Hillary Defies; Redefines the Peter Principle

Most are at least somewhat familiar with the Peter Principle which was described by Dr. Laurence J. Peter in his 1968 book "The Peter Principle" and is usually quoted as something like, an employee will rise or get promoted to his or her level of incompetence. 

From her first job as a staffer on the House Judiciary committee investigating Watergate to her tenure as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton has managed to defy the Peter Principle every step of the way. It's more than that however. She has actually managed to redefine the Peter Principle. Despite the fact that she is incompetent and is seen, even by her supporters, as dishonest, untrustworthy, and a liar, it seems that when it comes to their support for Hillary, the top principle is her lack of a Peter Principle. 

Scapegoat Bernie

As polls show a dead heat in a potential match up between Trump and Hillary and as Bernie and Hillary continue to split the primary contests, Democrats are attacking Bernie Sanders and telling him he needs to get out of the race. They are realizing the coronation of Hillary is not a given.

Could Democrats and liberals (but I repeat myself) be searching for a face saving explanation in the event they suffer a humiliating defeat in November? After all, it couldn't possibly be the people rejecting their severely flawed and weak candidate now could it? If that doesn't work, we can always count on their other "go to" tactic: blaming it on the stupidity of the American people.

Misinterpreting Trump's Numbers

A lot has been made by the so called experts about Trump's numbers. They say that, despite having received the most votes in US primary history, still more people voted for someone else than voted for him. While that may be true, the pundits have drawn erroneous conclusions. They somehow equate that to a vote against Trump rather than simply an indication of another preference. They make the assumption that, for all those other voters, Trump couldn't possibly be their 2nd or 3rd choice. Their own biases made them interpret this to mean that if he wasn't their first choice, he was automatically their last choice. This is very poor analysis indeed. Further, these same experts told us after each Trump primary or caucus win that based on his rate of picking up delegates, he would never reach the 1237 needed to secure the nomination. Again, poor analysis. As the number of choices decreased, the rate at which "The Donald" picked up delegates increased. To make matters worse,  the pundits' faulty logic is being used to try to convince Republican voters that Trump will never be able to beat Hillary Clinton in the general election. Funny how the vigorous challenge mounted against Hillary by Bernie Sanders is never seen as an indication of her unpopularity or that she may have trouble in November.

The Trump and Sanders insurgent candidacies reflect or perhaps have even caused a "Sea Change" in American politics. The establishment types in both the Republican and Democrat parties either fail to recognize this shift or are choosing to ignore it. Keeping all this in mind, it seems highly unlikely that Republican voters who didn't get their first choice in their party's nominee would not only cast their ballot for the other party's candidate but also vote for someone who is ideologically 180 degrees out of phase with them. Likewise, I don't see disappointed Bernie supporters voting for his antithesis, Hillary Clinton. In this election, I predict the anti-establishment fervor will "Trump" all. Pun intended.

So You're Considering Socialism? Consider Venezuela First!

Bernie Sanders is a self-professed socialist. Hillary Clinton is a far-left progressive who knows nothing about economics which essentially means she too is a socialist. Before deciding to vote for either of these two candidates based on their promises of free stuff, spreading the wealth, and making "the rich" pay their fair share, one should consider a case study of the most recent experiment with socialism - Venezuela.

When Hugo Chavez came to power in 1999, Venezuela was the richest country in Latin America. Then Chavez set about implementing his program of "Socialism of the 21th Century" which consisted of massive spending on the poor and nationalizing most of the country's industry including its number one source of wealth - the petroleum industry. For a time, Venezuela's economy managed to continue to lumber along mainly due to the inertia of its great oil wealth. Eventually, the effects of the huge increases in social spending and the adverse consequences of the socialist economic policies combined and compounded causing government revenues to plummet. The Chavez government continued to spend (promise everyone everything) even as the ability to pay for it became increasingly impossible. It borrowed and continued to spend in an economic death spiral feedback loop that today has Venezuela on the verge of economic collapse. It has dropped from the number one economy in Latin America to number 6; even below Cuba - this despite still having tremendous oil reserves. As a result of the implementation of socialist policies, the country's petroleum production capability has fallen dramatically as management was taken out of private, profit driven hands and placed under government, crony control.  The government is unable to negotiate deals to get raw materials or conduct international trade so there are chronic shortages of food and consumer goods including that bourgeois commodity - toilet paper. Inflation is running around 720% a year. Does socialism still sound good to you?

To be fair, "Socialism of the 21th Century", did keep one promise. It did redistribute wealth. Today,  Chavez's daughter is a multi-billionaire!

Now there's change you can believe in!

Recommended Reading for Insight Into Today's Political Climate

I'm currently listening to another book on audio CD, The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich A. Hayek during my daily commute and I'm finding it fascinating and surprisingly relevant to today's political environment. Not an easy read or listen but well worth the effort. I think both conservatives and liberals (progressives) will find things of interest contained in the words of Hayek.

I have been aware of this book for years but just recently decided to find and read (listen) to it. I had to wait 6 weeks for it to be available for download from the library but it was well worth the wait.

Even though the book was published in 1944 and was a political analysis of socialism from a "final days of WWII" perspective, the author provided new prefaces in 1976 to help make it more contemporary and if a reader keeps these updates in mind, the book provides some amazing insight into the current political scene. If one allows oneself to not focus on the specifics but rather the broader analysis, this book has much to say to the modern political observer.

History doesn't really repeat itself as the old cliche suggests but the ebb and flow of ideological themes, trends and ideas do seem to have their cycles. I hesitate to call this book prophetic because I think this term is over used and tends to sound a bit too dramatic and ominous. However, if you are up for a challenging read (listen), The Road to Serfdom is worth the effort.

More Wisdom from Will Rogers...and Bernie Sanders

Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.

          - Will Rogers

Apparently, when it comes to Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders agrees. He recently said something to the effect that Hillary's great experience doesn't mean she has good judgement. I've been pointing this out for years. 

When one starts out, gaining experience as a results of bad judgement dominates the process. As time goes on however, experience should come from learning from one's mistakes, by applying good judgement and seeing the benefit of making good decisions. 

After years in the public eye and on the political stage, Hillary should fall into the latter phase of experience but unfortunately, we saw from her tenure as Secretary of State that wasn't the case.

We can't afford more On-the-Job judgement training and experience gathering in the White House. That is what Hillary will bring if elected president.

O'Malley: The Most Savvy Dem Primary Candidate?

The conventional wisdom so far has been that former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley has no path to the White House let alone the Democrat nomination. He barely registers in the polls and even many Marylanders would have a difficult time picking him out of a police lineup. Things are changing however.

There is a real possibility that Hillary Clinton may be indicted for failing to properly protect classified information which would make it impossible for her to be the Democrat nominee. The next in line, Senator Bernie Sanders, though polling well, is not electable. Americans will not elect a socialist as president. The longer the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton takes, the less likely another   Democrat such as Joe Biden (there is also talk about former NYC mayor Mike Bloomberg entering the race. James Webb is another possibility since he has already filed the paperwork. He would just have to restart his campaign) will be able to enter the race. Suddenly O'Malley has a real path - like a running back following a huge blocking fullback.

If O'Malley saw this scenario developing in his head, that makes him one savvy politician.

Really, Bernie? ATM Fees?

While I can understand the populist appeal to saying ATM fees are too high, how can this be a presidential level issue? And yet, Bernie Sanders devoted time to this issue on the campaign trail. In order to not be bested by Sanders, Hillary Clinton weighed in to demonstrate her own economic illiteracy.

At an average of $4 per transaction, ATM fees amount to only about $208 a year assuming one withdraws their weekly spending money from an ATM. That's $4/wk x 52 wks/yr = $208 for the math challenged. Everyone dislikes paying ATM fees but with all the other issues we have in this country, how does this warrant even a nano second of their or the country's time? Sanders promises to reduce ATM fees to $2 per transaction. Based on what? His personal belief of what is fair?

Is that really what we want a president to concern himself or herself over? Something of so little consequence? I certainly hope not!

A Question; An Observation, and An Outrage

On the 26th of December, Bernie Sanders sent the following Tweet:
Bernie Sanders @SenSander
"You have families out there paying 6, 8, 10 percent on student debt but you can refinance your homes at 3 percent. What sense is that?"

The question: Can Senator Sanders really be so economically illiterate?

Senator, loans backed by assets have lower rates because they are lower risk. If you default on your mortgage, they bank can take the house. If you default on your student loan, can the government confiscate your brain?

The Observation
I saw an article the other day reposted on Facebook from the liberal online site www.manymanyadventures.com entitled, "The Top 7 Countries To Move To If Donald Trump Becomes President".
Here is the list:

7. Ecuador

6. Bahrain

5. New Zealand

4. Germany

3. Luxembourg
2. Singapore 

1. Switzerland

 

These type articles and "I'm moving" claims always make me laugh. All are pretty nice places to be sure but there are just a couple problems. One is most Americans can't speak a foreign language and 6 of these 7 are non-English speaking countries. People speak English there but it isn't the first language. Good luck Yank!

 

The other is most Americans have never lived outside the U.S. or even traveled to a foreign country (No, an all inclusive week at Sandals in Jamaica doesn't count) nor do they even have a passport. I'd also be willing to bet they couldn't pick out any of these countries on a world map.   

 

No, none of these people ever actually leave the country but we can still hope, can't we?

 

The Outrage

US Attorney declines prosecution of former VA execs  Published December 29, 2015 Associated Press http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/12/29/us-attorney-declines-prosecution-former-va-execs.html

Federal prosecutors have decided not to press criminal charges against two former executives at the Department of Veterans Affairs who were accused of manipulating the agency's hiring system for their own gain. The U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia said Thursday it has declined a referral from the VA inspector general for criminal prosecution of Diana Rubens and Kimberly Graves. The inspector general said in a report this fall that Rubens and Graves forced lower-ranking regional managers to accept job transfers against their will. Rubens and Graves then stepped into the vacant positions themselves, keeping their pay while reducing their responsibilities. Rubens had been earning $181,497 as director of the Philadelphia regional office for the Veterans Benefits Administration, while Graves earned $173,949 as leader of the St. Paul, Minnesota, regional office. Before taking the regional jobs, Rubens was a deputy undersecretary at the VA's Washington headquarters, while Graves was director of VBA's 14-state North Atlantic Region. Rubens and Graves were accused of obtaining more than $400,000 in questionable moving expenses through a relocation program for VA executives, the inspector general's report said. The U.S. Attorney's office said it has "referred the matter to the VA for any administrative action that is deemed appropriate." Rubens and Graves were demoted in November, but their demotions were rescinded this month after a paperwork mix-up. The VA has said it will reissue the demotions after the problem is resolved.

In a conversation with a friend, I predicted this would happen. I wish I had written about it in this blog at the time.  So they were demoted? Big deal! They should have been fired and sent to prison!!! It has also been reported that the government can't do anything to recover the $400,000 these two embezzled and will probably eventually be permitted to retire with all their benefits.
This is like something from a Third World Banana Republic - there is no rule of law in America anymore.

 

 

Impressions on First Democrat Debate

Here are my impressions of the first Democrat debate by candidate.

Before I start with the candidates, I'd like to offer some general thoughts. First, I think Anderson Cooper did a good job as the moderator. His questions were tough and he really seemed to make an effort to get the candidates to answer them. Unfortunately, despite his best efforts, those being questioned often just refused to answer. Cooper could have done a better job with follow up questions and I was disappointed that he allowed Bernie Sanders to derail his question for Hillary Clinton regarding her emails. Overall, I was pleased with how Cooper and CNN conducted the debate.

As to the candidates themselves, much of what we saw was long on left-wing ideology and short on solutions. There was the typical politics of division and envy; populist appeal replete with promises of free stuff paid for by someone else and rants against the usual suspects: big business, capitalism, and of course the Republicans. What was offered was more government without much in the way of acknowledging that government played a significant role in causing most of the ills against which they railed. Further, many assertions made by the candidates were allowed to be offered as fact instead of being challenged. Chief among these was the continued claim that climate change is "settled science". This is mainly based on a survey that was conducted that states that 97% of scientists agree that climate change is real and it is caused by man. The facts behind this claim are far less convincing. The poll has since been shown to have been "cherry picked" more like a high school paper rather than a peer reviewed scientific study. It is produced by an activist woman with a master's degree, not a PhD researcher, who initially polled a large and diverse pool of the scientific community - physicists, geologists, meteorologists, climatologists and other earth scientists. When the first results returned a roughly 50/50 split in opinion, the pollster did what any respectable researcher would do: begin throwing out responses that didn't support her hypothesis. In the end, thousands of responses from the scientific community at large were reduced to about 79 responses from mostly climate scientists and wonder upon wonder, 97% of them believe in the work they are doing - a surprising result to be sure.
I also found it very telling that nearly to the person, all the candidates named groups of their fellow Americans as enemies with the exception of Jim Webb who actually named an enemy.

Now for the candidates. I'll start with the lessor knowns.

First, former Rhode Island governor Lincoln Chaffee. He basically said, I have been in politics my whole life and I have never been involved in a scandal. In a sane world that should be a given not considered a selling point - so next!

Then there was former Maryland governor Martin O'Malley. He is polling 4th in Maryland which says something about how his own State feels about him. He left the State deep in dept and his gun control laws have resulted in a surge of gun violence throughout the State especially in Baltimore which is already well ahead of previous years in gun murders.

There was also James Webb. Webb is a fellow Naval Academy alumni so I have a bit of a fondness for him. He is what one would have traditionally called a Southern Democrat and he was truly the odd man out as the only one on stage who wasn't clearly far left. During the George W. Bush years, I lost some respect for Webb for his belligerence towards the president. He wasted much of his time to comment complaining about not getting equal time - time which would have been better spent making his points. Webb is highly educated, experienced, and accomplished which makes him more than capable of making compelling arguments for his views.

I'll discuss the two better known candidates, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and former Secretary of State Clinton next. Sanders is a self-described socialist. He promised loads of new domestic spending which the GAO estimates would cost about $17 trillion and said it would be paid for by the rich. The problem is the entire net worth of all the billionaires in the US would only amount to about $7 trillion and then that source is wiped out. Then what Bernie? He also proposed free college for everyone. As someone who has lived overseas and traveled extensively, I can tell you that highly educated people without jobs to apply the knowledge to results in unrest. You see it throughout the developing world where college educated young men sit in cafes all day long growing angrier and angrier because there is no opportunity. Additionally, much of what Sanders said about economics demonstrates he has no understanding of the subject whatsoever.

Lastly, there was Clinton, a progressive, who spent much of her time railing against business, the wealthy, of which she is one, and claiming as achievements among other things, the US action against Libya which has left that country in complete chaos. Much of the rest of the world is similarly far worse off now as a result of her tenure as Secretary of State. Her one big applause came when she refused to respond to the implication by Chafee that she is dishonest. Despite the thunderous applause by the audience, I have been very pleased to see that her debate performance has failed to lead to a bump for her in the polls. Character does still matter.

In all, those on the far left got what they were looking for - more promises of free stuff, vilification of other groups of Americans, global warming hysteria and America continuing to lead from behind in international affairs. For those of us on the right, there was a collective yawn.

Presidential Bernie Sanders First Offical Act

Socialist presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has proposed new programs that have been projected to add $17T to the debt. Sanders say the ultra wealthy will pay for it. The only problem? The math! The richest man in the world, Bill Gates, has a net worth of roughly $50B. There are an estimated 100 billionaires in the US. Even if they all had the same net worth as Gates - not even close to reality- and the government confiscated all their wealth, not just impose a 90% income tax, that would raise only $5T. And that would be a one time only shot. That's it!

So his first official act as president will have to be the establishment of the Ministry of Magic. He will tap Lucius Malfoy to run it. Liberals and their fantasies!

In the Debate, Attacking Trump Will Help But...

Ahead of tonight's second GOP presidential debate, I thought I'd share some thoughts on strategy for those wishing to unseat Trump as the frontrunner. Many, especially those in the Republican establishment, hope the other candidates will attack Trump. This tactic will help the attackers but unfortunately, it will also help Trump. The problem is that in these televised debates, barring any big gaffs, face time is everything. Therefore, for every minute a challenging candidate like Carly Fiorina or Jeb Bush attacks Trump, they are giving twice as much face time to Trump as they are getting - the time they are attacking him plus the time he is allowed to give a response. The end result is one step ahead for the challenger; two steps ahead for Trump.

A better tactic would be to provide better answers to the questions without attacking another Republican candidate. Once again Reagan's Eleventh Commandment, "Thou shall not speak ill of another Republican." is wise advice. The goal needs to be to prove oneself the better future opponent of the Democrat candidate not that you are better than Trump! However, the challengers can take a hint from "The Donald":  skip the politically correct BS and give better solutions to the county's problems than Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, or any other potential socialist "Democrat" offering. In the real world where the majority of us dwell, giving better solutions than the magical world of make believe answers of the Democrat party is not that tall of an order.

Bernie, Hillary or The Donald?

Who do you think best knows how to create jobs? Socialist Bernie Sanders who believes there is an actual choice to be made between the number of different types of deodorants there are on grocery store shelves and feeding hungry children? Hillary Clinton who believes she should take oil company profits? Or Wharton School of Business graduate (arguably the top B-school in the world) and self-made billionaire Donald Trump? Trump has created more successful businesses - let alone jobs - than the total number of jobs Sanders and Clinton have created combined.

If you actually have to contemplate your answer, we are in bigger trouble than I thought.