opponent is already Donald Trump for as long as he retains the lead in republican polls.

Sunday, August 30, 2015

The Competition: Republicans

There is probably more competition, in terms of quantity anyway, for the office of President of the United States than anytime before in my memory. I remember the Democratic queue being laughably long in 1988 but the republican turnout this year is ridiculously huge. I have heard the number 17 in the press. Let's see if I can actually dig up these individuals from the dogpile.

I will divide the competition into two categories, if only for the sake of breaking up the text. More elaborate reviews of each candidate will follow as time permits and as candidates gain legitimacy. I'm not going to devote significant time to men like Lindsey Graham or Rick Santorum until they pick up some real numbers.

Contenders
  • Donald Trump - Enough said so far. Let's look at the others.
  • Ben Carson - Retired neurosurgeon notable for a few reasons in my mind: he is the only other candidate to receive double-digit support in current polls, he is more cerebral than the other candidates and he is black. That last point may seem blunt but if you don't think that race is a factor in modern politics then you are either disingenuous or stupid. I won't say that you are both because stupid people are incapable of being disingenuous.
  • Jeb Bush - Former governor of Florida and a member of the Bush clan. He was the one expected to run for the office back in 2000 but the option went to the crown prince of the clan, GW Bush. Notable for his marriage to a Latin American woman, conversion to Catholicism and a low-key approach to confrontations.
  • Marco Rubio - Junior senator from Florida. He is comparatively young (44) and of Latin background. This may be crucial in the long run if the republicans want more of the Latino vote. I'll explain why the concept of a Latino vote is ridiculous later.
  • Ted Cruz - Another young (44) Latino senator, this one from Texas. He is associated with the Tea Party.
  • Scott Walker - Fairly young (47) governor of Wisconsin. Notable for youth and executive experience as a governor. He is anti-abortion, even in cases of rape or incest.
  • Carly Fiorina - Left out of the debate of the top ten candidates a few weeks ago, Fiorina has fought her way into the inner circle, mostly due to an off-the-cuff speech given outside that forum. She has much business experience but has never won political office.
  • John Kasich - A career politician, he first gained office in the Ohio Senate in 1978 at age 26. He has been governor of that state since 2010.
  • Chris Christie - Governor of New Jersey since 2010, he is notable for his tough stances on certain issues but also for working closely with President Obama after Hurricane Sandy devastated his state. In addition, his morbid obesity was allegedly recognized as a major bar keeping him from higher office. Somewhere along the way, he has lost some weight and people do not mention the issue. 
Dark Horses

The placement of some of the following in this category is debatable and they could easily be interchanged with some of the above. It will take some time to eliminate the hopeless cases and form a better idea of the republican field before January 2016, when the first primaries occur.
  • Rand Paul - Son of Congressman Ron Paul and Senator from Kentucky. He is the darling of the libertarian fringe of the republican party.
  • Mike Huckabee - Southern Baptist minister and former governor of Arkansas. He is notable for his strong evangelical views and his Fox TV show the Huckabee Report, which he abandoned in January 2015 to run for President.
  • Rick Perry - He took over governorship of Texas after GW Bush won the presidency in 2000. He ran for POTUS in 2012 but lost the nomination to Mitt Romney. Trump may have given his failing candidacy a fatal blow when he made repeated references to Perry's allegedly low IQ.
  • George Pataki - Former governor of New York and soon-to-be former candidate for the republican nomination.
  • Bobby Jindal - Governor of Louisiana and former US congressman. He is just 44 years old, known for his conversion to Catholicism and strong moral stances.
  • Rick Santorum - Some guys just never give up.
  • Lindsey Graham - Yeah, he's running.
I only count 16 there but it was too depressing to keep searching for names. Maybe there really are 17 candidates. Now I make light of these last few candidates, but I will refer you to an SNL skit in 1992 in which the most prominent democratic candidates were humorously featured trying to avoid losing to George HW Bush. I could not find the video but here is a transcript.

If you take the time to read it, you will note that one democratic candidate is not even given stage space for the skit: William Jefferson Clinton, 42nd President of the United States. He was such a dark horse no one had even bothered to make fun of him by that point.

Saturday, August 29, 2015

The Immigration Issue and Trump's Solution

For a while, it seemed like Donald Trump was almost a single-issue candidate. Immigration was the only topic he appeared to address. Now he has begun to delve into other issues with a little more depth but this still remains a major dividing line between him and other candidates. That may change over time but there is no question that he has struck a chord that resonates with many Americans.

Some Figures About Immigration

Lest you think that Trump is just eager to bash in the heads of some earnest braceros as they emerge from the Rio Grande onto American soil, you should at least understand the magnitude of the problem which he addresses.

In the interest of full disclosure, I should reveal here that I married an immigrant and that my eldest daughter is an immigrant. Both women are now citizens and were never in the US illegally. Nevertheless, and unlike many liberals who espouse amnesty for the undocumented, I actually know and converse with illegal immigrants on a regular basis. I also worked in shelters on both sides of the border when I was just out of college, helping to feed and house the undocumented from all over Latin America. I have a lot of personal knowledge about this topic and have seen many facets of the issue.

The most reliable research suggests that there are about 11 million illegal immigrants in the US right now. I am not sure exactly how that number could be determined, only that everyone seems to agree on it. I suspect that the real number might be higher.

That number is enough to offend many people thinking about the problem for the first time. However, the real problem that motivates people to vote one way or another is the impact of these immigrants on the economy and even on culture.

A major issue for many on the conservative side is the number of jobs lost to illegal immigrants. When virtually everyone was employed in the late 1990s, there was little concern about immigration. Later, especially after 2008, it became a huge issue as unemployment surged above 9%.

Though the official unemployment rate is much lower today, those who have lived on the underemployed side of that divide do not have much confidence in it. Many people returned to employment but it was at much lower-paying jobs than we had before.

It is estimated that illegal immigrants make up about 5% of the present labor force. It is pretty obvious that, with those individuals removed, the employment situation for citizens would improve dramatically.

A lot of people will also quickly start arguing around the topic of laziness vs hard work with regard to immigrants. While liberal defenders will often point out that illegal immigrants only come to find work and therefore contribute to the economy, conservative opponents will claim that they all come to get on welfare rolls.

The truth is actually that they are both correct. I know a lot of illegal couples and the usual routine is that the woman goes to sign up as a single mother and get public assistance. The man of the house usually works. No one seems to see this as dishonest. Instead, it just seems like the thing to do. And it really helps them preserve a traditional family structure.

I'm not saying that it is correct but it does seem like people genuinely believe that they are just doing what is normal. They have little understanding or sympathy for the complexities involved in paying your own way because they never have to worry about healthcare and, in many cases, the assistance even pays rent. The immigrant family is free to spend all the man's earnings on consumer goods.

The economic impact of this is a two-edged sword. There is no doubt that this is a significant drain on public resources. I know people with large families raking in thousands of dollars per month in public subsidies. At the same time, though, they make a lot of money working in manual labor and spend most of it locally, contributing to businesses in the community.

A less ambiguous burden on state resources involves the children of illegal immigrants. Around 7% of children in K-12 schools have at least one illegal parent. Given that the states spend anywhere from $5-10,000 per student each year, this drain on the tax base cannot be denied.

One aspect of the outcry about this situation that is often overlooked is the cultural aspect. People are upset not only about the financial cost of illegal immigration but also about the cultural changes brought about by their presence. Ann Coulter, a Trump supporter, has pointed out that many of the immigrants come from countries in which respect for women, children and the environment are virtually non-existent. Having lived in Latin America, I can respect this as a genuine concern.

The Trump Solution

Over the years, many different solutions to this issue have been suggested. In the mid-90s, I was present in El Paso, Texas to see operation Toe-the-Line. This approach was one essentially involving a more coordinated defense of the border, with Border Patrol trucks always within sight of each other along the border. Obviously, this increased efficiency in the local area but just moved crossings into the deserts of New Mexico and Arizona.

Other attempts have had internal focuses, busting businesses that hired large numbers of illegals and corraling them at their workplace. The SSN verification method started some years ago is another example.

Trump has called for a much more direct attempt to handle the issue. His idea is not original (Pat Buchanan spoke about this in the 1990s during his presidential run) but he may be the first one to really take it so far. Trump has called the erection of a wall running all the way from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean. This wall would be more than 1,000 miles long and I don't know how high it would have to be.

Some detractors have likened the scope of the project to the pyramids or the journey to the moon. Not only would it be too large a project, it would cost too much and be impossible to maintain. Proponents of the idea generally say that it would be less expensive than the present welfare bill for the illegal immigrants already here.

Trump's solution does not overlook those illegals already in place. The plan, which has no specifics as of yet, is for those illegals already here to be rounded up and deported. Trump has hedged on this promise a little already, saying in some remarks that the ones who behaved well and worked hard might be allowed to stay.

I tend to think that the immigration issue will be an early horse for Trump to ride on but I am not sure it will carry him the whole way. As primaries approach, I think that he will have to address other issues and that immigration will eventually take a backseat to foreign policy and economics. Even if he does win the presidency, I do not think that the wall will ever be built. The immigration problem is here to stay. Prevention may improve but I don't think anybody here illegally is going anywhere anytime soon.

The Sarah Palin Interview with Donald Trump

Here the man speaks for himself with regard to many of the issues of the day.


Donald Trump: Reactionary, Liberal or Loose Cannon?

Whenever Trump flirted with the idea of running for president in the past, I was always appalled by the idea. The last thing we needed, I thought, was a rich, political outsider coming in to mess everything up.

How strange, then, that today I see him as the most promising candidate in the field. Maybe that is because there is nothing that I would like more than to see everything in Washington overturned. But I am starting to let my anarchist leanings show and this post is about Trump, not me.

I think that Trump fascinates the public not only with his candor but also with his unusual set of stances on a variety of issues. He at once appears both reactionary and radical to a public brainwashed over the last few decades to only see political issues in terms of conservative republican vs liberal democrat.



Trump the Liberal 

Trump confuses modern voters because he glibly promotes opinions and viewpoints which, as a set, Americans have been taught to see as irreconcilable. Here are some of the "traditionally" liberal political stances to which Trump allegedly adheres:

  • He is, essentially, pro-choice. He is not a big fan of it but he does not breathe fire on the issue. He has come out and called himself pro-life in some remarks but he is not really that strong on the issue. In fact. I think that his is a pretty common view among republicans but, in order to win their socially conservative base, they must take a strong pro-life stance in public. 
  • He is, at least, content with the present progressive tax system applied by the IRS. I am sure that, like most people, he would love for the IRS to be unnecessary but, as long as there is income tax he thinks that it makes sense to take more from the rich. This is anathema to fiscal conservatives.
  • Apparently Trump does not want to make cuts to Social Security or Medicare.
  • He has expressed open support for the idea of a single-payer health care system.
  • Trump promotes the Second Amendment but has stated acceptance of things such as background checks and even bans on certain types of weapons. For Second Amendment republicans, this type of thing is a shibboleth to aid in culling the weak from the electoral herd. 
  • Trump has a pretty relaxed stance on gays. I would guess that he is essentially a live-and-let live kind of guy. I have not heard , though, how he stands on issues such as the well-known wedding-cake business which got sued out of existence just because it refused to make a gay-themed wedding cake.
More than Trump's political stances, his actions mark him out as a liberal. He doesn't mind hanging out with Bill Clinton, for example. I have to think, though, that most men wouldn't mind hanging out with Bill Clinton. It's pretty obvious that guy would be fun at parties.

I think that Donald's wives are actually getting hotter as he gets older.
Most egregious among his sins, though, are Trump's sexual relationships. Not only has he been married three times but his affairs and his trophy wives could certainly be considered scandalous among conservatives. But, then again, old school feminist liberals would also be appalled by these shenanigans.

Trump Conservative

Simultaneously, Trump loudly proclaims allegiance to many traditionally conservative ideas. In fact, his approach in some cases is so conservative that he makes conservatives blush. Here are a few of his more well-known conservative political themes:

  • IMMIGRATION. The all-caps presentation was intentional. On this issue, Trump makes Pat Buchanan look reticent when he talks about immigration. He seems quite serious about building a wall from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean while deporting somewhere on the order of 10 or 20 million people.
  • ISIS - Trump apparently wants to reinvade Iraq to handle this problem. That is a much bolder stance than any republican has publicly taken, though it may be that many of them incline toward that solution.
  • Climate - Trump has publicly stated that the climate change issue is built on a hoax.
  • Drugs - Trump's last known stance on the issue is in favor of legalization and taxation.
  • Capital Punishment - Trump sees no problem with sending violent monster's to the chair or to the lethal injection gurney, anyway.
Trump Loose Cannon

A number of people believe that Trump is simply a man with no filter. He says what he is thinking at the moment and is not thinking about which source of financial support an errant remark may cost him.

For his detractors, that is a weakness. The 25% to 30% of republican voters who support him, though, seem enamored of his penchant for calling a spade a spade. Either they are showing a willingness to overlook the other issues on which he is less conservative due to this appealing trait or they themselves have never been that devoted to those issues.

What I like about Trump is the possibility that he presents for breaking down the two-party system. I am less interested in his views than I am in the way that many supporters openly admit that he offends them on one or more points but they forgive him for one reason or another. Some excuse his faults because he so fervently supports their favorite issue, which is often immigration. Others are just angry and simply want somebody to kick some ass in Washington.

Anyone my age or older, though, knows that this opportunity has presented itself before. Ross Perot tried something similar in 1992 and there are other examples in American history before him. Some people do not take him seriously simply because those prior efforts failed.

I think though, that hope springs eternal and that the Internet age may make possible a paradigm shift in American politics. Perot made his venture when his access to the public was almost entirely controlled by three television networks. No one can stop an interested public from hearing what Trump has to say between now and election day 2016.

Friday, August 28, 2015

Rebirth or Death Knell?

It's going on two years now since I put anything on this blog. And, let's be honest, it's entirely possible that I never put anything interesting on it.

My life has changed a great deal since my last set of posts. I was divorced from my wife and separated from my children. I suffered all sorts of personal tragedy while trying to get through nursing school and working full-time for peanuts.

In just the last few months, though, I have graduated and completed reuniting with my finally. I got a well-paid job and even started investing in the stock market.

I look back at this blog, and the ones that preceded it, with some nostalgia and some regret. I was definitely a different man back then. I have spent the years since writing Internet copy professionally, working as a landscaper in Arizona and as an nursing assistant in a rehabilitation hospital. These experiences, so different from the 13 years of schoolteaching that preceded them, had a profound impact on my view of things.

My views have not exactly changed a lot but my explanations and justifications of them certainly have. If I intended this blog to be representative of myself as I am now, most of it could probably be erased. Maybe I am trying to say that I have grown up a lot in the last few years. That sounds odd coming from a 42-year old man but there it is.

During the last two years, I mostly thought of just letting the blog sit and stagnate forever. However, not being in school has granted me some free time to do things besides work and study. I started a finance blog yet I still had extra time on my hands. I think that I have now found something else to occupy my time.

New Direction

The rise of Donald Trump has led me to take more interest in this election than I expected to experience. I am one who generally feels that both parties are made up of similar sets of eunuchs, handled on short leashes by corporations and other powerful interests. The candidates are always boring, predictable and obviously controlled.

Donald Trump, as Bryan Cranston recently said, is refreshing. I am not necessarily a fan. I have divergent views on a fair number of issues. However, it is wonderful to see someone speak like a human being on television, even if you think that he is being an asshole. I think that I would rather sit in a bar and drink with Trump than spend any amount of time with the other robots running for office.

So, since I started my investment blog mostly to sharpen my thoughts and use my free time productively, I thought I would revive this blog and study the election of 2016 with it.

After all, I am Odysseus. Who better to rise from stagnation and begin again?