History and Why TrumpCare Failed

I hope Donald Trump learned a valuable lesson about Washington politics with his failure to pass the American Health Care Act (now forevermore known as TrumpCare).

One of the hardest things to do in Washington D.C. is to build a consensus; even among your own party members. This is one of the reasons why, in 1993, HillaryCare failed.  Too many Democrats had conflictingideas on how it should be done. Just like today. But, it was that lesson learned from the 1993 failure that allowed a consensus to form among Democrats leading to ObamaCare pasing into law in 2010.  Of course, some of that consensus was bought with things like the "Louisiana Purchase" and the "Corn-husker Kickback".

Everyone in the media knew there were too many defections from the GOP plan.  Yet, Trump and Ryan pushed it anyway.  I guess they were thinking it would happen simply because Trump promised it would.  Trump just may want to do a rewrite of his bestseller and rename it the "Art of the No Deal".

References:

Uh Oh: At Least 36 Republicans Plan To Vote Against GOP Health Care Bill: https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2017/03/24/uh-oh-at-least-36-republicans-plan-to-vote-against-gop-health-care-bill-n2303816

GOP cave on Obamacare repeal is the biggest broken promise in political history: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/gop-cave-on-obamacare-repeal-is-the-biggest-broken-promise-in-political-history/article/2618413

Clinton Health Care Plan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan_of_1993

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Healthcare_debate.2C_2008.E2.80.9310

EDITORIAL: The $300 million Louisiana purchase - Washington Times: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/30/the-300-million-louisiana-purchase/

Democrats Want Trump to Fail

Just recently, I read an article in the Boston Globe written by a progressive named Micheal A. Cohen titled: 'I don’t want Trump to succeed. I want him to fail spectacularly'.  In it, he complained that Democratic policies such as ObamaCare may just go away.  Further on, he states: "What gives me fleeting hope is the knowledge that millions of Americans — a majority even — feel as I do."

What makes his little opinion piece so laughable is the fact that the true spectacular failure for his party was Barack Obama.  Since taking over the White House, along with a Democratic majority in both Houses of Congress, he has overseen the literal decimation of his party's control of the country.  Now, the Republicans are in the catbird seat with control of both the Senate, the House of Representatives as well as the presidency.  In addition, since President Obama has been in office, the Democrats lost 35 state legislatures and 900 state legislative seats. They also lost a net 14 governorships. The Republican party, for the first time since 1920, has dominant control of the  ruling classes.   If that isn't a spectacular fail in only 8 years, I don't know what is.

Now, back to Mr. Cohen.  If a "majority" of Americans feel as you do, ask yourself why your party  lies in tatters.  It is this very attitude that has turned the Democratic Party into a political desert.  For almost 8 years, we have had a President who found it too bothersome to work with the Republicans; instead using his "pen" to set the Constitution and true legislative action aside. Now, with the possibility that non-legislative actions may be reversed with the stroke of a Trump pen, you view this as some type of failure.  I, for one, don't think so.  Nor do I believe that you somehow spoke for millions of Americans when you wrote: "They are angry. They are scared for the future. They are holding their children just a little tighter and perhaps looking over their shoulders in ways they hadn’t done before. Like me, these Americans want Trump to fail."

Enough with the stupid melodrama!  

And, what if Trump doesn't fail? More shed blood for the Democrat Party?  Maybe that's why they're "holding their children just a little tighter and perhaps looking over their shoulders in ways they hadn’t done before."  Instead of wishing Donald Trump failure, you, Mr Cohen, should be searching for the answers as to why your Democrats failed so miserably that you even have to worry about a Trump presidency in the first place.

References:

I don’t want Trump to succeed. I want him to fail spectacularly: http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/11/15/don-want-trump-succeed-want-him-fail-spectacularly/Xa0rVn5yjwUp1kjjRMqi6L/story.html?p1=Article_Recommended_ReadMore_Pos2

Obama Leaves Democratic Party in Shambles: https://www.lifezette.com/polizette/obama-leaves-democratic-party-in-shambles/

Obama's Legacy: The Total Destruction Of The Democratic Party: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2016/11/11/obamas-legacy-the-total-destruction-of-the-democratic-party-n2244680
 

Another Renewable Power Disaster

On September 15th, I wrote about how unreliable and uncontrolled wind and solar was putting our electrical grids at risk.  The focus of that blog was on a near meltdown of the power grid that occurred earlier this year due to the overproduction of solar power in Germany.

Well, we have yet another example of the impact of unreliable renewable power.  This time in South Australia, where the problem was wildly fluctuating winds on September 28, that resulted in the complete shutdown of wind power and the triggering of a blackout:

Simply, the quick and wild fluctuations in wind energy could not be managed with the insertion of conventional power, and the result was a blackout.  In fact, because the winds were so strong, the turbines actually shut themselves down to keep from ripping themselves apart.

Of course, the Energy Minister of Australia -- a liberal politician and advocate of renewable power -- refuses to believe that the lack of wind power had anything to do with the resulting massive blackout, and therefore, Australia should continue to pursue its aggressive wind and solar plans.  Really?

References:

Roof-Top Solar Is Putting Our Electrical Grid at Risk: http://cuttingthroughthefog.blogspot.com/2016/09/roof-top-solar-is-putting-our.html

Renewables 'not to blame' for South Australia blackout, but energy debate rages: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/renewables-not-to-blame-for-south-australia-blackout-but-energy-debate-rages-20161002-grt4lo.html

Source of above chart: South Australia’s blackout apparently ‘triggered by the violent fluctuations from the Snowtown wind farms’: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/01/south-australias-blackout-apparently-triggered-by-the-violent-fluctuations-from-the-snowtown-wind-farms/

SA power outage: How did it happen?: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-28/sa-power-outage-explainer/7886090

pb

Really? Move Your Business to New York State?

In 2013, the Democratic Governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo, proudly announced a new program called "Start-Up NY" that was supposed to bring thousands of new jobs to the State.  Since then, they spent millions for a nationwide advertising campaign with ads like this:

The program, which was supposed to attract new businesses with 10-years of a tax-free start-up operation, was to provide a "report card" on April Fools Day of this year.  That date came and went, and many feared that the tardiness meant bad news. They were right.  In fact, the report wasn't released until late in the day on the very Friday before the Fourth of July weekend. Other than releasing bad data on Christmas Eve, they couldn't have found a better time when so few people were paying attention.

So, here's the bad news they didn't want New Yorker's to know.

Only 403 jobs were created by the program since its inception.  By comparison, Wal-Mart could have easily beat that number by opening just one Sam's Club and one SuperCenter; and it probably did so in that same time span and without any tax break.

But, why isn't the program attracting new businesses?

Well, the answer is simple.  New York, according to CNBC, is the 3rd most expensive state to live in.  It ranks 50th as the worst state for income tax with 12.6%% in combined state and local taxes.   Add to that, it just approved a $15 minimum wage and 12 weeks of paid family leave.  If I'm a CEO considering a move to New York, I see my own pay and the pay of most of my workers subject to the highest taxes in the United States.  And, the $15 minimum wage and paid family leave, simply makes operational costs too high and a company less profitable when compared to wherever that CEO's business is currently located.

In typical fashion, Democrats just don' get it.  Taxes, all taxes, hurt business.  In the larger scheme of things, a short-term tax benefit is not going to offset all the other costs a  company has to pay if they move to New York.

References:

Governor Cuomo Launches Start-Up NY Program at International Conference in New York City: https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-launches-start-ny-program-international-conference-new-york-city

Start-Up NY: Why was report released late Friday?: http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/politics/blogs/vote-up/2016/07/05/start-up-ny-report-released-late-friday/86716876/

Best and Worst States for Taxes: http://www.forbes.com/pictures/emeg45efhjf/no-50-new-york/#56ae877c4d37

America’s most expensive states to live in 2015: http://www.cnbc.com/2015/06/24/americas-most-expensive-states-to-live-in-2015.html?slide=9

Governor Cuomo Signs $15 Minimum Wage Plan and 12 Week Paid Leave: https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-signs-15-minimum-wage-plan-and-12-week-paid-family-leave-policy-law

Why the Paris Climate Change Agreement Will Fail

In Paris, In mid-December, after two weeks of talks between 195 countries, ended with an agreement on climate change, there were high-fives and pats on the back for all those politicians, from all those countries that attended the summit.  The media called  it "historic".  CNN proclaimed "The End of Fossil Fuels", as if the world will somehow toss all their gasoline-powered cars to the wayside; commercial jets will find some way to fly without fuel; people will find something other than natural gas to heat their homes and cook their food with; and cement and steel will, I suppose, be created without high-carbon coke as fuel.  Also, somehow, we will figure out how to pave our roads without the asphalt that is a by-product of refining oil.  All before 2030, in order to keep the global temperatures from rising another 1/2 degree Celsius.

Of course, those items mentioned above, and many others, are just many of the impossible hurdles facing the Paris agreement.  Then, there's the toothlessness of the agreement itself.

• The agreeing parties will set their own goals and targets to reduce carbon and "do their best" to implement those reduction targets "as soon as possible".  
• Progress towards the stated targets/goals will be on the honor system with each country self-monitoring its own progress and self-reporting such progress.
• Those failing to meet their goals will be "named and shamed" and, supposedly, spat upon by the world community as a polluter; assuming that each country will honestly report their progress. 
• The 55 dirtiest countries will ante-up $100 billion a year to be handed over to the other 140 of the total 195 participating counties, so they too, can fight climate change.

There you have it; and I'm quite sure that last item was a real crowd pleaser among the 140 countries who are now licking their chops in anticipation of billions of dollars coming their way that will surely be used solely for fighting climate change.  More importantly, this agreement is like having no agreement at all.  Especially since most of the "politicians" involved probably won't be around over the next 15 years of initial commitments.  For sure, Obama and his people won't be around past February 2017 to insure that the U.S.'s progress toward our targets and goals will be met.

But, here's the two biggest reasons that the Paris agreement will fail:  (1) Growing populations and (2) Growing affluence in emerging economies.

Take India for example.  By 2028, India is expected to overtake China in total population.  Also, by 2030, a 2012 BP study projects that automobile ownership in India will grow from just 20% in 2011 to 65% by 2030.  That's just one country and a massive growth in affluence.  China will also see huge growth in automobile ownership; nearly 300% on a per capita basis by 2030. All told, there will be 2 billion cars on the world's roads just 5 years later in 2035; according to a Navigant Research study published last year.  That's a 66% increase in automobile ownership and a presumed growth in affluence in just 21 years.  So, with this in mind, every car sold going forward from today has to be more than 66% more fuel efficient just to keep automobile emissions the same as they are today.  If that's not an impossible task, I don't know what is.

However the growth in affluence doesn't just stop with the world buying more cars. Air travel demand is expected to double by 2035.  And, as a result, emissions from commercial aircraft will substantially increase unless fuel economies are at least halved.  Even so, most of today's aircraft will probably still be flying in 2035.  Just as improving automobile fuel inefficiencies is an impossible task, improving jet liner fuel efficiency would be even more difficult; especially when you consider that many of today's planes (and some cars) will still be operational for the next 15 to 20 years.

Simply, growing populations and even faster growth in affluence will be the downfall of the Paris agreement. The growth in affluence won't just be with cars and air travel.  It will be seen in all other forms of human activity.  There will be larger, better heated, and well lit homes with more electrical appliances, and highly unreliable wind and solar will not be able to keep up with the demand without the assistance of energy produced by fossil fuels.  So much for CNN's "End of Fossil Fuels" folly. Also, do we really think that building nuclear power plants is the solution?  The inherent problems and risks make the choice not a good one.  Just look at the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters.

In my opinion, the Paris agreement is historic alright.  A historic failure!


References:

2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_Nations_Climate_Change_Conference

COP21: Paris climate change deal is end of fossil fuels - CNN.com: http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/12/opinions/sutter-cop21-climate-reaction/ 

India To Overtake China As Largest Populated Nation: https://www.google.com/search?q=2030+population+india&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

India will add more cars than China in 20 years: http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/economy/india-will-add-more-cars-than-china-in-20-years/article2939216.ece

Two billion vehicles projected to be on roads by 2035: http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/In-Gear/2014/0729/Two-billion-vehicles-projected-to-be-on-roads-by-2035

Air travel demand projected to double in 20 years: http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/2015/06/08/demand-to-fly-will-likely-double-but-industry-may-not-be-ready/28680637/

Obama's Feckless Oval Office Address on the San Bernadino Terror Attack

When a President of the United States takes to the Oval Office to address the nation following a major event, Americans expect that something new and significant will be conveyed.  They expect a plan of action and reassurance. That was the case for President Kennedy's address during the Cuban Missile Crisis, or when George H. W. Bush announced the start of the first Gulf War, or when Reagan addressed America following the Challenger Space Shuttle disaster, and surely when George W. Bush addressed the nation following 9/11.

The setting is intentionally formal. The President is seated at his work desk; with flags flanking him on both sides. Obama's Sunday night address was indeed in the oval office. However, instead of at the desk he stood in front of a podium, awkwardly placed in front of the desk; giving the appearance of just another press conference, or one of his speeches on the road. What's worse,  he conveyed nothing new about the terrorist attack in San Bernadino.  Personally, I think he chose the podium over the desk because he really didn't have anything new or important to say, No real plan of action.  No reassurances. He simply, once again, blamed inaction on gun control; even though none of the proposed gun control measures would have prevented San Bernadino. Essentially, it was a stay the course speech on what he, in his own mind, thinks is working to defeat ISIS and terrorism.

To me and others, his speech merely reinforced the belief that this President is simply marking time until he can get out of office and hand the problem over to his successor.  In the meantime, there may be more San Bernadino's in our future due to his inaction.

References:

List of Oval Office addresses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Oval_Office_addresses

Obama speech: Reassurances about ISIS fall flat in Oval Office address: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/12/06/obama-speech-reassurances-about-isis-fall-flat-in-oval-office-address.html

President Obama's speech about ISIS: What they're saying: http://www.syracuse.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/12/president_obamas_speech_about_isis_what_theyre_saying.html

Oval Office address, RIP? - POLITICO:  http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/oval-office-address-rip-216509





 

Only 7.1 Million Signups Proves ObamaCare A Failure

First of all, the 7.1 million number is highly suspect.  While the Health and Human Services Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, can't tell us, at the federal level, how many of that number have actually paid for the insurance they signed up for and, thus, are truly insured, a review of the state exchanges shows that only about 80% have paid for their policies.  If that's true, and it holds to be true at the federal level, that means that only about 5.7 million are truly signed up for ObamaCare.

To put that into perspective, 5.7 million is only about 1.7% of our population.  So, one has to wonder why we had this total upheaval of our health care system for the benefit of less than 2% of the population.

But, it looks even worse when you look at the total uninsured number. Two separate studies of ObamaCare signups were recently conducted: one by the Rand Corporation and the other by McKinsey & Company.  Rand found that only 1/3 of the enrollees previously had no insurance.  For McKinsey, it was 27%.  Now, if you split the difference of these two studies you get 30%.  This means that only 1.7 million of the 5.7 million number previously had no insurance.  What that is really telling us is that, of the 15.9% or 50 million who don't have health insurance, 48.3 million or 97% would prefer to pay the penalty rather than buy into ObamaCare.  Hardly a success story for a law that was primarily intended to solve the uninsured problem.

Then, there's this measure of the law's failure.  From the paragraph above, we can deduce the fact that about 4 million of those signing up previously had insurance.  Logically, some number of those millions voluntarily left their existing policies because they got federal subsidies and their cost for insurance was lowered.  But, what doesn't square with that number is the fact that more than 5 million lost insurance at the beginning of the year because of mandates of the healthcare law.  The conclusion being that ObamaCare is better at kicking people off their insurance than providing them an alternative once they've lost it.

It's important to note that the Obama Administration set the 7 million number as a measure of success; and, conveniently, they not only met that goal but slightly exceeded it.  This from an Administration that lied about keeping your doctor and your insurance.  They also said that delay "was not an option" yet, there have been numerous delays.

Obviously, people aren't "door busting" to saddle up with Obama's signature healthcare plan. With what we know -- along with so much that we don't know and should -- ObamaCare is not a success and it will only become less so going forward as more and more of the damaging portions are rolled out.  In my opinion, there should be as much outrage over Obama taking a Rose Garden victory lap for signing up 7.1 million people, as there was for George W. Bush giving his Iraq invasion speech with that infamous "Mission Accomplished" sign hanging behind him.  But, as usual, the media is just dutifully and lovingly joining in the celebration.

References:

The ObamaCare Numbers Racket: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-obama-care/032614-694734-obama-delays-enrollment-deadline-hides-data-to-inflation-enrollment.htm

RAND: Only One-Third Of Obamacare Exchange Sign-Ups Were From The Previously Uninsured: http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/03/31/rand-only-one-third-of-obamacare-exchange-sign-ups-were-from-the-previously-uninsured/

Gallup: Uninsured Americans: http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/b12atxiztekoguarvptywa.png

Obama Celebrates 7.1 Million Enrolled in Obamacare: http://time.com/45867/barack-obama-obamacare-affordable-care-act/

pb

Five Years Later...Why the Stimulus And Keynesian Economics Failed

Remember this chart:

This is what Obama's economic advisers predicted would happen with or without the passage of the $787 billion Stimulus Package (aka the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009).  Of course, implied in that chart is that economic activity, as measured by our Gross Domestic Product (GDP), would also return to normal levels by the First Quarter of 2014.

The plain fact is that real unemployment did even worse than Obama's "Without Recovery Plan" with the peak unemployment rate hitting 10.1% in 2010.  Today, when it should be at 5%, we are still struggling at 6.6%.  When Obama took office there were 155.2 million workers in the labor force.  Despite the fact that nearly 7.5 million new workers should have entered the workforce over the last 5 years, the number has only inched up to 155.4 million. That 7.5 million, euphemistically called discouraged workers, have just given up looking for work.  As a result, they are no longer counted as being in the workforce. So much for "real" job creation.

And, GDP?  Well, its seen the worst recovery since the Great Depression with an average of about 1.97% growth per year since the recession ended in 2009.   Normally, growth should be 50% greater than that; at 3% or higher. Obviously, the stimulus didn't work as promised; and, even today, three-quarters of Americans still think we are in a recession.

While there are several reasons why Obama's Keynesian-Style Stimulus Package failed, the primary reason lies in the false belief that, when the economy slips into recession as a result of slack consumer spending, that lack of spending can be made up by increasing government expenditures.  But, this is just ridiculous.  The simple fact is that consumers don't spend like governments.  They don't build roads or bridges and they don't spend their money fixing them.  So, instead of stimulating the existing parts of our economy that are in the process of dying off, the Keynesian stimulus winds up  stimulating a subset of the economy that had nothing to do with the reason that the economy faltered in the first place.  What's worse, most of these projects have a low labor cost to materials and equipment costs ratios.  That is why you wind up with statistics that show that, at the very least, it cost the taxpayers $185,000 for each job that was supposedly created.

Another problem with using federal and state construction projects as a means of trying to stimulate the economy is the fact that any spending and job creation will always be short lived.  If the project is 1 month long or 3 years long, that part of the economy that is being stimulated will only benefit as long as the project is still alive. Once its over, so are the jobs and so is the spending.

Lastly, there's the argument by the Democrats that every dollar spent returns $1.50 in economic activity.  To some extent that's true, but $1.50 is an average.  Depending on how labor intensive the  effort is, the returns will range between 70 cents (a loss) and $1.90.  Heavy construction projects are more towards 70 cents than anywhere near $1.50 because the labor costs are so low relative to the overall cost of the project.  Thus, the potential for any true economic expansion is lost. More importantly, the stimulus is a drag on everyone's wallet because deficit spending devalues all the dollars that are in the economy.   This weak dollar effect means that things will cost more; especially imported items.  For example, oil, which is priced worldwide on the basis of the strength or weakness of the U.S. dollar, has dramatically risen since 2009.  The result has been that gasoline prices rose from $1.74/gallon in 2009 to the current rate of $3.63. This is despite the fact we are now awash in new, domestic oil as a result of fracking and other new technologies. In contrast, natural gas, which is not traded in terms of the value of the dollar, has seen its prices fall from $12.49 a cubic ton to $9.40 from 2009 to 2012.  All because of fracking.

Despite whatever spin the White House puts on the stimulus results, it was nothing but a failure and, I think, definitive proof that Keynesian economics is simply another tool for left-wing politicians to grow the government and redistribute wealth.

References:

The Worst Four Years Of GDP Growth In History: Yes, We Should Be Worried: http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/04/12/the-worst-four-years-of-gdp-growth-in-history-yes-we-should-be-worried/

As Obama starts sixth year, 74 percent say US still in recession: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/22/fox-news-poll-as-obama-starts-sixth-year-74-percent-say-us-still-in-recession/

White House Says The Stimulus Cost Per Job is $185,000; not $278,000: http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/271107/white-house-nuh-uh-stimulus-jobs-only-cost-185k-each

Politifact: Every Dollar of Spending Returns Between $0.70 & $1.90 in Increase Economic Activity: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jul/27/jeanne-shaheen/lawmaker-claims-unemployment-benefits-boost-econom/

A Scorecard on the economy under Obama: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/jun/01/scorecard-economy-obama/