Fake news bulletins

The following are unverified rumors from anonymous sources concerning statements made by Donald Trump, the man who put twit in Twitter .



Trump is apparently planning to name Kim Kardashian as an under secretary of treasury. He stated that he admires her because although she has created nothing of value and has no discernible talent she has made millions. In other words, she is his kind of person. He also remarked that she is a natural for treasury because she has a couple of real treasure chests.

Trump is also planning to name BB Netanyahu as the United States ambassador to the United Nations. Trump ex planed that having Netanyahu in that position will eliminate the need to examine vexatious problems concerning differences in the strategies and aims of the United States and Israel.

Trump also discussed his middle east strategy. He said that part of the world requires Swift and decisive and bold action like the cavalry charge led by Lord cardigan at the Battle of Balaklava.

Trump declined to answer any questions.

The anti-trump particle

A fundamental theory of quantum physics is that of supersymmetry. The theory is that for every subatomic particle there is an anti-particle. We need an anti-trump particle, sort of a shadow cabinet that will quickly and consistently confront every stupid thing that Trump advocates. It can't be left to Saturday Night Live but needs to be done by the leaders of the Democrat party. The notion is not to obstruct the Trump administration and the Republican Congress but to confront them when they are wrong. To the extent the Republicans propose something sensible and useful, like a proper infrastructure building program, the Democrats should support it, not seek to obstruct it as the Republicans did during the Obama administration. It would be great if Trump had to appear before Congress and respond to questions as it is done in the British Parliament. That's not going to happen. Truck will not be holding press conferences and answering questions because he can't. He has now nominated Sean Spicer as his Press Secretary. Spicer does not answer her questions either, but fires off preset speeches like some programmed android on steroids.

Trump shows no sign of improvement. His response to the tragedy in Berlin was not one of sympathy and condolences but to claim it proved him right. In other words, everything is about him. He is the most egocentric politician I have ever seen, and there have been plenty of contenders.

Kellyanne Conway is now 2B counselor to the president. Her role will probably be like a Consigliary in the Godfather movies. She is only second to Mike Pence in her perfection of the insincere smile. She is, however, obviously much smarter than either Trump or Pence so we are likely to see more of  her than is typical of a counselor to the president.

The bully in the pulpit

Recalling the misplaced hysteria that accompanied the election of Barack Obama in 2008, I have tried to react to the election of Donald the Trump with some measure of equanimity. As it was completely apparent during the campaign that nearly every thing he said was either bullshit or lying, one could adopt a posture of wait and see. I suppose I am still in that mode. But, it does continually appear that what we saw is what we get. As became apparent, his approach to business has been to whenever possible strong-arm those with whom he deals. He readily took advantage of his superior position to beat down subs and suppliers. It looks like that will be his approach to trade policy and perhaps foreign-policy in general. The best example is his treatment of Boeing, whose executives have the temerity to criticize him. It is also quite clear that that will be his approach to Mexico. Because the United States is the richest and most powerful nation on earth and has by far the most military capabilities, he can probably get away with it in the short run with respect to certain companies and countries. He will of course claim total victory, much like George W. Bush on the deck of that aircraft carrier before everything went to hell.

How will that work with China? Drop is still talking about China's currency valuations when that is a problem in the past. He undoubtedly does not know that there was a dual system of currency valuations for quite some time where the more developed countries flooded their currencies and the emerging nations pegged theirs. And he obviously has no knowledge of the Washington consensus circa 1999 and how that affected international trade. He does not know what happen to the Asian Tigers and how they started hoarding dollars and protecting their currencies. To the extent Trump is successful in beating down companies and countries, it will serve to increase the price of goods in this country wether made here or imported. It is not going to bring back those jobs lost in the Rust Belt to any great extent. Trump seems oblivious to the effect of technological innovations on manufacturing, service and other employment. The cruel irony is that those Midwestern voters who elected trunk Will not to any extent to get their jobs back and will be paying far more for goods, particularly the type of goods they buy at Walmart which are manufactured in the Far East.

It remains to be seen what Trump and Paul Ryan can agree upon, other than tax cuts at the top. Even his proposed infrastructure program which could increase employment and add to aggregate demand, seems to be cluttered up with some crazy tax scheme that also involves privatization of public facilities.

There seems to be no indication of how Trump would deal with the EEC. He hasn't discussed, For instance, retaliating against Ireland for their role in ace erosion of this country, as witnessed by their dealings with Apple.

Perhaps the most frightening thing about Trump his Is obvious galloping megalomania. To paraphrase something said about George W. Bush, the combination of arrogance ignorance and incompetence is breathtaking. One can only hope that some of the predictions of loss of jobs an worldwide economic distress his trade policies make create do not occur, Either because he changes his mind or perhaps the Lord will smile upon us in this hour hour of need.

Twisting in the wind

As expected, Donald Trump continues to screw around with Mitt Romney. The job of Secretary of State still is dangled before poor old clueless Mitt. But, yesterday dear old Kellyanne was on television stating that the selection of mitt Romney would be very upsetting to trumps true supporters.Our  still clueless press speculated there must be disagreement in the top of trumps team. Bullshit. Kellyanne is just conveying trumps message that anyone who confronts him will be dealt with one way or another. Mitt is dead meat. Trump is toying with him.

On another front, Trump claims he won the popular vote if millions of illegal votes were discarded. Of course, he has no basis for this statement. It appears we can expect him to continue his practice of lying about anything if he deems it convenient. We are getting the lying, Arrogant, Ignorant jerk we voted for.

Our new automatic destabilizers

When the 2008 recession and financial crisis hit what advantage for the Western European countries had over the United States was more automatic stabilizers. Of course, they squandered that with their austerity response. The European countries longer unemployment benefits, government provided health care and other safety net programs. Those programs help to maintain aggregate demand. Now, if in the house have their way we are going to have even fewer stabilizers. Less unemployment compensation, less programs such as food stamps etc. And less Government provided or funded healthcare. Further, they would like to turn social security increasingly into some sort of 401(k) program. They also want to eliminate defined benefit retirement programs for Federal workers and probably for State government employees to the extent they can pressure that to occur. Just imagine what would've happened if in 2008 retirees had a social security program based upon individual 401(k) type plans. They would've had to invade capital, and undoubtedly start spending less. Many state governments have already started switching over from defined benefits to 401(k) type plans for their workers. Ross, we would've had decreased aggregate demand, a further selloff in an already collapsing stockmarket and probably defaults in the housing market. This is apparently what Republicans want although of course their fantasy economics suggest that if we only cut taxes, particularly on the wealthy, we will all have money to burn.

Those business interests who champion the Republican programs constantly harp that they want certainty. What about workers? Where do they get certainty? One place is, for instance, being a unionized government employee with traditional benefits. This also helps to maintain a aggregate demand both from active workers and retirees. It also allows for collective-bargaining which provides at least some small Barrier to increased divergence. If you do a seat-of-the-pants regression analysis, You will see that during the time in the mid-20th century when unions were flourishing so what is the economy and there was some measure of convergence. This was true even though marginal tax rates were much higher than today.(I understand there are many variables I have not accounted for.) I fear the Republicans are really going to screw things up. Other than tax cuts and some measures of economic isolation, who knows what Trump will propose or agree to with the Republican Congress so far, all signs are that he is going to be the ignorant, arrogant jerk that we have seen for the last year.

Drain the swamp

Continuing his practice of following no policies or strategies that cannot fit on a bumper sticker, Trump is now going to "drain the swamp". Apparently build the wall and lock her up will take a backseat for a while. The swamp is of course Washington D.C. If drain the swamp includes changing Congress, that's not going to happened. If it means changing administrations that will happen. But then, it nearly always does. Part of this strategy is apparently some sort of ban on ex Congressman senators and high officials becoming lobbyists. This would be accompanied by term limits. Good luck Donnie. What Donnie apparently has in mind is changing ideas he doesn't like for his own which fascinate him. I guess pouring toxic chemicals into a swamp could be the first step in draining and cleaning it.

Something cute was announced today. Mitt Romney has been invited to fly to trumps feet to discuss the position of Secretary of State. You may remember what Romney has said about Trump and how Trump typically reacts to such statements. Hey Mitt, he is screwing with you. Trump won't really have a cabinet. He will have a posse. The two qualifications will be first to tell Trump what he wants to hear and second to agree with every crackpot idea he has.

Trump has to figure out how to give good manufacturing jobs to the rust belt from Michigan through Pennsylvania. Will he require car manufacturers in South Carolina California etc. to move back to the Rust Belt? He is not into education and retraining. About the only way he could accomplish what he promised those people is to phase-in a total ban on the importation of steel ,steel products and automobiles. Or, place tariffs so high that importation would be cost prohibitive. Most economists seem to think that the type of trade isolationism he is advancing would cost millions of jobs. Maybe we will find out.

It is hard not to believe that within a short time of becoming president, Donnie will do something truly stupid. At this point, it is unbearable to try to think about Donnie as guiding foreign-policy.

Isn't there enough to go around?

Sometime ago I heard Warren Buffett state that the GDP of the United States amounted to $50,000 per citizen. I don't know how that was calculated and whether it was net of costs to produce that result. However, it makes me wonder. If the US economy private and public sectors was working at full capacity, available capital was fully employed and a trade policy was followed that took into consideration comparative advantage, would there not be enough for everyone?

For instance, assume an economy where all citizens got good but reasonable education, housing, food and medical care in addition to clean air and clean water. What percent of GDP would that use? How much would be left over to be distributed in a competitive fashion?

I think it would be useful if at least some economists go through such an exercise, Tell us the results and indicate what mix of private and public sectors would most efficiently create that result. I think that would be far more useful than endlessly arguing about the merits of each others DS GE models. It would also allow politicians, should they be so bold, to tell the populace that there is enough for everyone and it doesn't have to be taken from somebody else who feels disadvantaged. It probably would require diminishing the share of those who are hyper advantaged.

Perhaps this information is available and I just don't know where to get it.

Returning to dismal reality. The Republicans now own the economy. They will have a short honeymoon if some measure of fiscal stimulus is inacted and if they allow money from foreign affiliates to be repatriated at little or no tax. (it would be nice if the recipients were required to spend it on capital expansion  research and development and not stock buybacks. More fantasy) they will not be able to fulfill their promises. Even now, their economic–you should excuse the expression–team is probably devising anticipatory lists of negative externalities and exogenous as events.

For the next four years, Shakespeare was right. Life really is a tale told by an idiot, Full of sound and fury and signifying nothing.

Apparently no dagger through the heart yet

As of today, particularly in Florida, Trump is experiencing a kind of resurgence. This is probably attributable to the recent announced premium rises associated with the affordable care act as well as the continuing drip of WikiLeaks. However, it is also probably a sign that many of the Republican" never Trump" are backsliding. The rush away from him among Republicans was primarily on the basis he was a crude jerk. Their current thinking is probably along the lines of he maybe a crude jerk but he is our crude jerk.

It is too bad there has been so little discussion of him on the merits. He is surpassingly ignorant about foreign affairs and clearly has no semblance of a strategy. His series of tax and budget proposals are in their own way just like those of Paul Ryan. That is they are at best implausible. It is also curious that he is not being attacked on his claim he is a builder. As far as I know, there is no trump construction Company. For years all he has done is license his name to projects. It would be interesting to hear how the new Trump hotel in Washington DC was financed and built. Particularly, does trump or his companies own any of the real estate ?

In the best of all possible worlds, not only would he lose the presidency but his brand would be tarnished beyond repair. But, I will take a losing presidential bid and be happy.

A debate on the issues?

The campaign leading to the presidential election has become grotesque. At this point it is clear that Donald Trump has no regard for common sense, facts or the smallest measure of good taste it is shameful that the nominal leaders of the Republican Party have not, Without mincing words, tell party loyalists not to vote for Donald Trump.

There is a debate scheduled for Wednesday night. One of two things should happen. Either it should be canceled or the moderator, Chris Wallace, should force each candidate to discuss only the two most serious issues–the economy and foreign-policy.

What would the discussion of the economy and the candidates proposals look like? It would in many respects to be a debate between the economic theories of Arthur Laffer on one hand and Joseph Stieglitz on the other. Trump should be question on his proposed tax cuts which nearly entirely go to the top including major US corporations. He should be asked why there would be any stimulus affect by giving more money to people and corporations that are already awash in cash. He should be asked what sort of multiplier he expects. He should be questioned on the deficit that nonpartisan Analysis says he will be creating. This should be an extended and probing question.

Both candidate should be questioned on their infrastructure building proposals. How would they work? Do they propose an infrastructure bank? How quickly can they be up and running? Each candidate should be questioned as to whether they propose job training and other relief for those who have been disadvantaged by the effects of globalization and technological advance.

There has been no real discussion of foreign-policy. There needs to be extensive questions about strategy in the middle east particularly. What alliances will work? How do you deal with the fact that our putative allies are at odds often with each other? Should we enforce no fly zones? Do we commit troops and if so in what circumstance?

I have a little hope this will happen. If Wallace would do this it would be an act of patriotism. We shall see.

Lessons learned, maybe

To me, Donald Trump during the debate appeared like a spoiled, petulant teenager who is just been told he can't have the new car he wants. Hey non-statistically significant survey of commentary from and readers of the New York Times, Washington Post etc. finds that conclusion that Donald Trump was perhaps not a disaster but was soundly defeated. So what. It has become more and more clear that the opinions of the elite, the intelligentsia or any other similar term, are relatively unimportant. Whatever effect this and the next debates will have we'll only be measured by the effect it has on the narrow group of undecided or those leaning towards third party candidates.

We can expect Trunp to be better next time. That will mean he will tend more towards opinions and and stay away from issues that have a factual basis. He will simply say that the country has gone to hell and it is the fault of the Washington elite, particularly the Democrats. He will also claim he has the best plan to revive the economy and create jobs, while insisting that anything that what Hillary Clinton proposes is just the same old.

Hillary Clinton has two problems on the economic point. First, although any consensus of competent economists would say that Trumps plan is ridiculous, he has Professor Navarro to cite as an expert who supports them. There is no way to reasonably expect the American voting public to choose between competing experts opinions, particularly since they will be only briefly stated by the candidates. The other big problem Hillary Clinton has in this sector is the TPP. She was for it. She changed position not because of anything Trump said but because of the primary fight with Bernie Sanders. She should be advocating that trade deal. Over 80% of a broad spectrum of economists said that it was a good deal for the US. There was months ago an article in the op-ed section of the New York Times, I think by either Thomas Friedman or David Brooks, discussing the type of trade deal Trump would like to make and demonstrating that this was it. Republicans have long been for free trade, probably more than Democrats. The authorization for the TPP was bipartisan. She has really dug herself a hole and I don't know exactly how she gets out of it . The best she can do is state



 in so many words, Yes I was for it but after mature consideration I changed my mind. She has got to quit disassembling on this issue.

She needs to direct the next debate as much as possible towards foreign-policy. Donald Trump displays total ignorance and nobody believes he has a "secret plan." She should be as specific as possible about her own plan. It is as to foreign-policy that Donald Trump's reckless language and demeanor concerns the voting public the most. She needs to exploit tha

And now the spin begins

First of all, my apologies to Lester Holt. He was up to the task. I also like the format that permitted extended discussions of the topic. After these debates, I typically go back and forth from FOXNews to MS NBC. That gives me some sense of the reaction from left and right although it does not encompass the crazies on the Internet. My senses that Lester Holt will be criticized by the right and there will be dog whistle type of innuendo. The Internet will doubtless be a blaze.

Listening to both sides, it's quite clear that the Clinton supporters we're pleased and the Trump supporters were not. Now, in postfact politics, question is does it make any difference. Does phenomenology or psychological set theory or just plain prejudice and ignorance rule the day? Having watched the debate in trumps incoherent answers which became worse and worse I can't imagine why anybody could think of voting for him. But why do I think I am immune from the same tendencies that affect his supporters?

It will be interesting to see just how inventive the spin Doctors can be. And, of course, it will be interesting to see the reaction to the spin followed by the spin to the reaction. One thing is sure, it will be a downward spiral.

It is debatable

The much awaited debate occurs tonight. But it will not be what it should be. It should be questions to each candidate about their domestic economic plans, foreign relation policies focusing on the middle east, trade policy and the social unrest which is gripping the United States. The questioning should be relentless, much like a cross examination probing evasive answers and inconsistent positions, then and now.

First, the two-minute answer is ridiculous. The moderator should spend at least 10 minutes with each candidate on these issues. We know what Donald Trump will do. He will primarily restate his position that everything the Obama administration has done, with the complicity of Hillary Clinton, has been a disaster. His stock answer will simply be he is going to change everything that has been done in the past eight yrs. Recall that he has said that he could defeat Isis in two weeks and knows more about Isis than the generals. It would be fair to ask how he is going to do this. The clear consensus based on history is that his protectionist trade policies would be a disaster. Will he be confronted with this? Unless the moderator is aggressive and relentless Trump will skate through this debate.

Hillary Clinton should be asked the same sort of questions and confronted with any inconsistencies with past actions or statements. She has to be asked about her emails and classified information. She better have a forthright answer.

I wish I could be more optimistic about how Lester Holt will perform. I do not think he will be up to the job. What I would like to see is two moderators. One chosen by each party. The one chosen by the Democrats could only ask questions of the Republican candidate and vice versa. That of course will never happen. In this era of post-truth politics, I fear we are going to see at least from Trump mainly theater. Regrettably, it may well be effective. It will be up to Hillary Clinton to probe Trumps various positions but this format will make that difficult. I hope I am wrong.

Trump,s spin doctors go into overdrive

An emergency meeting of Donald Trump's campaign strategists occurred in the last few days. The discussion was as follows:

"kellyanne's pollsters have some disturbing news. They have found that the birther controversy is negatively affecting our candidate. We have got to do something. The problem is we just changed entirely his economic and tax program yesterday. Remember what happened to Romney when he was labeled a flip floper. He has got to change his position but how can we spin it to avoid that problem. I've got it, someone said. Let's blame it on Hillary Clinton. How can we do that? She never said anything either during the 2008 campaign or later remotely suggesting she thought Obama was not fully qualified to be president. Well, there must be someone somewhere who said some stupid remark that weekend used to pin birther controversy on her. Go find it. But, do we want Donald questioned on this point? No, he's had enough trouble lately staying on message. We will send out the surrogates. These guys can say anything without blushing. But, will anybody buy this.? why not, look at the crap we have fed them already and we're still neck and neck. Never under estimate the willing suspension of disbelief. Now, let's have Trump make a short change of position and take no questions and then we will send out the surrogates. If we can get truck to the winners Circle we will be known as the greatest group of bullshitters ever to engage in politics. That's the legacy I want my grandchildren to remember me by."

Of course this never happened. No one could be this deplorable. Oops, shouldn't use that word.

The politics of fantasy

Recently, Donald Trump has surpassed Hillary Clinton in the polls as being more trustworthy. There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton has provided fuel for republican attacks on her character and trustworthiness. And, the Republicans have done a good job in capitalizing on this opportunity. What is hard to understand is how the voting public views Trump as authentic and trustworthy. Beginning years ago with his position that Pres. Obama was not born an American citizen, a position he has never repudiated, he has been a total bullshit artist. His campaign has been based almost entirely on an immigration policy that wildly overstates the problem and offers no solutions except a wall. Apparently he has never heard of aircraft, Boats and the Canadian border.

What we are increasingly learning is that the American public believes in fantasy. The biggest fantasy is that the best qualification for the most difficult job in the world, the presidency of the United States, is a total lack of experience. That fantasy extends to the proposition that there can be a massive, undefined change in the entire political and economic system of the United States. That change is undefined but is expected to produce miraculous results. Fantasy politics was successfully employed by the Republicans starting with the Ronald Reagan administration. The fantasy there was that a tax cut would solve all problems by shrinking Government and that everyone would be better off, no matter where the tax cuts actually occurred. It became quite apparent that telling the American public that the best thing they could do for their country was to pay less taxes was a pretty easy sell.

Notwithstanding his surrogates denials, trump's position on immigration is constantly changing. In fact, it is changing for the better .But other than building the wall, it is little different than the policy of the current administration and all those Republican rivals that Trump belittled during the debates.

We can now hope that having raised a great deal of money, the Democrats will saturate the air waves with clips from all of the things Trump has said in the last year. If, having watched them, the voting public still believes Trump to be trustworthy and authentic then we will know for sure that fantasy and delusion rules the day. On her part, Hillary Clinton has got to step up to the wicket , confess her previous mistakes and affirmatively push her policy agendas. Finally, during the debates the moderators must ask tough questions and demand answers.

The real Donald came back–what a jerk

Donald Trump's speech in Arizona the other night was useful and important. As flip Wilson used to say, what you see is what you get. We saw a despicable dishonest miserable human being. When I was younger I used to work as a laborer on construction projects. We would be paid on Friday and go out for a few beers. Occasionally, someone would have too much and start ranting about how stupid and corrupt everyone in Government was. That would be followed by statements that this guy if allowed could fix everything in short order. That is what Trump reminds me of–a drunk in a bar.

Let's start with his dishonesty. He claims the American economy is terrible. In fact it is the best in the world. Unemployment is 4.9% the poverty rate has been falling since 2012. Median earnings have risen by 5% in real terms in the past two years. In Arizona, Trump appeared to blame our economic woes on illegal immigration from Mexico. In fact, in the last few years we have a net negativmigration from Mexico. The administration has deported 2.8 million point illegal immigrants from Mexico. All studies indicate that illegal immigrants from Mexico provide a net benefit to the American economy. When Trump is in the mid west he blames America,s  mostly imaginary problems on the Chinese. Were he to go to the Pacific Northwest, he would probably blame economic woes, real or imagined, on the Canadiens.

He is going to seal the southern border to keep us secure. How many terrorists have come to the United States across the Mexican border? At present, the Canadians are admitting at least 10 times as many immigrants from the Middle East as the United States. What about that Canadian border?

Trump says that any immigrants will have to agree to American values. Based upon his recent speech, apparently immigrants will have to profess a firm belief in fear, anger, intolerance and selfishness. There is no doubt that terrorism practice by  Wahabi.fundamentalists is a serious problem. But his border wall solution is delusionary. Terrorism is a world wide problem requiring a sustained cooperative and difficult effort.
All of the things he claims he would do would require a vastly larger federal government
He has no foreign-policy. He has economic solutions that are totally imaginary and would cause ten  to $15 trillion in deficits if adopted. Have we not seen enough?

Please let it be November 8

This week the contest was an argument about who was the bigot. This was probably the low point since the early days of the republican primary debates. Oddly enough, given Donald Trump's analysis it was not clear that he understood the meaning of the word bigot. As usual, the surrogates and spokes persons and strategists took center stage. It is amazing what  preposterous statements they make in defense of their candidate. I suppose I am not completely objective but it seems to me the republican surrogates are by far the worst. There is one young woman that when watching her one might suspect she had been given severe Pavlovian conditioning coupled with an overdose of amphetamines. Of course, this did not happen but that was the appearance created.

The other hot topic this week was Donald Trump's various positions on immigration policy. At this point, it is nearly impossible to know what his position is or will be. His most talented surrogate, Kellyann Conway described it as TBD, to be determined. One of the possibilities it seemed was to put revolving doors in the wall. The one thing that became quite clear was that Trump had been told by Kellyanne and Roger Ailes that he was going to lose if he did not make changes in his positions and style. Republicans from the RNC chairmen rhinoceros proboscis on down were outraged by Hillary Clinton's attack on their boy Donald. Apparently they have not listened to his attacks. Meanwhile, those of us who are centerleft or center right wonder what country we are living in.

Latest display of reckless ignorance

Donald Trump is now claiming that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are the founders of Isis. Let's review a little history. The modern resurgence of the Salafist or Wahhabi movement is largely attributed to the work of an Egyptian named Qutb. After years of imprisonment, he was executed by the injection Government around 1966. Al Qaeda, Isis, Isil and the other Salafist organizations are simply franchises of the greater Salafist movement. Thus, Clinton and Obama are being given credit or founding hey movement that has existed for more than 50 years in its current rebirth. The notion that the answer to the worldwide terrorism problem is simply to defeat Isis Falls woefully short of the mark. It is also laughable to think that the movement requires a geographic base in this era of encrypted Internet. It does not take much training to teach someone to walk into a crowded public place and start shooting people. To defeat this movement requires a long and extensive cooperation between Western states and the Nation of Islam. It cannot be done quickly or easily.

The problem is made more difficult by the Contest between Shia and Sunni muslems. It is further complicated by the contest at the nation State level for dominance in the middle east between Iran and Saudi Arabia. The United States in particular has to play a balancing roll between these nations and factions. It is further complicated by the need to provide a backstop to Israel. It is highly likely that if the United States does it's job well, it will be serially criticized by all the nations and factions in the middle east. We certainly don't need this thoughtless political dialogue in the United States. We do not have now nor will we have any miracle workers.

Realism is an unpleasant thing. But, we are sorely in need of it now and certainly do not need some buffoon like Donald Trump as president.

Intervention

Prompted by recent events, including trumps refusal to endorse Paul Ryan, there is talk of an intervention by the graybeards of the Republican Party with Donald Trump. Now, as a practical matter there really cannot be an intervention. Intervention requires a stick for noncompliance with advice. The only stick available is for the republican party to actively oppose Trump and they are not going to do that. Nonetheless, rumor has it that a group of senior Republicans–Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, And Chris Christie–or as they are sometimes known Larry Moe and Curly, will meet with Trump.

Their mission ostensibly is to convince someone with profound  narcissistic tendencies who has had a successful business career and rampaged through the republican primaries to change his ways. You have got to be kidding.

One of trumps recent proposals, which I grudgingly  approve, is to double up on Hillary Clinton's infrastructure spending program. This puts him completely at odds with Paul Ryan. Were trump to be elected president–and this certainly must be expressed in the subjunctive–we might have a spectacle of the president at odds with his own party over domestic issues. That would provide some interesting theater.

This time he has gone too far?

In the last few days Donald Trump has created new controversies involving a Goldstar mother, sexual harassment, and the unwillingness to support other republican candidates. Or, as it's known in his campaign, business as usual.

Once again his surrogates, spokespersons, strategists and I suppose marketers are working overtime.
More and more 24 hours news programs create the need for these people. They are there to defend the indefensible and attack the unassailable. Who really cares what these people say? Many of them appear to be 15 years old and hardly any will really answer a question. Instead, they talk about something else. At least the questioners will press them in ways they seem unable to do to an actual candidate. Given the amount of airtime that Donald Trump and his surrogates etc. have been given, do we really need to hear any more from them? At this point we should be ready to vote.

Unconventional

First,. I did not watch the Republican convention. I did not expect to learn anything and was confident that watching the greatest hits on the recap shows would be plenty. It was.

There was a couple things on the greatest hits that stood out. Foremost, the despicable behavior of Rudy Giuliani. He talked about the deaths of the Americans in Ben Ghazi and follow that with a quotation from Hillary Clinton that said at this point what does it matter. That quotation was in response to enlist questions in the multiple hearings as to whether the attackers have been motivated buy a single anti-Islamic event in Egypt or just a general desire to attack Americans. The way Giuliani juxtaposed it made it look is though Hillary Clinton had a General indifference to their deaths. I did not expect Giuliani to channel his inner Joseph McCarthy. The Republican surrogates, consultants, spokes people and the like seem to think that Giuliani was terrific. So did the audience. What was just heartening was not so much what Giuliani did but that it was deemed not only acceptable but worthy of praise.

Not to be outdone, Chris Christie allege that Hillary Clinton was responsible for the kidnapping in Nigeria by Boko haran of the schoolgirls. This occurred two years after she was Secretary of State. Christie apparently claims that it only happened because years before this terrorist organization was not put on a list. Not only is there no reasonable causal link there isn't even coincidence.

We have yet to hear any reasonably specific strategy from Trump as to how he is going to defeat terrorism, create jobs, and generally make America great. One way would be for him to go away.

Independence day

For many years I enjoyed the fourth of July speeches of politicians. They generally talked about their plans but mainly what a great country this is. Now we have presidential candidates, primarily Donald Trump but also Bernie Sanders talk about what a deplorable situation we are in. Really?

We have the greatest economy in the world. We came out of the 2008 and 9 recession faster than any other OECD country. We have the greatest Armed Forces in the world even though we don't always use them thoughtfully. We have had six years of job creation and economic growth at about 2%. That is about average over a 100 year period. We do have a problem. That is the divergence between income and wealth twixt the top and bottom. Apart from any fairness or moral issues, this creates diminishing aggregate demand which inhibits growth. Our 500 Fortune companies are awash with cash but will not make capital expenditures or invest in research and development because they see no increase in demand on the horizon. The virtuous cycle is broken.

The two best ideas floating around are the bipartisan notion of earned income tax credits and the democratic proposals for a significant infrastructure spending program, and the creation of an infrastructure bank. The big political question is if Hillary Clinton is elected, will the House of Representatives continue to block infrastructure spending programs? It is virtually certain that the Republicans will control the house. Unless they abandoned their voodoo or fantasy economics, our economy will stagnate.

Let's put some lipstick on that pig

The remaking of Donald Trump is well underway. His surrogates and other apologists spend their time explaining that the words Trump uses don't mean what they always mean. Meanwhile, the party grandees are taking a different tack. Their strategy is to convince party loyalists and other gullible voters not to worry because Trump will be under their control. They will try to teach him, like some parret, to say words more acceptable to those they are attempting to deceive.  Both Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell deplore Trump's latest pronouncements but suggest all he has to do is say it differently. Along these lines, Ryan is busily setting forth  agendas  for the House of Representatives. These are the sort of things that a president should be laying out. Their scheme is somewhat transparent. They hope to convince voters that Trump will be a mere figurehead, and that Ryan and McConnell will act as a sort of Edgar Bergen to Trump's Mortimer Snerd.

One may think that Trump will be somewhat less tractable than these two think. The bigger question is whether voters will be as gullible as they hope. The jury is pretty clearly out on that one.

Ignore trump

Years ago I was involved in some financial litigation. In those days deposition practice was rough and ready. One of the opposing lawyers was a real jerk. Constantly made frivolous objections and threw tantrums about anything he could imagine. One of the lawyers on our side knew how to handle him. He simply let him rant, did not respond and then continued. This drove the other guy crazy.

As usual, yesterday Trump held a press conference and all the networks obligingly televised it. This for some strange reason is called earned air time. What needs to be done is that when Trump calls his press conferences they should not be televised. The networks can be there to get soundbites but do not give him free air time. Then, the networks could air whatever sound bites they find it necessary accompanied by intelligent comment. Comments such as " once again Trump had no specific plans for the economy, trade practice, foreign relations, and the like." He never does. Instead of giving him free airtime, simply expose him for the bloviating buffoon that he is.

Utah's republican hitman

Utah Congressman Jason Chaffetz has consistently demonstrated that in a relentless campaign of self aggrandizement he will do anything to impugn or obstruct elected democrats or members of the Obama administration. He began his career when the Democrats controlled the house of representative as sort of a designated obstructionist. He would make frivolous points of order in order to slow down or obstruct the business of the house. As chairman of the oversight committee, he relentlessly conducts"Investigations" designed to embarrass members of the administration. He now wants to impeach the head of the IRS. This all stems from IRS staff members questioning the applications for tax exempt status of various 501(c)4 organizations primarily filed by republican groups but also some democratic groups. Those organizations are not supposed to get engage in primarily political endeavors. The ones whose Applications were held up were quite obviously form ed for no other purpose. In fact the IRS should've summarily denied their applications.

Even by the low standards of Utah elected officials, Chaffetz is a total embarrassment. That probably means he will have a long career and probably become a US senator.

Does conservative mean?

The Republicans continue to argue about who is a real conservative. Good question. Those of us who are older can remember that when Pres. Kennedy try to get Congress to pass a tax cut lowering the then marginal high rate of 91% he was stymied by conservative Republicans. They were worried about balancing the budget. Starting with Reagan at least,"Conservatives "never see a tax cut they don't like. If revenues are too high they cut taxes, if growth is too low they cut taxes and I am quite sure they believe cutting taxes will cure cancer. On the deficit side, when Reagan tripled the national deficit and was asked if he was not worried about the big deficits he was running, he said "they are big enough to take care of themselves. 'Cheney said deficits don't matter. All of the current candidates, Particularly Trump Cruise and Bush propose tax cuts creating anywhere from $6-$10 trillion in deficits in a decade. But Of course they claim these tax cuts will create incredible growth, thereby erasing deficits by increased tax revenues. The most charitable thing said about such voodoo economic proposals is that they are"implausible ".

Traditionally conservatives were isolationists as far as foreign-policy is concerned. Now the neocons seem to have taken over and they never see a potential invasion of another country that doesn't appeal to them. The foreign policy statements of the current republican candidates are so muddled and contradictory that is impossible to know what a "conservative" foreign-policy would look like.

Conservatives we're traditionally for free-trade. The current republican presumptive nominee appears to be in favor of erecting trade barriers. He and Paul Ryan apparently disagree on this.

So, what does being a conservative mean? It means whatever you wanted to mean, and if you are a candidate it means whatever that particular candidate says at any particular time. Or, as Shakespeare said it is sound and fury signifying nothing.

The Donald Trump Etch-a-Sketch

Donald Trump has initiated his economic Etch-a-Sketch. Over the weekend he reduced his tax cuts by about $4 trillion. Exactly how he will do this is more than somewhat unclear. Meanwhile, the two parties, Particularly the Republicans, engage in fantasy economics. On the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders continues to indulge in proposals that are both impossible from a budgetary standpoint and politically. Even if some miracle produced a democratically controlled House of Representatives, it would not except Sanders proposals even were he to be president, which you will not be. Hillary Clinton is closer to the truth but she is only nibbling around the edges. She should concentrate on an infrastructure building program and the creation of an infrastructure bank. Each could use public and private partnerships.

As far as one can tell, the Republicans remain mired in deep deep fantasy. They pursue the notion that tax cuts solve all problems. Recall the budgets that Congressman Ryan proposed circa 2009 and in 2012. They proposed hey plan that would create growth in GDP approximately 5 to 7 times greater than historic information would suggest as possible. They appear to be variations on the Laffer curve theory that didn't work during the Reagan administration. He also proposed cuts in social welfare programs. The net effect of his proposals would reduce the amount of money going to people with high marginal consumption rates and provide more money to people and corporations that are already awash with cash. It won't work.

When I was young it was thought that technology would free people from repetitive drudgery. In fact that is occurring. We need less people to produce things. Also the effect of globalization has caused a structural element of unemployment. Finally there is demographics. The result of all this is that we have more work eligible people that our economy needs, at least on the private side. We also are increasingly becoming a service economy. The public and private spheres of our economy have always been complementary. They need to be so increasingly again. We need to get rid of nonsensical political ideological problems and address reality. Work needs to be spread around more. If private enterprise can't supply jobs, the government will have to Stepien. For political reasons that would be best if it were done with of like private partnerships. Government is not going to get smaller. It can't. But it can get better. One way or another, we have to put people to work. As it is apparent in our inner cities, the lack of jobs causes social breakdown and cascading personal and societal problems. It has got to be corrected.

It just gets worse

After being obliterated in Tuesday nights voting, Ted Cruz reached out like Dracula from his coffin to grab Carly Fiorina as his"Running mate." This is the same person who refused to admit her planned Parenthood abortion claims were fabricated, notwithstanding incontrovertible evidence to the contrary; who claims to have risen from secretary to CEO when she actually started her business career with a degree from Stanford and an MBA; and who claimed a successful career even though her stint at Hewlett-Packard what's so disastrous they paid her over $20 million dollars just to leave. This may be the worst presidential ticket of all time. They are well suited to each other as either will say anything in order to advance themselves.

Although this is indeed a Hail Mary pass by Cruz, it probably was tactically a good move. He needed a game changer to have any chance of winning Indiana and thus staying alive. Fiorina helps with the women's vote, particularly because of the stupid remarks Trump made about her looks. And, as noted, Fiorina is an unrepentant disassembler. With these two on the hustings, politifact will have to hire additional staff.

Today's Republican comedy hour

Today Ted Cruz and John Kasich announced a cooperative plan to stop Donald Trump. Neither is quite able to be forthright about this. They talk of more effectively using their individual resources and try to claim its about each of their individual campaigns.

It requires going far beyond the willing suspension of disbelief to accept the notion that Ted Cruz gives a damn about who the Republican candidate is if it isn't Ted Cruz. One of the wonderful ironies about this campaign is that had Donald Trump not been so successful, Ted Cruz would've long ago been cast on the rubbish heap of unsuccessful republican candidates. He is living proof that one of the successful methods to employ if you are a candidate is to be conniving and unprincipled.

John Kasich has just been sucker punched. His only chance was in a brokered convention that would reject both Trump and Cruz. He needs to be promoting himself and attacking both Trump and Cruz now. With this latest maneuver, his goose is cooked.

The American game of thrones

Maureen Dowd had a piece in the New York Times a few days ago about Peter Dinklage, the actor who plays Tyrion in the game of thrones. In the article she mentioned that one of the writers and creators of the televised version of the game of thrones said that Donald Trump reminded him of Hodor. Hodor is an extremely large dimwitted fellow who responds to any statement or question directed to him by simply stating his name. I thought this truly inspired. We are of course now engaged in our own"Game of thrones ". This started me thinking about which character in the novels most reminded me of the presidential candidates other than Donald Trump. I suppose democrats would think that Hillary Clinton reminded them of Daenerys seeking to reclaim the throne rightly belonging to her family. Republicans probably think she is more like Cersei or perhaps the lady Mel isandre. I seeTed Cruz as either the scheming Littlefinger or perhaps Walder Frey who seeks to destroy anything he disagrees with. I am not sure who John Kasich or Bernie Sanders reminds me of. Perhaps members of the Stark family who seek to do that which is right but are doomed.

At any rate I can't wait to see who wins the iron throne. In most cases I hope they find it extremely uncomfortable.

Abortion – carpe diem Democrats

Donald Trump's latest cock up provides a great opportunity for the Democrats. He was pressed in an interview in a way that none of the other candidates ever are about the abortion. When asked if a woman who procures an abortion, should abortion become a crime, should be punished., after a great deal of hemming and hawing he finally said in so many words yes I guess she should be. All the candidates from each party, but particularly the Republicans, jumped on him for this. Ted Cruz, in his usual sanctimonious fashion, talked about how precious women were and undeserving of any punishment.

The interesting thing about this is that Trump's answer was completely logical. Why should one who is a participant, willingly, in a crime not deserve punishment? Whether the woman is considered an accomplice, an aider and abetter, a co-conspirator or perhaps a partner in crime that woman is surely engaging in a criminal act. The right wing social conservatives are prone to call abortion the murder of a fetus. One who hires another to commit a murder is typically guilty of murder.

The implication of the Republicans position is clear. Women cannot be held accountable because the poor dears just haven't the capacity to think and act for themselves. They are not even competent to commit murder. The Democrats  should be all over this.  The Republicans want it both ways. They want abortion to become a crime but they cannot, because of the political ramifications, hold a woman responsible. This is a great example of the intellectual bankruptcy of the social conservatives positions.

Democrats –keep your eye on the ball

It is time that each of the two Democrat nominees focus part of their attention and rhetoric on the general election and not just the primary. It is a virtual certainty that the Republicans will control the House of Representatives and that the speaker will be Paul Ryan. Despite the growing amount of evidence, Ryan refuses to believe that trickle down economics does not work. Each of the three Republican nominees have proposed tax plans primarily based on giving tax breaks to the wealthy, including wealthy corporations and either eliminating or cutting back taxation of capital gains. Such plans would provide no stimulus. In fact, they would diminish aggregate demand by transferring even more wealth from those with high marginal consumption

The democrats need to focus their attention on Ted Cruz, not Donald Trump. Let the Republicans attack Donald Trump, it's more effective  anyway. Ted Cruz provides a nice target. Not only are his policies vulnerable, his sanctimonious, morally superior persona is unattractive to most. Even his new Republican supporters are holding their nose. Plus, Cruz's record is one of obstruction, not creation.

Speaking of Trump, Have you noticed how Chris Christie stands behind andto the right of Donald Trump when he lectures to the press. Christie has this vacant look on his face reminding one of a ventriloquist dummy. I'm waiting for Trump to reach back, grab and hold up Christie to see if Christie can talk without Trump's lips moving.

Ted Cruz– sanctified debater

Apparently Ted Cruz was an accomplished debater. I never indulged in the sport of debating because it didn't involve running and jumping and some sort of ball. However, I have some understanding of it. One of the rhetorical devices use is the"strawman". That involves creating imaginary problems and then solving them. Apparently this cute trick explains why Cruz constantly has an apocalyptic vision of the United States and then offers himself as some sort of a Messiah'. He also creates imaginary positions for his opponents and then declaims his opposition. He also tends to refuse to answer questions if they don't fit into his narrative. In response he offers one of his set pieces.

One of his newest proposals, which even disturbs Republicans, is to have armed controls out in Muslim neighborhoods. Perhaps he will next propose that all Muslims where arm bands with red crescents displayed. One can not help but notice that Cruz consistently channels his inner Ronald Reagan. As it is Easter tomorrow, perhaps Cruz will claim that the spirit of Ronald Reagan has arisen from the dead and taken root in his body.

I may have forgotten to say that I consider Ted Cruz a truly deplorable human being.

Perhaps Cruz will have a new campaign slogan."Vote for Ted Cruz– stupid solutions for imaginary problems ".

The Supreme Court

10 days before the death of Justice Scalia, Chief Justice Roberts gave a speech at a New England law school. In that speech she deplored the actions of the Senate which increasingly has hyper politicized the "advise and consent" of judicial nominees, particularly to the supreme court. He said it diminished this stature of The Supreme Court and Intended to make it look like nothing more than a political partisan battling ground. He is of course right.

In a recent op Ed piece in the New York Times, a former legal ethics adviser to pres. George W. Bush stated that Merrick Garland is a nominee that Bush would've nominated. If you think about it, Garland is exactly the person who should now be same to the court. The court is divided four/ four, if not politically at least by ideology. A moderate like Judge Garland would provide perfect balance. That is to say, difficult questions would be resolved on the basis of legal analysis and not ideologically. This is exactly what reasonable rational people should wish for.

Among the frightening and distasteful things which would occur if Ted Cruz were to be elected president is that he would nominate and aggressively religious extremely right wing candidate. He has said so. That process would diminish the respect for the Supreme Court even more.

Not that anyone cares, but I was afraid Justice Roberts would be far to much to the right. And of course he is extremely that way. But, nothing in his record indicated any reason that he should not be confirmed. On the bench he is made many rulings that people like me disagree with. But he has acted as a principled legal analyst. It is disgraceful that Ted Cruz now criticizes justice Roberts is being too "liberal". That is utter nonsense and further evidence, if any be needed, of the unfitness of  Cruz to be even a senator, much less president.

Democrats and jobs

All of the remaining five presidential candidates agree that job creation is important. The Republicans have basically no plan, except for their fantasy notion that tax cuts heavily weighted towards the wealthy Will cure all problems.

The Democrats have a great opportunity . It is widely understood and indisputable that we need to rebuild and repair the physical and broadband infrastructure in this country. Despite the under 5% unemployment figure, they're remains probably a three or 4% of potential workforce that are structurally unemployed. You can see that by noticing that the percentage of the population that is employed even though work eligible has declined. The United States can borrow money by selling treasury notes have a nominal interest so low that even given modest inflation, there is practically no real interest to be paid. It is also important that all of our sovereign debt is denominated in dollars and we own the printing press. It is reprehensible that the obstructionist tactics of the Republican Congress has prevented an infrastructure building program from occurring in the last seven years. The two Democratic candidates should focus their campaigns on an infrastructure building program to increase jobs and as a result increase aggregate demand the stimulating the economy as a whole.

The way to create jobs just to give a person a job. The private sector could do more but it won't. It is up to the federal government to fill in the gap. An infrastructure building program is basically a no lose proposition. It has to be done, It's cheaper to do it when wages are low, and the government can borrow at basically no interest. This is an easily understandable proposition. Let the Republicans yell about big spending democrats. The answer is easy. What is better, big tax cuts for the wealthy or jobs for the unemployed?

The Republican Epiphany

Just as St. Paul was struck blind on the road to Damascus, so has the Republican party been struck blind and brain-dead on the road to Cleveland. Apparently there campaign slogan will be "vote for Cruz – he's not quite as bad as Trump ".

Actually, he is much worse. He is not as vulgar or obviously insulting to practically everybody but he is deplorable in all respects. He is a sort of megalomaniacal tent preacher, lacking only a snake around the neck to complete the picture. He strides around the stage giving apocalyptical visions of the United States that appear to come right out of the book of Revelation. None are remotely close to the truth. We have the best economy in the world and have come out of the recession faster then any of the OECD countries. Our military is unmatched in strength. We have created 14 million jobs in the last eight years. The value of our equity market has nearly doubled since the George W. Bush debacle.

Cruise offers nothing but stupid ideas to solve an imaginary problem. He has a preposterous tax plan that would do nothing but cause deficits and flow more wealth to the top if passed. He is going to eliminate the IRS and the EPA. He wants to go back to the gold standard. He is going to carpet bomb Syria thereby massacring its citizenry. In the Senate he was nothing but an obstructionist. Other than Mike Lee, who is part of the Cruz/Lee tweedlede and Tweedledum act, no senator can stand him.

He clearly has some sort of messianic complex. Why the Republican Party would wish this person to slither into the White House is unfathomable.

One can only hope the Democrats have done their background research carefully, including research into the religious figures, including his father who campaigns for him, to demonstrate their vituperate messages.

Trumped again

In the last few weeks, the Republican " establishment "spent 40 or $50 million demonstrating the obvious– that Donald Trump is a jerk. That 40 or $50 million got them a resounding"Up yours ". Trump one four  of five states, losing only to John Kasich in Kasich/s home state of Ohio. Trump thrashed Marco Rubio, the one time darling of the establishment, in Rubio's home state of Florida.

Ted Cruz demonstrating his normal meglamaniacal Messianic zeal proclaimed himself as the only possible savior for the republican party and indeed the world in general. Kasich has a far-fetched plan whereby he arises like a phoenix from the ashes at a convention and becomes the white knight nominee. You couldn't make this stuff up.

Meanwhile, at least some of the Democrats are saying maybe they better take this guy trump seriously. You think so?

Rubio – the black Knight

Fans of Monty Python, who are all people of good taste, will remember the black knight in Monty Python and the holy Grail. After the black Knight had both arms and legs hacked off by his opponent, he lay on the ground saying" come back you coward, I will gum you to death"

Last week, notwithstanding that he had won no delegates in the last four primaries and was trailing Donald Trump by 20 points in the Florida polling Rubio proclaimed his inevitable victory in the Republican race to be nominee. For that effort, Rubio has won the black night of the week award.

In other GOP news, panic has displaced common sense with various republicans deciding maybe Ted Cruz isn't so bad after all. What's the GOP cannot seem to understand is that they created this mess themselves. Thomas Friedman, a real conservative wrote a great opinion piece in the New York Times indicting them for their behavior over the last 10 years or so. One may safely assume that will be largely ignored.

Mighty Mit to the rescue

"Here I come to save the day." Thursday last, former Gov. Mit Romney acting as a sort of Eminence Grise went on the air to state the obvious. Donald Trump is not fit to be president. His speech begs the question– What about Ted Cruz?

Cruz in his campaign speeches vilifies all opponents. He strides the stage like some sort of megalomaniacal revival preacher, portraying present-day United States as something right out of the book of Revelation. In violation of international law, he calls for indiscriminate carpet bombing of Syria which would slaughter civilians in whose presence Isis is embedded. He appears to want some sort of revival of the Spanish Inquisition to cleanse America of those whose mainstream Christian faith are not sufficient.

He has a proposed tax plan based upon a 10% flat income tax and a 16% value added business tax. The plan is obviously regressive and would pump more money into the pockets of thevery wealthy. Businesses that export would pay no tax. Importers would pay essentially a 16% tariff. This scheme would probably violate International trade agreements to which the United States is a party. Moreover, one estimate of the deficits that would be created is $6.8 trillion over 10 years. Cruise will undoubtedly trot out some economist to project preposterous growth that will solve all problems. He also wants to eliminate the IRS and return to the gold standard. He does not disclose the cuts he will proposed in social welfare programs, but they will be there.

In any other year, without Donald Trump, Ted Cruz would be the"any body but " candidate.

As the establishment  apparently cannot bring themselves to support John Kasich, their obvious candidate, we can look forward to a completely unpalatable Republican nominee. There is no way Marco Rubio is going to make it. In any event, he has shown himself to be a juvenile, not ready for primetime.

The republican party goes kaboom

On super Tuesday, Donald Trump won the majority of the states causing Ted Cruz to claim victory and the Republican establishment to become hysterical.

On Thursday, out of the west rode Mitt Romney, bidding to become the Eminence griese of the Republican Party. Romney provided a litany of the stupid things that Donald Trump has said. This, of course, was like shooting fish in a barrel. He then declared Donald Trump unfit to be a Republican president and launched his anybody but trump campaign. This was followed by a Thursday night, You should excuse the expression, the debate in which everybody, Including the moderators, but John Kasich threw rocks at Donald Trump.

The oddity of all this is that Romney could have launched the same attack against Ted Cruz. Cruise has vowed to carpet bomb Syria, call other senators liars and said no end of vile and usually inaccurate statements about everyone in sight, Particularly President Obama. His description of the current United States is right out of the book of revelations. In fact, he looks like someone who would like to launch another Spanish Inquisition. Perhaps his real name is Ted Torquameda.

For his part, Marco Rubio has straddled every issue possible, claims to be both an outsider and the establishment candidate, and claims vast experience in practically everything when he has done nothing.

Then, Having spent two hours lambasting Donald Trump as being unfit, the other three candidates all said they would support him for president if he were the nominee.

Were I to walk across that stage after the debate, because it would be impossible to avoid stepping in horseshit.

Today in Utah

VP Joe Biden was in town yesterday urging a united front in the war against cancer. Sen. Orin Hatch quickly responded that because Biden was a lame duck vice president, no no proposals from him should be considered. Had stated that any such consideration should await the inauguration of a new vice president after the November elections.

In other local news , senator Margaret Dayton opposed proposed legislation that would prohibit former government employees from going to work for companies they had been regulating until a year had passed. Sen. Dayton thus kept intact her perfect record of being on the wrong side of every legislative question that has come before her.

Latest televised Republican food fight

What occurred last night was deplorable, even judged against what normally occurs in these so-called debates. The moderators completely lost control. Under their rules, each time a candidate was mentioned by another he was allowed to respond. That meant we had nothing but Trump, Cruz and the Rubio hurling insults at each other. Regrettably, the one sane and responsible candidate, John Kasich, was allowed to say very little. How any republican of even moderate intelligence could support anybody on that stage other than Kasich is beyond me.

To add to the insanity, the pundits afterwords and this morning we're talking about what good performances Rubio and Cruz had. Apparently hurling insults at Trump, a buffoon of the first order, constitutes presidential behavior. Other than Kasich, the candidates persist in claiming that the present state of the United States is the book of Revelation come to life. I nearly always vote for Democrats, but I could see voting for Kasich in a contest with Hillary Clinton, Primarily because the Republicans will control the House of Representatives and even were Clinton to be elected, she would be unable to do anything. I have doubts about Kasich's economics but they are certainly less wrong than any of the other republican candidates. If a Republican be elected Pres., and their economic programs don't work, perhaps there could be a general house cleaning in 2020.

The Democrats sorely need to develop some new young talent. Nobody appears on the horizon.

The South Carolina Follies

Rumor has it that today Donald Trump instructed his lawyers to send a cease and desist letter to the Pope. Trump has demanded that the Pope recant his statement that Trump is not a Christian and that additionally he say five Hail Marys. Ted Cruz stated that the Pope asked him to represent the him in this legal struggle. Mario Rubio said that was a lie and that the pope had asked him. Ted Cruz rejoined that  Mario Rubio was the liar.

On the campaign trail, Jeb Bush stated that not only his brother but his mommy and daddy also want him to be president. Jeb said his mom he did not think it was fair that his brother got to be president if Jeb didn't. Bill Clinton stated that because the Bush family already had two presidents, it was the Clinton family's turn. Descendents of the Adams family said they were next.

The Fox network announced a new reality show,"The biggest liar." The first contestants will be Cruz Rubio and Trump. In order that there be fair and balanced questions, the questionnaires will be Rush Limbaugh and Rachel Maddow.

Donald Trump's platform

The centerpiece of Trump's platform is, of course,"I'm great so trust me." Most of the rest is vague and undefined. However, there are a few relatively specific proposals.

The first is The Wall. Trump is correct in saying that before his comments little was set about immigration by the other Republican candidates. The reason for that is that immigration is not now a serious problem. The Obama administration has deported more illegal immigrants then any other recent president. The result is that in the past few years, net immigration has been negative. Economists who have studied the effect of undocumented immigrants on the economy of this country have consistently for at least 20 years concluded they are a net benefit. There is also a little if any evidence that they are taking jobs away from American citizens, very few of which desire to become migrant agricultural workers.

Trumps other relatively specific proposal is his tax plan. He proposes massive tax cuts, Nearly all of which will benefit the wealthiest people in the country. For instance, according to the analysis of the Tax Policy Center the top 1% of tax payers will see a a decrease in the amount of taxes they pay of 17.6% . The top one 10th of  percent of taxpayers will see a decrease in the amount of taxes they pay of the 18.3%. Trump also proposes cuts in business taxation. The bottom 75% of taxpayers will see very little reduction in their taxes.The results of this will be massive deficits. We may safely assume that Trump will claim that his plan will provide such a massive stimulus to the economy that deficits will quickly be eliminated. He will undoubtedly find some organization or economist to approve this plan. As it is the case with all of Trump'S nonsense, the problems with his tax plan probably will not hurt his chances in the election, at least at the primary level.

Republican contestants in the Saturday night fight cage

I haven't watched much of the debates thus far. In the primary debates, the contestants are fighting for the so-called base of the party. As a result there is a lot of mischaracterizations, misstatements exaggerations and BS, and not first class BS either. Because in the past, South Carolina primaries we're known for more than rough-and-tumble tactics, in fact downright dirty tactics I thought I would watch Saturday night. Although I have never been politically active I hardly ever  vote for a Republican. Nonetheless, I thought I could fairly judge the comparative merits of the candidates on the Republican side, even though it was highly unlikely I would ever vote for any of them.

I've seen a lot of presidential debates, starting with Nixon and Kennedy in 1960. Never have I seen such a disgusting display. By far the worst was Donald Trump, a bloviating buffoon. The thought that this guy could actually be the president of United States is something I cannot wrap my mind about. Cruz and Rubio were not much better. What was disheartening was to listen to the talking heads afterwords. They seem to say that Trump had not heard his chances , Rubio might have upped his chances and Cruz did fine. So, I guess this election will prove that the definition of a democracy as one in which the the people get the government they deserve will hold true, particularly if the Republican candidate is not either Bush or Kasich, as it becomes increasingly likely that the Republicans will win the presidency and surely will control the House of Representatives.

Don't cry for me, New Hampshire

The good people of New Hampshire have spoken and, with apologies to WB Yeates the center did not hold. The Democrats elected Bernie Sanders, a self-styled democratic socialist who wishes to increase the scope of government activity and raise taxes on the wealthy and particularly the financial sector. The Republicans elected Donald Trump who has very few specific proposals but promises that his greatness is all the country needs to succeed beyond our wildest expectations. Were Sanders to be elected, the Republican-controlled house which is almost a dead certainty to continue after the 20 16th election would allow none of his proposals to be enacted. Trumps only specific proposals are to build a wall to solve a nonexistent immigration problem and a crazy tax plan which is totally inconsistent with his message. The roadshow now moves primarily to South Carolina, in the heart of the Bible Belt where the Pentecostal preacher Ted Cruz hopes to regain the ascendancy. On the Democrat side, Hillary Clinton looks strong. Unfortunately, her economic and budgetary proposals have no chance with a republican House of Representatives either.

Waiting in the wings is Nevada witch is appropriate in this cycle as it is primarily a sort of a fantasyland.

Strange days in New Hampshire –February 9 2016

 As Bilbo Baggins and the other residents of the Shire vote, there have been mighty strange occurrences in the Shire. At the big debate Saturday night, it emerged that Marielle Rubio believed he was running against Barack Obama in the 2016 election. His complaint about Obama, which he reiterated time after time, was that Obama "knew exactly what he was doing ". There is unanimous agreement among the Republican candidates that everything that Obama did was wrong, if not despicable. Apparently these candidates are against saving jobs in the US by giving government help to General Motors, giving more Americans access to healthcare, not starting another war in Syria, providing cleaner air and and providing stimulus to the US economy by a three-pronged program of tax cuts, providing federal funds to the states and federal construction programs. This seems somewhat odd as the economic proposals by all the republican candidates consist primarily of tax cuts and increased distribution of federal funds to the states. Rubio is also apparently dead set against a president knowing what he is doing.

Those of us who are older, can remember Mohammad Ali claiming" I am the greatest".He had nothing on this group of candidates, particularly Donald Trump. The who is the greatest debate appears primarily to center on the question of the meaning of the term " conservative ". Each of the candidates tends to look at the others and say "Ha, look who thinks he's a conservative".

Meanwhile, the two Democratic candidates argue about who is the most "progressive".

God help us, there are 48 states to go.

The great Utah land grab of 2016

Things are brewing in this here state of Utah that will make the Oklahoma Landrush of 1889 pale in comparison. Although the contours of and players in this landgrab are still nascent, some aspects are beginning to emerge. The state of Utah seeks to lay claim to all or nearly all of the federal lands within the boundaries of the state . At the same time, ranchers in this state are saying au contraire, we own in these lands out right that we have been leasing from the federal government. As things develop, we may expect more claimants to emerge. For instance, holders of Federal mineral leases, oil and gas leases, timber cutting permits, Ski resorts, marinas and perhaps such users as backcountry outfitters, River floaters and the like.

A commission of the Utah Legislature has engaged the legal services of a reverse carpetbagging firm from New Orleans., This is not entirely clear because the spokesman of the firm claims they only represent the chairman of the commission. One wonders if this chairman is on the hook individually for the legal bills. Apparently the chairman and his legal eagles are unwilling to share the legal analysis with the Democrats in the Utah legislature. Whether the attorney general of the state of Utah has been made privey to this analysis is unclear, at least to me.

Wholly apart from the merits, if any, of these novel legal claims, is the question of how litigation would be structured. Would the  plaintiff be the state of Utah or the chairman of the commission, perhaps acting ex rel? In either case there would be an interesting standing issue. Currently before the United States Supreme Court is a case that should shed light on the ability of states to bring actions as plaintiff disputing actions taken by representatives of branches of the federal government claimed to injure the state. Were  the chairman to be the plaintiff, standing would be even more problematic.

As far as the claims of the State of Utah, there would seem to be other preliminary issues before the merits could be reached. For instance, even if framed as an action for declaratory relief, there would seem to be a question of whether there is an actual case or controversy ripe for adjudication. Given that there does not appear to be a dispute over the title to any particular property arising out of a specific claim by the state of Utah, what would seem to be requested would be a type of an advisory opinion that the federal courts do not provide. Also might the political question doctrine be implicated?

Actually, an individual plaintiff claiming title to a particular Parcel of Federal land might assert a claim more ripe for adjudication .

What would be a truly wonderful spectator sport, would be an action by the state of Utah seeking to require the federal Government to relinquish and convey to the state of Utah title to all federal lands within the boundaries of the state. Then, perhaps all the individual claimants could intervene. Something like a general adjudication as  occurs in cases of contested water rights might happen. This is, obviously, highly unlikely but it certainly would be in the nature of a relief act for lawyers.

Meanwhile, in common with the democrat members of the legislature, I would really like to see the $500,000 legal analysis, which I will undoubtedly as a tax payer pay for.

Homage to Io

In Russia there are the caucusus, a mountain range dividing the country. Although Iowa is flat it also has coccuses dividing the country. These caucuses are a sort of series of the tent revival meetings where  the republicans and Democrats divide the country and indeed divide their own parties.

The republican caucuses were won by Ted Cruz whose message was a sort of book of revelations. His Pentecostal approach fell only just short of the handling snakes. He also had his preacher papa out at the churches, peddling his kind of reprehensible demagoguery. To add gravitas, Cruise also had Glenn Beck and the Star of duck dynasty. Oddly enough, Beck was unable to note the connection between the Russian in Iowa caucuses, clear evidence of some sort of dark left-wing conspiracy.

The runner-up Republican was Donald Trump. Trump, against all odds, managed to lower the intellectual content of his production by bringing in Sarah Palin. Her brand of unintelligible but authentic Alaskan gibberish has not changed over the years. Trump had hope to bring the America First party and Charles Lindbergh but was informed that they were no longer with us.

Marco Rubio managed to finish a close third by proclaiming his own greatness and straddling all issues. He thus became the mainstream, conservative, Tea party candidate.

The Democrats managed to finish in a virtual dead heat. Apparently this was a race between a socialist and a shill for Wall Street.

It is now on to New Hampshire, Home of the Manchester Union leader and the late William Loeb. It is also the state where prisoners at the State penitentiary produce license plates with the motto"Live Free or Die".