by Owen | 2236, 8 Nov 1616 | Politics | 3 Comments
The results are still coming in, but the election is shaping up to be a sweeping win for the GOP. It looks like Republicans will control Congress and the Presidency. Along the way, Wisconsin reelected Senator Ron Johnson and voted for Donald Trump – the first time we have voted for a Republican presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan.
It may be a bit premature, but congratulations to Donald Trump. I never thought you could win. I was wrong. I hope that I am equally wrong about what kind of president you will be. I am thankful that it looks like you will have a decidedly conservative House and Senate to work with.
by Owen | 2153, 31 Oct 1616 | Politics | 0 Comments
Frankly, if Russia were trying to push Trump, I think they would be better at it.
FBI officials said their investigations have yet to find a connection between the GOP presidential nominee and Russia.
The bureau has been investigating the Russian government’s role in the U.S. presidential election. But the FBI believes that the country was likely trying to disrupt the overall race, and not trying boost Trump’s chance of getting elected.
The problem with many folks is that they think in a very limited scope. Putin doesn’t really care who the U.S. president is – especially in this case where both major candidates are likely to be friendly and incompetent in dealing with him. But disrupting the campaign as a whole makes a lot of sense for Russia.
First, it undermines the notion that a representative government is a legitimate government. For a man who has been consolidating power into his own hands for years, this helps with his opponents within Russia.
Second, Putin is a Cold Warrior. He wants to see Russia’s power increase in terms of being able to influence or outright control other countries. He has seen Russia’s power grow under a tepid and incompetent Obama (and Clinton) foreign policy. When other countries perceive America to be divided, chaotic, and weak, they are more likely to turn to Russia for support and protection.
I have no doubt that Russia has been instigating chaos in America for years. Such disruption has been a reliable and effective tool of the Communists for years. Why would they stop now?
Trump earned a -569. Clinton, a -481. That places both candidates in the second-lowest category, characterized as “failure.” “We’ve never seen scores this bad, ever,” sales Alexander Edwards, president of Strategic Vision. When the firm asks consumers to rate vehicles they’ve purchased, there’s rarely a score below 200. One of the lowest scores for any vehicle accrues to the Chevy Express Cargo Van, which earns a score of 207. This is the vehicle that pleases consumers far more than either of their main choices for president this year:
The Chevy Express Cargo Van. Way more appealing than Trump or Clinton.
The research firm did similar polling in 2012. President Obama scored 331. His Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, scored 307. Both polled in the range between “satisfied” and “excellent.” There are some obvious difficulties applying polling methodology meant for automobiles to political candidates. For one thing, people who buy a car have dozens of choices, many tailored to their specific needs and desires. This year’s presidential candidates are more like survivors of attrition warfare than market-tested favorites. Clinton’s shiftiness causes huge trust issues; Trump’s caustic treatment of women, minorities and critics suggests he’s a thin-skinned bully.
by Owen | 0847, 18 Oct 1616 | Politics | 0 Comments
My column for the West Bend Daily News is online. Here it is:
For the first time in my life, I am sitting here in the middle of October of a presidential election year and I do not know for whom I will vote for President of the United States. Yet, choices must be made and the consequences will be felt.
I am a firm believer that one of the responsibilities of citizenship is to inform oneself and vote even when the choices on the ballot are poor. Our electoral system does not allow for do-overs or “none of the above.” Someone will actually win the election and assume power. The voters will decide who that will be and it is my responsibility to express my choice through the ballot box.
Often, perhaps far too often, this choice comes down to choosing the better of two evils. That is the determination many are trying to make this year between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. But as I consider these two choices, I cannot discern a lesser of the two. They are just two evils.
Clinton is one of the most corrupt people in American politics. Her decades in public life have shown her to be a liar whose overriding motivations are rooted in her own advancement. Repeated disclosures have catalogued how she has violated federal law, used the Clinton Foundation as a vehicle to trade money for favors when she was secretary of state, exposed our national secrets to hostile foreign governments, and attacked the women whom her husband allegedly sexually assaulted. She is a vile person who will abuse the office of president for her personal gain and to advance policies detrimental to the United States.
Donald Trump, who was a liberal New York Democrat until he decided he wanted to run for president, has also spent decades in public life swaddling himself with dishonor. He is also a proven liar who has no scruples about trampling the people and institutions around him for his personal advancement. His willful and unapologetic ignorance of the basic tenets of the Constitution, the separation of powers, international affairs, and the basic duties and limits of the executive leave little doubt that President Trump would cast off any remaining moorings of the American presidency.
Many of my fellow conservatives have weighed and measured the two candidates differently and concluded that Trump is a tolerable choice. Some of them argue that the eventual appointments to the Supreme Court and Trump’s mouthing of support for some conservative principles tip the scale. While I understand and respect those arguments and the people making them, it is not a path I can walk with them this time. In Wisconsin, at least, it is a discussion that is more philosophical than tangible. Wisconsin will vote for Clinton irrespective of how the conservative minority splits their votes.
The history of governments amongst people is replete with examples of bad, corrupt, evil leaders in both representative and other forms of government. We will survive and build for ourselves a better future after this setback. It is critical that we build a bulwark against the excesses of a tyrannical presidency by electing strong Conservatives to the House and Senate like Sen. Ron Johnson, Speaker Paul Ryan and representatives Glenn Grothman, Sean Duffy, Mike Gallagher and Jim Sensenbrenner. While that is true in any election, it is paramount in this one.
By the time Election Day is upon us, I will exercise my franchise for the least offensive choice for president and it will likely be for one of the third party candidates. Then I will pray for our nation to fight off the worst excesses of our next president as we look to build a brighter future.
by Owen | 0658, 17 Oct 1616 | Politics | 0 Comments
Victor Davis Hanson, a man whom I respect and whose histories outshine even his political writings, makes the conservative argument for Trump. Read the whole thing.
Nor is the election a choice even between four more years of liberalism and a return of conservatism; it’s an effort to halt the fundamental transformation of the country. A likely two-term Clinton presidency would complete a 16-year institutionalization of serial progressive abuse of the Constitution, outdoing even the twelve years of the imperial Roosevelt administration. The WikiLeaks revelations suggest an emboldened Hillary Clinton, who feels that a 2016 victory will reify her utopian dreams of a new intercontinental America of open borders and open markets, from Chile to Alaska, in the manner of the European Union expanse from the Aegean to the Baltic.
[…]
The ancient idea of tragic irony can sometimes be described as an outcome unfortunately contrary to what should have been expected. Many of us did not vote in the primaries for Trump, because we did not believe that he was sufficiently conservative or, given his polarizing demeanor, that he could win the presidency even if he were. The irony is now upon us that Trump may have been the most conservative Republican candidate who still could beat Hillary Clinton — and that if he were to win, he might usher in the most conservative Congress, presidency, and Supreme Court in nearly a century.
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Donald Trump has canceled one of his two planned Wisconsin campaign stops Monday.
Trump’s Wisconsin spokesman Matt Schuck says a scheduling conflict led to Trump canceling his event in West Allis outside of Milwaukee. Another event in Green Bay on Monday is still on.
It’s the second time a Trump event in Wisconsin has been canceled in recent days. Trump was originally scheduled to attend a rally last weekend in southeast Wisconsin, but House Speaker Paul Ryan disinvited him.
by Owen | 0656, 13 Oct 1616 | Politics | 2 Comments
Apparently the media is OK with reporting decades-old accusations of sexual assault now. I’m not going to spend a lot of time in this for a few reasons. First, the accusations are unsubstantiated and years old. Second, it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if the allegations are true. Third, if you support Trump after a lifetime of him being a sleaze, why would this suddenly change your vote? Fourth, this is a contrived and scheduled outrage by Clinton and her supporters in the media. Fifth, Trump was done the day he got the nomination. Why fret about it now?
The speaker told his members “you all need to do what’s best for you in your district” and that he will not defend Trump or campaign with him over the next 29 days until Election Day on Nov. 8. Ryan had been planning to campaign with Trump on Saturday, the day after the video surfaced, but that appearance was quickly scrapped.
According to sources, Ryan will now spend his energy to make sure that Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton doesn’t get a blank check with a Democratic-controlled Congress if she does win the presidency. This is what Ryan sees as best for the party and for his members, not himself, and he was aware there may be other political pressures to get him to do otherwise, but his concerns about keeping the majority superseded that.
“The speaker is going to spend the next month focused entirely on protecting our congressional majorities,” Ryan press secretary AshLee Strong said.
by Owen | 0826, 10 Oct 1616 | Politics | 0 Comments
Kevin Binverse has his take on the winners and losers of the 2nd presidential debate. He sums up:
While many pundits have called last night a “win” for Trump, but reality is it was a “draw” at best for his campaign. With the lewd comments from Friday’s video still the dominate topic – and Trump doing little to nothing to defuse them during the debate – his very candidacy continues to be a cancer inside the conservative movement. One which would be best cast off before it means electoral ruin on Election Day.
At this point, I don’t think the GOP can replace Trump. Sure, he can step down anytime he wants, but then what? The ballots are set and many states have already started early voting. And every day that passes, it becomes less and less doable.
The GOP is stuck with Trump because they voted for him to be their candidate. Let’s stop fretting over that bad decision and figure out what happens next.
by Owen | 1350, 8 Oct 1616 | Politics | 0 Comments
So I understand from the news this morning that Donald Trump is a sexist pig and Hillary Clinton is a crooked liar. Neither of these facts are revelations. We, as Americans, have chosen two of the most despicable people imaginable to contend for the presidency atop the two major parties.
At this point, given that both candidates are horrible people with enough baggage to fill a caravan on the Silk road to hell, the person who will win the election is the one we talk about the most until election day. The more we talk about Clinton, the more we hate her. The more we talk about Trump, the more we hate him. That’s why Clinton won the first debate – they spent most of the time talking about Trump. If they spend the most time talking about Clinton in the second debate, Trump will win.
I truly hate this presidential election. Our nation is diminished by the mere fact that these are the candidates for the major parties.
A US newspaper says it has obtained documents showing tycoon Donald Trump declared a loss of more than $900m on his 1995 federal income tax return.
The New York Times says the loss was so large it may have enabled the Republican candidate to avoid paying tax for up to 18 years legally.
His campaign has refused to publish his tax returns and neither confirmed nor denied the scale of his losses.
A few thoughts… first, isn’t the leak itself illegal? I thought that our tax documents were covered by privacy protections. If someone stole my tax records and dumped them on the internet, I’d certainly want law enforcement to find the culprits and prosecute them.
Second, doesn’t it seem like Hillary Clinton knew this ahead of time? Think back to the debate and how she repeatedly hammered on Trump’s tax records and implied things. Is it possible that someone within the government gave her this information some time ago? Yes, yes it does. And it fits perfectly into the Clinton’s sleazy political playbook.
Third, assuming the information is true, it doesn’t appear that Trump did anything illegal. Carrying forward losses on your taxes is something that people all over the country do every year. And any business owner who has suffered a bad year has taken advantage of this intentional facet of our tax policy.
Fourth, of course point number 3 is not the point. It isn’t about whether Trump actually violated the law like Hillary did. It is about stoking the fires of envy. We, the great unwashed public living in our parents’ basements and lamenting our lots in life, are supposed to be envious of Trump for being wealthy and not paying income taxes. It feeds into the “fair share” ideology of the Left that is rooted in envy and hate. So despite the fact that Trump complied with the law and did what every one of us would have done in the same circumstance, we’re supposed to hate him for it. People who think this way are incredibly petty, but they comprise a sizable portion of the base of the Democratic Party.
Fifth, the disclosure does undermine Trump’s proposition that his business acumen is a justification for being president. Or does it? Almost every entrepreneurial businessperson has several losses under their belts. Steve Jobs. Bill Gates. Richard Branson. Thomas Edison. Henry Ford. Warren Buffett. The list goes on. Often times, people who are considered business geniuses rack up dozens of failures before landing on that one magnificent idea that launches them into the pantheon of business leaders. I’m not saying that Trump is a great businessman. What I am saying is that one massive failure is not conclusive evidence of him not being one.
The Commission on Presidential Debates released a vague statement on Friday simply saying: “Regarding the first debate, there were issues regarding Donald Trump’s audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall.”
The commission didn’t elaborate any further, but the statement did not indicate that there were any issues with the television feed.
Really? We’re going to argue about this? Does anyone remember what Hillary Clinton was doing in 1998? Oh yeah, she was, once again, helping her husband fight off a “bimbo eruption” with Monica Lewinsky. He was impeached for lying under oath late in the year.
Newsweek reports that Mr Trump’s company secretly conducted business in Cuba, violating the US trade embargo against the country.
The company allegedly spent at least $68,000 (£52,300) in Cuba in 1998.
Gennifer Flowers, the woman that Bill Clinton had an extramarital affair with, said she would accept Donald Trump‘s invitation to seat her in the front row of Monday’s presidential debate against Hillary Clinton.
The president of Philadelphia’s police union says Hillary Clinton has only herself to blame for the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) endorsing rival Donald Trump after she declined an earlier invitation to meet with the group.
[…]
McNesby on Monday said Clinton’s campaign shrugged off the FOP’s overtures to win its backing earlier this year.
“They didn’t care,” he said. “Their attitude, then, back in July, during the [Democratic National Convention], was they were going to win this thing anyways, so who cares?
It is interesting that much of the media’s coverage of the national FOP’s endorsement has been centered around them defending not endorsing Hillary. Instead of just reporting the endorsement, the media felt a need to probe them on why they wouldn’t endorse Hillary instead.
Donald Trump said that Hillary Clinton’s “bodyguards” should disarm themselves because Clinton supports gun control during a rally in Miami on Friday. He has made similar remarks in the past, but this time took it a little further.
“Take their guns away,” Trump said. “She doesn’t want guns. Let’s see what happens to her. Take their guns away. It would be very dangerous.”
Trump told the crowd of supporters that Clinton “wants to destroy your Second Amendment” and that “she goes around with armed bodyguards like you have never seen before.”
This is a pretty common retort that 2nd Amendment supporters have been giving to years. It speaks to the hypocrisy of rich and powerful liberals who want to restrict gun rights while enjoying the protection of armed security. Not all of us can afford, or are provided by the taxpayers, armed security. We have to fend for ourselves. It is not a statement intended to incite violence. It is a statement that we should all be able to keep and bear arms for our personal protection even if we can’t afford to pay someone else to do it.
But it appears that either the lefties haven’t heard this before, which would be indicative of them living in a bubble that doesn’t include 2nd Amendment supporters, or their outrage is falsely amplified for political purposes.
Yes, by all means, we can encourage yuge economic growth by foisting massive regulations and expenses on businesses and transferring more tax dollars from those who pay taxes to those who don’t. That’s the ticket.
The core components of Trump’s proposal include allowing working parents to deduct child care expenses from their income taxes, creating dependent care savings accounts and guaranteeing six weeks of paid maternity leave.
[…]
The plan accounts for lower-income families with no tax liability; they would receive rebates through the existing earned income tax credit.
[…]
Under Trump’s plan, tax-deductible child care would be capped at the average cost of care for the state of residence and would be available only to individuals earning less than $250,000 (or $500,000 for parents who file their tax returns jointly).
“For those here illegally today who are seeking legal status, they will have one route and one route only. To return home and apply for re-entry like everybody else under the rules of the new legal immigration system that I have outlined today,” the Republican presidential nominee said.
He added: “There will be no amnesty.”
“People will know that you can’t just smuggle in, hunker down and wait to be legalized — it’s not going to work that way. Those days are over,” Trump said.
He did not commit to deporting every undocumented immigrant living in the US as he previously had, but vowed that immigrants living in the US illegally would never have a path to legal status under his presidency.
My column for the West Bend Daily News is online. Here you go:
In an effort to look seriously at the presidential election that smells like a dumpster fire fueled by shredded emails and bad hair, an evaluation of Donald Trump’s and Hillary Clinton’s tax plans reveal very different approaches to governing.
It must be noted that tax plans released during a political campaign are pieces of fiction. They are almost never enacted as promised because of the legislative process and the math, based on fanciful financial projections and dubious notions of human behavior, never adds up. A candidate’s plan is more of a tax manifesto laying out their priorities and revealing how they view the tax code.
On income tax, Trump would cut the number of income tax brackets from 7 to 3 and cut the highest rate from 39.6 percent to 33 percent. Clinton would not change much in the income tax code except to confiscate a 4-percent tax surcharge for people earning more than $5 million per year and implementing rules to forbid people earning more than $1 million per year from paying less than an effective 30 percent income tax rate.
Both Clinton and Trump would offer more tax benefits for childcare. The difference is Trump proposes allowing parents to deduct childcare expenses, which reduces the tax burden for those paying income taxes, while Clinton is proposing a tax credit for childcare, which would be paid to parents even if they do not pay income taxes.
Both candidates have also voiced staunch support for not increasing taxes on America’s lowest earners. Currently 45.3 percent of Americans do not pay anything in federal income taxes. In fact, the average person in the bottom 40 percent of income earners actually receives more than $600 through various tax-redistribution schemes like the Earned Income Tax Credit. Both candidates are promising to maintain that system.
Overall, Trump’s plan would more aggressively reform the complexity of the federal income tax code and reduce the tax burden for far more Americans. Clinton’s plan would keep taxes where they are for most Americans and increase taxes on the highest earners. Both candidates firmly support an overly progressive income tax code where a huge number of Americans view it is a source of income instead of an obligation to pay their fair share to fund our government.
Trump’s tax plan calls for eliminating the death tax while Clinton’s plan would increase the rate and make it apply to more people. Currently, the federal government confiscates 40 percent of people’s estates if they are valued at more than $5.45 million for an individual or $10.9 million for a married couple. Clinton would increase the rate to 45 percent and make it applicable to estates valued at $3.5 million and $7 million, respectively.
The notion that the government should seize an enormous chunk of a dead person’s wealth that was accumulated over a lifetime is a detestable practice rooted in the greed of politicians and envy of constituents. Trump is dead right on this one.
The candidates’ plans for business taxes are starkly different. At 35 percent, the United States has one of the highest corporate tax rates of any advanced economy. Clinton would leave the tax rate where it is, but implement regulations designed to punish American corporations for taking measures to reduce their tax burden, like tax inversions and interest deductions. Clinton’s plan would use the tax code to further flog corporations for having the temerity to do business in our nation.
Trump would lower the corporate tax rate to a more reasonable 15 percent. He would also impose that rate for other types of businesses like partnerships and limited liability corporations. Currently, profits from most noncorporate businesses are taxed at the owners’ individual income tax rate. For successful businesses, this could be as high as the top tax rate of 39.6 percent in the current tax code. By taxing profits at 15 percent, it would represent a massive tax decrease for a huge number of American businesses. The lower corporate tax rate would also encourage America’s largest multinational corporations to repatriate foreign profits and invest in America.
There are more details of the candidates’ respective tax plans, but the themes are the same. Trump intends to simplify and reduce the tax burden for Americans, which will stimulate the national economy out of the Barack Obama malaise. Clinton would increase taxes for Americans and use the tax code to further punish Americans and their businesses.
