The Weiner Component V.2 #24 – Trump at the G20 Summit

speaking at CPAC in Washington D.C. on Februar...

speaking at CPAC in Washington D.C. on February 10, 2011. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

0n the 7th and 8th of July in this year of 2017 the G20 Hamburg Summit met in that city in Germany.  The G20 Meeting is held yearly at a different city.  In 2016 it was at Hangzhou in China.  In 2018 it will be at Buenos Aires in Argentina.


The leaders of 20 major nations, that are permanent members, are present. They deal with the issues of international concern to all modern countries.  Present in alphabetical order were the elected heads of Argentine, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, and the European Union.  In addition the presidents of Guinea, Netherlands, Norway, Senegal, Singapore, Spain, Switzerland, and Vietnam were also present.  The heads of the following prominent organizations also were represented: World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF), Financial Stability Board (FSB), United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), International Labor Organization (WTO), Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OEDC), and the World Health Organization, (WHO).


In addition to dealing with international trade, climate change, and energy policy they emphasized global economic growth, international trade and financial market regulation, mainly issues of global significance.


President Donald J. Trump, who represented the United States, marched to a different drummer from practically everyone else.  As the world’s greatest negotiator, by his own admission, he tended to flaunt how America came first and generally disagreed with many established positions and scientific beliefs held by the other countries and world organizations.  The other leaders tended to be polite to him while ignoring both him and the United States.  Many had met him earlier when he had removed the U.S., from supporting the stoppage of climate change, at a prior meeting.  He had denied that its occurrence was being brought about by the release of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.  A Republican position supported by the U.S. oil industry which contributes heavily to the Republican Party.


In fact Trade Agreements were formulated around him.  Japan and the European Union seem to be in the process of working out a free trade agreement between themselves.  The assorted nations tended to mostly ignore Trump.


When it comes to diplomacy Trump is a rank amateur.  Unlike what he has done in business he can’t bully his was through.  Trump works on the premise that everyone needs the cooperation of the United States.    It was true at the end of World War II and into the 1950s with the Marshall Plan.  It is certainly not true today with many nations far ahead of the United States with healthcare and also in other areas.


Both the European nations and those in Asia rebuilt after the Second World War.  Their infrastructures date back to that period.  The U.S. infrastructure dates back to the late 19th and early 20th Centuries.  The world can easily get along without the United States, if necessary.  If Trump cancels or attempts to renegotiate the varies Trade Agreements that the U.S. has signed or refuses to sign new ones then all the other nations involved can make agreement without the U.S. being involved.  If necessary the U.S. can be totally ignored.


With Trump’s basic attitude that America Comes First, which he usually announces, he can by his basic crude negotiating skills bring about a trade war between the United States and all its traditional allies.  Will this happen?  Apparently that depends upon Trump’s actions in antagonizing all the United States’ former friends.


Trump’s basic attitude has been erratic toward the U.S. allies and treaties.  He has been approving toward semi-dictators and dictators like Vladimir Putin.  He has spoken about renegotiating all American trade treaties, which he calls “terrible.”


So far, five months into his presidency, he has not attempted to renegotiate or even negotiate anything.  He has loudly complained about China selling or “dumping” cheap steel in the U.S. and disagreed with and essentially upset all America’s traditional allies.


It is interesting to note that earlier when Trump was building his Trump Towers he used cheaper Chinese steel in building some of them.  He seems to call upon everyone else to do what he now considers proper but did not do himself.


If he does generate a trade war by placing a 20% tariff on Chinese steel or otherwise with the rest of the world by placing heavy tariffs upon their trade goods, all the other nations of the G20 have stated that they will reciprocate immediately.  The overall effect of that upon the U.S. would be to raise the price of all trade goods 20% or more and have all other nations essentially stop purchasing American goods.  The effect would not only be a significant rise in the cost of all imports it would also generate large scale unemployment for goods and services and bring about an immediate overproduction of food products that ordinarily would be exported.  So much for the world’s greatest negotiator!


Trump took a giant step at the G20 Hamburg Summit.  In essence he took the first major step in reducing the U.S. from being a major nation, a leader among the industrial nations, toward becoming a secondary country in the world today.  He did this by disagreeing with the other 19 permanent members upon the concept of global warming, international trade, and most other policies brought up.  In the main his attitudes are based upon what he knows and believes.  Scientific or other forms of proof have nothing to do with his conclusions.  He just knows what he knows and seems to be incapable of learning anything new.


Trump has successfully alienated the leaders of the other nations present at the G20 Summit so that most of their agreements bypassed the United States.  He very successfully removed the U.S. from a leadership position.


Of far more interest to Trump was a meeting with the Russian President, Vladimir Putin.  The meeting was scheduled for 30 minutes, it lasted over two hours.  Present were Trump and Putin.  In addition Trump’s Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, was present with Russian foreign minister Serget Lavrov and two translators.  Trump did not have any of his foreign policy experts at the meeting.  He winged it.


Among other things, early on Trump asked Putin directly if he had interfered in the American Presidential Election and Putin answered that he did not.  This to Trump apparently was absolute proof that Russia had not interfered in the election.  The fact the every American intelligence agency had come to other conclusions was immaterial.  Putin had given his word so it must be true.  A few days later when it emerged that his oldest son, Donald junior, and son-in-law and advisor, Jared Kushner, had colluded with a Russian lawyer in June before he was elected to office apparently is immaterial.


It was their first face to face meeting.  Trump shook Putin’s hand several times from a seated position for Russian news photographers.  No American news person was allowed into the meeting.


The object of this face to face get-together was for the two leaders to look beyond the 2016 Presidential Election controversy and for the two countries to find a way to move forward from there.  There was no specific agenda.  The topics were whatever President Trump wanted to talk about.  Presumably the conversation covered a range of subjects which included Ukraine, Syria, North Korea nuclear threats, terrorism, and cyber security.


In fact Trump wanted to cooperate with Russia in setting up a combined cyber security task force.  When he returned to Washington, D.C. Republican members of Congress and advisers talked him out of this.  Trump, who never backs off anything he says, declared that he was testing the waters and would have separate cyber security.


It was announced later that the two nations along with Jordan had brokered a cease-fire agreement in the southwest of Syria to take effect on Sunday.


No agreement was reached on the two diplomatic compounds in the United States, one in Maryland and one in New York, which President Obama had taken as part of the sanctions over Russia’s behavior in the 2016 Presidential Election.  Presumably they have been used for spying.  No agreement was reached on North Korea.


The meeting was extremely cordial between the two presidents.  U.S. officials were surprised by the Russian state news agency’s immediate release of photographs of the visit.  These showed Trump and Putin engaged in jovial conversation.


Obviously Trump had used one half of one of the two G20 Summit days in an attempt to upstage the meeting, draw attention to himself and attempt to debunk the fact that Russia had interfered with the U.S. Presidential Election.  To Putin and Russia the face to face meeting was important because it showed Russia as an equal with the United States, demonstrating to the world who the two dominant powers are.  The meeting was celebrated as a victory on Russian state media.


Ordinarily when the leaders of nations meet for major negotiations the meeting is planned well in advance with an agenda strictly worked out by subordinates of both nations.  The leaders have specific purposes in getting together.  It is a major event.


In this case it was on Trump’s part almost a casual event.  Actually he wanted to dispel the fact that Russia interfered in the U.S. Presidential Election.  He did not succeed.


In fact it would be a little over a week later that his oldest son, Donald Trump, Jr. would publically state that he had colluded with a Russian lawyer to get damaging information about Hillary Clinton in June well before the Presidential Election.  In admitting this and saying he would cooperate with the government Trump Jr. verbally changed what happened, to date, three times.  And the number of Russians present has also increased.  Will there be more revelations from him?


Now Donald, Sr. is busy justifying what his son did, stating that anyone would have done this and totally ignoring the fact that his son committed a federal felony, which, in anybody else’s case, would now have them in prison awaiting trial for having committed a serious crime.


What we have seen at the Summit is the world’s greatest amateur, in the name of the United States, deal with other nations; being friendly to adversaries and unfriendly to former friendly nations.  Will this behavior go on for another 3 1/2 years?

The Weiner Component #152 – Part 1: The 41st National Republican Nominating Convention

English: Quicken Loans Arena, Cleveland, OH Fr...

English: Quicken Loans Arena, Cleveland, OH Français : Quicken Loans Arena, Cleveland, OH (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Embed from Getty Images

From July 18th to July 21st the 2016 41st Republican National Convention will meet at the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland, Ohio.  The Convention of 2,472 delegates will choose the Republican candidates for both President and Vice President of the United States.  They will also write a Party Platform for which the Party will stand for the next four years.


This will be the third time Cleveland has hosted this event since 1936.  In order to be chosen a candidate needs a simple majority, 1, 237 votes from convention delegates. 


The Republicans began holding nominating conventions throughout the states in 1912 when Theodore Roosevelt wanted to again run for the presidency.  It was done on a very limited basis then.  He ended up running as a third party candidate and lost to the Democratic candidate, Woodrow Wilson.  It was widely used in 1952 to choose Dwight David Eisenhower as the Republican candidate.  Finally in 1968 the primary or caucus system was used throughout the 50 states and territories.   Initially when the primary elections began in 2016 there were 17 candidates for the office.  Another 5 attempted to enter but they had withdrawn before the primaries began. 


The major question at this Convention is: Who will be nominated to run against the Democratic candidate for the Presidency of the country?  Currently there are three viable Republican candidates: Donald J. Trump, Rafael Edward (Ted) Cruz, and John R. Kasich. 


Kasich currently has less delegate votes than Marco Rubio had when he quit the race after losing his home state, Florida.  There is no possible way he can attain the 1,237 delegate votes needed to be chosen as the candidate.  Consequently he is hoping that both Trump and Cruz will be disqualified and the Convention will choose him.


The race at this point is between Trump and Cruz.  In order for either one to win that individual needs to come up with 1,237 delegate votes on the first ballot.  Because once the delegates have voted their obligation for their designated candidate on the first ballot, if they do not reach the necessary number of votes their obligation to vote for their candidate expires, and they are free to vote for whomsoever they wish.


A week prior to the opening of the July commencement of the 41st National Nominating Convention its Rules Committee will meet in Cleveland and redefine or set the rules for the convention.  They could be a renewal of the 2012 Rules, a slight variation on them, a complete new set of rules, or a combination of any two of the above.  In essence the Rules Committee will establish a complete set of rules for the 2016 Republican National Nominating Convention.  What will they be?  That’s a very good question, which will not be completely answered until July 18th of 2016 in Cleveland when the entire Convention approves them.


There are important considerations in the process.  Every one of the 50 states and the territories have their own have their own specific election primary laws or practices.  Actual primary elections are run by the states, caucuses are done by the political party.  There are one or two states where the results of the primary election have nothing to do with appointing delegates to the National Convention.  Just about every state also has three unbound electors or Superdelegates who will go to the Cleveland Nominating Convention not bound to any candidate.  They usually, but not always, vote for the favorite.  In the state of Georgia almost all the delegates favor Cruz in 2016 but Donald Trump won the Primary Election there.  These people are legally committed to vote for Trump on the first ballot and possibly on the second one also but after that they will vote for Cruz.  Also according to the old rules (2012) caucus elections are not legal and the votes from open primary elections don’t count.  An open election is where the voters can vote for the candidate in either party.  In some states with closed primaries the voters have to be registered months earlier in order to vote in a primary election.  In other states they can register the day of the election or up to a day earlier.  Consequently what specifically will be a legal vote for a candidate what will not be will be determined the first day after the Convention begins on July 18, 2016 and is voted into existence on that day.  This means that a candidate like Donald Trump even coming to the Convention with 1,237 delegate votes may not legally have 1,237 votes by the rules of the Convention.


Donald Trump has been vociferously complaining about the unfairness of the Republican leadership, that he is the leading candidate according to the popular vote, has the most delegates committed to him, but that other delegates have been unfairly awarded to Ted Cruz, and earlier to other candidates.  Interestingly one of the Republican Party people stated on April 13th that if Trump comes to the Convention with 1,100 committed delegates he will be the Republican candidate; that the additional votes to make up the 1,237 will be found for him, presumably from the uncommitted delegates. 


Is this true or was it stated to pacify an unruly crowd?  The person who said this may have been a Republican official but he wasn’t the present head of the Republican Party, Reince Priebus is the current National Chairman; and I suspect he wouldn’t make a statement like that.  In fact he hasn’t.


It would seem that Donald Trump, when all is said and done, is an amateur politician; and this holds true for his staff also.  For example neither Trump nor any members of his staff made any prerequisite contacts in Colorado or Wyoming.  Cruz did do so and all the delegates from both states were assigned to him.  The state chairman from Wyoming made a negative statement about Trump several months earlier.  The caucuses or straw votes by the general Republican population were ignored.  The decision as to who the nominee would be was made by the State Republican chairman, the treasurer, the party secretary, and all the county chairmen.  All 37 delegates in Colorado were assigned to Ted Cruz.  The same thing happened in Wyoming; Cruz won all 14 delegates.  He was the only Republican to campaign there.  The victory occurred on April 16, 2016.  A member of his staff had been there for months working for that victory. 


Cruz is well organized and will do whatever is necessary to win in those areas of the country where he can win or gather delegate votes.  As of, Tuesday, April 19th he has gotten 559 delegates.  He won no delegates in the New York primary.  Trump is still ahead with 845.  In the New York primary he won 89 out of 95 possible delegates.


Trump has vociferously called the Republican selection process unfair and rigged in both Colorado and Wyoming.  In fact it would seem that Trump and his staff did not understand the process in Colorado and did not contact the party there, nor did they bother in Wyoming.  They must have assumed that everything in these two states would automatically take care of itself.  Cruz did not make this mistake.


Delegates in Colorado are chosen through a process that starts with March 1st caucuses and ends at the state convention on April 9th.  Colorado delegates can go to the National Convention as either bound or unbound to a candidate.  This year they are all bound to Cruz.


Wyoming holds a primary election on April 5th and Cruz has had staff there for months working toward his candidacy.  He also visited the state earlier for a couple of days and held rallies there.


Even though the delegate nominating vote will not occur in the state of Washington until May 24th Trump’s staff has sent the paperwork necessary to be in the state primary to Washington, D.C.  While I imagine there is still plenty of time to correct this error is it the type of mistake that should be made by a candidate running for the presidency of the United States?  Both he and his staff are inordinately sloppy in their actions.  Is this the way professionals are supposed to behave?  I get the feeling when people feel they know everything there’s nothing they can ever learn.  And this behavior seems to be that of Trump and of his staff.


Trump is also a master at bellyaching.  He never seems to cease complaining about one or another injustice against him by the Republican Party.  He fumed over the results from Colorado.  He’s blamed the media and the press for refusing to point out what he has described as an injustice in the Republican primary contest.  “The media is so dishonest.  Honestly, I do wonder.  I’m millions of votes ahead which they don’t even mention, they don’t even talk about. They talk about delegates.  And I’m hundreds of delegates ahead but the system is rigged, folks.  It’s a rigged, disgusting dirty system.  It’s a dirty system and only a non-politician would say it.”


 He feels that much of the Republican leadership in Washington D. C. and across the United States is opposed to him.  A good example of this is what happened in Colorado and the fact that some Republican Super Pac’s are spending millions in ads to defeat him.  In fact there are three Republican Super Pac’s that are focused upon his defeat.  These are The Club for Growth, Our Principals Pact, and the American Futures Fund.  They are all unaligned without any specific candidate and it is estimated that they have so-far spent 23.5 million on negative ads against Donald Trump.


Another colorful example is Indiana, which will hold its Primary Election on May 3, 2016.  Indiana has 57 delegates.  This is the second largest block coming up next to California.  Of these 56 are now committed (April 15) to not voting for Trump.  One of the 57 delegates is committed to Trump.  The Primary Election will still take place on May 3, 2016; but ultimately it will have nothing to do with choosing delegates.  That has already been done by the Republican State Party Leadership.  Trump visited the state on Wednesday, April 20th, the day after his New York victory.


Are many leading members of the Republican Party out to get Trump?  Obviously.  Many see the potential of his candidacy harming the Republican Party for years to come.  He represents the undereducated, blue collar workers, the people who could never get themselves to vote Democratic, the bottom third of the Republican Party who have never gotten anything from the Party except the right to own guns.  They are essentially disgusted with their party and want something more in return for their vote.  These are the people who have continually supported Trump.


He, in his speeches, is telling them that if he is not the frontrunner in the Presidential Election then they should stay home and not vote.  It would seem that Trump is not only fighting to get elected but he is also fighting the Republican Party in order to be elected President of the United States.  He has also made comments or veiled threats about what will happen at the Convention if he, the frontrunner, is not elected.


If Trump does not reach the 1,237 delegates for the first vote at the Convention it is highly possible that Cruz’s organizational advantage could win him the nomination after the first vote in the election; but it is also possible that he will still not have enough delegates to reach the 1,237 votes needed to be chosen.  Trump won the Louisiana primary but Cruz might end up with more delegates than Trump by gaining Marco Rubio’s delegates and the unbound delegates from that state.


There is an interesting note or irony here.  These same class of blue collar men and women in Las Vegas, who are currently employed by Trump at his casino, are currently fighting for the right to unionize Trump’s International Hotel in Las Vegas.  His management is doing everything possible in what is mainly a largely unionized city to keep the casino workers from being able to unionize.  Consequently Trump is fighting a small section with a group of the very people who support him politically to keep them from being able to unionize. 


As a footnote: it should be noted that both Donald Trump and Ted Cruz are generating a lot of hostility particularly among the school-age youth across a good part of this country.  Their remarks about Muslims and Hispanics are and have created bullying and tension among young children and teenagers in public schools.  It is increasing racial and ethnic pressure to the point where it is noticeable by their teachers.  Whether it is being picked up from conversations at home or from both conversations and television is beside the point.  The point is that there is a noticeable increase in this behavior being touched off by the two major Republican candidates.  And that is not good news for a country that prides itself on all the racial and ethnic groups that make it up!


Ted Cruz, the other major Republican Candidate, has said, that Muslim areas of the United States should be specially patrolled by the police.  In certain respects it is hard to tell the two Republican candidates apart for their negative qualities, which even though they are not all similar are equally bad. 


In 2012 Rafael Edward (Ted) Cruz was elected to the U.S. Senate.  He was the far right candidate, with heavy support from the Texas Tea Party.  He won the state Republican primary over Republican Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst and later, in the election, beat the Democratic candidate.  Cruz failed to report two loans, which helped him finance his campaign, that were required by law.  Time Magazine reported the first one during the 2012 campaign and The New York Times reported the second one in 2016.  Cruz disclosed the loans on his Senate financial disclosure forms in July of 2012, but not on the Federal Election Commission form.  The second loan came largely from Goldman Sacks, where his wife worked as an executive.  Cruz stated that his failure to disclose these loans was accidental.  There was no evidence that his wife was involved in securing the second loan.  These monies, several million dollars, were repaid by later campaign fundraising.


Cruz has sponsored 25 bills of his own.  Among these were: a bill to cancel Affordable Health Care (Obamacare), two bills to investigate and prosecute felons and fugitives who illegally purchase firearms, a bill to permit states to require proof of citizenship for registering to vote in federal elections, a bill to increase coal, natural gas, and crude oil exports, to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline, to expand oil drilling offshore, to give states the sole power of regulating hydraulic fracturing, to prohibit the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases, to earmark natural resource revenue to paying off the Federal Debt, and to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to eliminate all limits on direct campaign contributions for candidates for public office.


Cruz was heavily involved in the Government Shutdown of 2013 which ended up costing the U.S. Economy about 29 billion dollars.  Cruz gave a 21 hour Senate speech in an effort to hold up a federal budget bill and defund the Affordable Care Act.  Cruz’s efforts encouraged the House of Representatives to effect the shutdown.  It did not really stop any bills from passing in the Senate.  Even Republican Senators denounced the move; Senator Lindsey Graham called the move ineffective and “shameless.” 


Cruz has denounced President Obama as an enemy of the Republic.  He has used harsh rhetoric against fellow Republicans calling a number of them who voted for a bill backed by the President a “surrender caucus.”  He accused Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of telling “a flat out lie.”  On abortion Cruz is strongly prolife.  He’ll allow the termination of a pregnancy only when the mother’s life is in danger; rape or incest are not grounds for an abortion.  He opposes both same-sex marriages and civil unions; marriage should be legally defined as a union between one man and one woman.  He supports school choice and opposes the state regulated common core standards.  He is totally against Affordable Health Care and would repeal that law.  He is a gun rights advocate and is opposed to certain religious groups (Muslim) immigrating to the United States. 


In terms of criminal law, Cruz has called for an end to “over-criminalization, harsh mandatory minimum sentences, and the demise of jury trials.”  He believes that most criminals are Democrats and that is the reason Democrats are soft on crime.  They want the votes of the criminal class.  He has accused the President and the Attorney General of vilifying police law enforcement. 


He believes in free trade, in a flat tax that everyone pays in terms of an equal percentage that they can file on the back of a postcard.  He wants to do away with the IRS.  He is opposed to a higher minimum wage.


Following the Tea Party theology Cruz wants to decrease the size of the Federal Government significantly.  He would do this by eliminating the IRS plus four other cabinet agencies: the Department of Energy, the Department of Education, the Department of Commerce, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.  He is also a staunch supporter of the Keystone XL Pipeline.


Cruz rejects what most scientists accept as fact that the earth’s surface is slowly and continually heating because of the gases that are continually being spewed into the atmosphere.  In March of 2015 he stated that there had been no significant global warming for the last eighteen years.


In foreign affairs Cruz stringently opposes the United Nations Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action that brought about the non-nuclear development agreement with Iran and the U.N., calling it catastrophic and disastrous.  Of the 2014 thaw in relations between Cuba and the U.S., Cruz called it foreign policy that “will be remembered as a tragic mistake.”  In 2013 Cruz stated that American armed forces should not serve as “al-Qaeda’s air force.”  In 2014 he said, “The president’s foreign policy team utterly missed the threat of ISIS, indeed, was working to arm Syrian rebels that were fighting side by side with ISIS.”  He has also called for carpet bombing of ISIS, which would kill innumerable non-ISIS members and create a very negative image of America in the Middle East or wherever we attacked ISIS.


It should also be noted that Cruz’s wife, Heidi, is an American investment manager at Goldman Sacks, who currently is on a leave of absence from the company.  She has an M.B.A. from the Harvard Business School and is currently Regional Head of the Southwest United States for the Investment Management Division in Houston.  She took a leave of absence to participate in her husband’s presidential campaign.  I’m sure Goldman Sacks would like to have one of their executives as first lady.


The meeting of the Republican Nominating Convention during the third week in July should be very dramatic.


From what I understand Rafael Edward (Ted) Cruz has a very good mind.  He was probably academically the top student both in his college class and in law school.  Over the years probably from his teenage period on or possibly even earlier he has worked out his prospective of the world around him and firmly believes what he says.  He tends to be at the right extreme or beyond from the Tea Party’s position.  He has a tendency to denounce anyone who doesn’t agree with him.  This includes the entire faculty of Harvard Law School.  He called them Communists after he graduated.  If anything, by his actions, he is intolerant of anyone who doesn’t agree with him; this includes at times the entire U.S. Senate.  From statements he has made, as President he will us his executive privilege, far beyond anything President Obama has done. 


A goodly percentage of the Republican Party doesn’t want him as their candidate.  And the probability is that neither he nor Trump will have the necessary 1,237 delegate votes to be nominated as the Republican candidate for the presidency.  The Republican Nominating Convention will be looking for, what has historically been called, a “dark horse.”  They will move into their convention without a specific candidate.  There is a very high probability that the Republicans will have to go through a large number of ballots before they choose someone that the majority can live with.  The process of doing this should be very loud and highly dramatic.


It then becomes an open convention and the search is on for an acceptable candidate.    Who will it be? 


The first person waiting in the wings is John Kasich; in fact, he seems to have planned to be in this position and he will be the only choice left.  Kasich served in the House of Representatives for 18 years, has worked in the private sector as an investment banker, and is now serving his second term as governor of Ohio.  He tends to be a more liberal or compassionate conservative than any of the other Republican candidates.  He has the smallest number of delegates, 148.  This is less even than Marco Rubio had when he withdrew from the race and who is no longer running for the office of president.  Kasich will no doubt claim to be the only real alternative that the Party has If Trump and Cruz don’t reach 1,237 votes.


Another possibility would be Mitt Romney, the 2012 Republican Presidential candidate, who lost that election to Barak Obama.  He has stated that he has no desire to be president but is waiting in the wings to be asked to serve his country.


A third possibility is Paul Ryan, the current Speaker of the House of Representatives.  He has specifically stated: “Let me be perfectly clear: I do not want nor will I accept the nomination of our party.”  But he said the same thing about becoming Speaker of the House of Representatives.  Speaker Paul Ryan could be drafted.  He ran in 2012 for both the Vice Presidency and as a continuing member of the House of Representatives.  He will preside over the Cleveland Convention.


Ryan has indicated that he sees disaster for the Republican Party if either Trump or Cruz are nominated.  He has urged delegates to pass a rule limiting the nomination only to actual candidates.  If he is successful in doing this then he would seem to favor John Kasich.  But it would also open the convention up to all the former Republican candidates who have dropped out of the race.  And Marco Rubio, even though he dropped out after losing the Florida Primary, has a higher number of delegates than Kasich.  It would also resurrect Jeb Bush.  It’s a crazy situation.


Another important consideration is what will happen at the actual Presidential Election; Donald Trump seems to be contemplating rioting from his supporters if he is not nominated.  As to the final vote he is telling his followers to stay at home and not vote if he is not the candidate.  Will he be successful?  At worst, partially; at best, considerably.


Ted Cruz’s supporters seem to have a similar attitude.  They detest Trump and probably will not vote for him if he is the candidate.  Trump has a following of about 35 to 37% of the registered Republicans in the primaries.  To become president he will need over 50% of the combined vote from all the political groups.


If the candidate becomes Kasich or some other choice will that person, who is a compromise candidate, be able to unite the Republican Party or does it stay as splintered as it is currently?


I suspect it will stay splintered with many Republican votes never being cast.  The probability is that the Republican Party, which is the minority party in the United States, will lose the Presidential Election.

The Weiner Component #151 – Part 2: The Current State of the Presidential Election

U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont

U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

English: Ted Cruz at the Republican Leadership...

English: Ted Cruz at the Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans, Louisiana. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

On Tuesday, April 5th the State of Wisconsin held its nominating election for both the Democratic and Republican selections for 82 Democratic and 39 Republican delegates.  The winners were Bernie Sanders for the Democrats and Ted Cruz for the Republicans. 


There were 86 delegate votes available for the Democrats in Wisconsin.  Sanders won 46 delegates and received 567,858 votes and Clinton received 433,574 votes and got 36 delegates.  The remaining 4 unelected delegates generally vote for the winner but in this case are committed to Hillary Clinton, giving her 40 delegates for that state.  Among the Republicans Ted Cruz got 531,129 votes and 36 delegates.  Donald J. Trump received 386,290 votes and 3 delegates.  There are also 3 non-elected Republican delegates.


The Democratic delegate count, as it currently (April 10) is Clinton 1,756 and Sanders 1068 delegates.  One of them needs 2383 by the last week in July to be chosen the Presidential Candidate.  There are 4,765 available of mostly committed and some non-committed supper delegates.  There are still 1955 delegates left in the remaining states and territories.   Both Parties count their votes in different ways.


Of the Republican delegate count Trump has 743 and Cruz has 545 committed delegates.  One of them needs 1,237 delegates out of 2,472 possible delegates.  There are also a total of32 non-committed delegates in this group from the states.  Generally, but not always, they go to the leading candidate.  There are 811 delegates left in the states that still have to hold their primaries or caucuses.


John Kasich has a very low number of delegates, 143 delegates.  There is no possible way he can win enough of them to even make a showing;   but he is in to the finish, hoping that neither Trump nor Cruz will get the requisite number and that neither will be chosen at the July Nominating Convention.  Then he will be ready as a possible candidate for the presidency. 


What is interesting here is that Trump had the same percentage of votes in Wisconsin that he had in all the states where he came in first, 35%.  Only in all those elections there were a larger number of Republican candidates to split the delegate or caucus vote so that their numbers were lower than his.  But in what was essentially a two man contest in Wisconsin Trump still achieved 1/3d of the Republican vote.  This would indicate, if it holds constant, that there is no way, if he is chosen as the Republican candidate, that he will win a general election.  And that is true for an election even by his own party.


Trump’s reaction to these results was a statement or outcry of protest that he had been cheated of his deserved victory by a Republican Super Pac that spent millions to defeat him in Wisconsin and by the fact that Cruz was/is a puppet of the Republican leadership.  He takes no credit that his past or even present behavior during these elections might have turned off a lot of Republican voters, particularly women, their husbands, and the minority groups voting Republican.


The day before the Wisconsin primary, April 5th, Ted Cruz released a 30 second television ad criticizing John Kasich for the first time by exploring his ties with Worthington Industries, a Fortune 500 company in Ohio that last year laid off hundreds of employees, including 115 in Ohio.  The implications were obvious, showing Kasich’s ties to big business.  The note of irony, which to my knowledge no one has mentioned, is that Cruz’s wife, Heidi, is on leave from Goldman Sacks, a leading investment banking corporation.  She is a lead executive with that company.


In addition to the television ad the Cruz campaign also sent out a mailer attacking Kasich’s spending policies as governor of Ohio and his position on guns and the military. 


This was the first time Cruz or anyone has run an ad against Kasich.  It would seem that Cruz wants Kasich to drop out of the presidential race and leave it as a contest just between himself and Trump.  Kasich’s delegate numbers are 143, which is lower than Marco Rubio’s, who dropped out of the race after losing Florida, his home state.  Cruz called Kasich a spoiler in the Presidential contest.  Kasich, however, is determined to stay in until the end.  Apparently he believes that both Cruz and Trump will be disqualified and he will be left as the only choice.


Kasich response to Cruz has been that he, Cruz never helped create any jobs but that he got a sweetheart loan from Goldman Sacks for his Senate campaign which he failed to disclose to the FEC during his campaign for the Senate.  “Cruz’s attack and his own hypocrisy are further proof that the voters can’t trust him and he will do anything to win.”


On Saturday, April 9th the Wyoming Democrats held their caucus; there were 14 possible delegates.  Bernie Sanders received 55.7% of the vote and won 7 delegates and Hillary Clinton got 44.3% of the vote and received 7 delegates.  Their delegate and super delegate numbers now are: Clinton 1756 and Sanders 1068.  The next nominating election will be in New York on April 19th .  247 delegates will be up for grabs in that election. 


Sanders has done well in mostly white western states.  New York is a multi-racial and multi-ethnic city and state.  It is questionable that he will do as well there.  But he has attracted the young, first time voters. In addition Hillary Rodham Clinton was originally one of the senators from that state.


One of the major difference between the Republican and Democratic Parties has to do with climate change, with the fact that the carbon wastes are being massively spewed into the atmosphere and as a result is warming the planet and its oceans, slowly melting the ice caps, and very gradually changing the ecology of the planet in a negative way for mankind.


Ted Cruz says that the concept of climate change is nonsense, that what is happening would occur on the planet even without man being present.  Donald Trump says it’s a rumor begun by the Chinese Communists for their own purposes.  John Kasich states that climate change is occurring but he doesn’t know why.  Both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton would like to see more done by the U.S. to reverse it.


If we attempt to examine and understand the Republican position on this problem, using an historical example should make it easier to comprehend where they are coming from.  They continually resist what is now an essentially proven theory of climate change, accepted throughout most of the world, including by the majority of non-Republicans within the United States.


To the early European Christian Church the Medieval concept of the cosmos presented a major dilemma.  Their concept was based upon their religious belief, which in turn allowed their early Church Fathers over a period of centuries to logically work out an image of how the universe functioned based upon their religious belief. 


Accordingly, God created the earth, heavens, and mankind or Adam and Eve in six days.  He made the earth the center of this universe around which everything revolved.  Hell was in inner center of the earth, purgatory was the moon separate from the heavens, and the heavens was the area of the stars, wherein God sat upon a majestic throne surrounded by angels and the souls of worthy human beings glorying in his reflected light. 


Those who had not accepted God’s primacy and existence but had not sinned resided in Purgatory.  And those who had sinned in life suffered in Hell.  The life on earth was the testing ground for all persons or souls.  The good souls who, for one reason or another, had not accepted God as their savior resided in Limbo, the first level of heaven which was removed from the light of God.  While this is a simplistic version of the early Catholic Churches view of the cosmos it is still generally accurate.


The problem with this interpretation is that the actual cosmos and religion are two entirely different entities.  The early Christians who defined the universe did so in terms of their limited knowledge and understanding.  They saw the world as a much simpler place than it is believed to be in the present.  Interestingly or strangely there are still people around who believe a variation of the earlier interpretation of the cosmos.


As telescopes were invented the awareness of the universe changed among an educated few.  But to the then living Church fathers the new scientific knowledge challenged their absolute belief in their religious faith.  It could in time, many of them believed, repudiate their religion.


Initially everyone who had this new learning became a heretic.    Copernicus, during the Sixteenth Century, in his major work, propounded the theory that the earth and the planets revolved around the sun.  He did not have this book published until after his death in 1543 for fear of being declared a heretic and imprisoned and possibly executed.  The book was largely suppressed by the Church,


Galileo, 1564 – 1642, constructed the first complete astronomical telescope and confirmed Copernicus’ theory.  He was forced by the inquisition to abjure his discoveries and verbally go back to the earth centered universe.  There were others who followed these two and eventually, when it had no other choice, the Catholic Church and other religious groups accepted modern astronomy and separated religion from science.   The process took hundreds of years.


In the case of the Republican Party: they are mainly funded by large contributors from the fossil fuel industries and other pollution producing corporations who would tend to lose fortunes if green energy became the major source of electric power.


The problem with modern politics in the United States is that it cost to get elected to public office and it costs equally large amounts of money to stay in office and get reelected.   Since 2010 when the Citizens United vs. Federal Elections Commission case was adjudicated in the Supreme Court spending on political campaigns became equated with the First Amendment’s Free Speech right.  Spending on an election became an Unlimited Free Speech Right.  This right of Free Speech was expressed by essentially unlimited political contributions by unions, corporations, political action committees, wealthy billionaires, and others.  This even allowed foreign government’s shell corporations to influence American elections.


In 2002 $17 million was spent on the elections.  By 2006 that amount rose to $52 million.  And in 2010 it was $290 million.  This did not count independent spending.  These were not Presidential Election years. 


During Presidential Election years the amount rises exponentially.  The amount spent on the 2012 Presidential Election by both the Democrats and the Republicans is estimated at over 6 billion dollars.  The Democratic and Republican Parties spent 2 billion dollars; the political committees and Pac’s spent 2.1 billion dollars; and the candidates in their campaigns expended 3.2 billion dollars.  Since all contributions over $200 have to be registered, the Federal Election Commission processed 11 million pages of campaign funding related documents.


The Presidential Election is just one of the many elections held in 2012.  There were also Congressional Elections: the entire House of Representatives and 1/3d of the Senate, and numerous state and city elections.  If we rank the cost of all of these together the cost is astronomical.   And all this will be recurring in November of 2016


The probability is that the cost of the 2016 Election will be even greater than the 6 billion dollar figure estimated to have been spent in 2012.  In the Wisconsin Republican Nominating Election a Super Pac emerged whose sole function was to debunk Donald Trump; they spent millions doing so.  This does not count all the other spending that went on.  President Obama attended two political dinners on the weekend of April 8th where the entry fee was $20,400 for a couple.  The overall amounts expended for the 2016 Presidential Election will not be known until well into 2017 but it should exceed the prior 6 billion dollar mark for just the Presidential Election.


The thing to keep in mind is that there is no built in mechanism to fund political campaigns.  All this money has to be raised voluntarily.  The process puts an extensive burden upon the candidates and elected individuals serving in government.  They have to continually raise money. 


This process affects politicians in an adverse manner.  The Republicans have to a certain extent solved their problem in an interesting fashion.  No one likes to feel bought or owned by large contributors.  They have like the earlier Catholic Church worked out a rationale to justify their acceptance of many large contributions and that is to take the position that a percentage of modern science is nonsense.  By internally rejecting pollution as a cause of changing climate conditions on the earth they justify the support of petroleum industries by individuals like the Koch Brothers who contribute multi-millions every year to Republican causes.  In essence they have internalized the needs or desires of these corporations and made them part of their own rationales.  They, the Republicans, are not being bought by the polluters, instead they are merely cooperating with likeminded people.  It’s an interesting process of self-deception.


No doubt this is done by both political parties; but the degree to which it is done by the Republicans far surpasses anything that the Democrats do.  Remember according to Donald Trump the concept of climate change is a Chinese Communist plot.  Ted Cruz considers it a hoax and John Kasich, while admitting that it exists, doesn’t know why it does.  He wants to put pollution control in the hands of the states and the companies that produce it.  He feels that self-regulation, which has never worked in the past, will work in the future.


What is the current state of politics and the oncoming Presidential Election in the United States today?  Both of these can certainly use some reform.  In France, for example, a maximum amount is set the can be spent on a Presidential Election, 30 million dollars.  Should we have a maximum amount?  The United States covers a far larger area than France.  Should a larger maximum amount be set?


Should the Federal Government finance future elections requiring the press and the media to provide free time and space for the candidates as a public service?  Some of this was done in the past.  It was dropped because some of the candidates wanted far larger amounts and these could be raised privately.


There would have to be rules as to the requirements for an individual to become a candidate for public office on city, state, and national levels before they would receive aid from the particular level of government which is holding the election.  I imagine it would be quite complicated to organize.  Could it be done?


Do we need a Constitutional Amendment limiting the level of contributions to a political campaign?  Would we be better off that way?  The issue get more and more complicated.

The Weiner Component #149 – The 2016 Presidential Election: The Democrats & the Election

Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are the Democratic candidates for the presidency in 2016.  He is now a Democratic Socialist who has always caucused with the Democratic Party.  Hillary Clinton has always been a liberal Democrat.  Both would like to be President of the United States.


Bernie was born on September 8, 1941 in Brooklyn, New York.  He is 71 years old and the junior Senator from Vermont.  Bernie is also the longest serving independent member of Congress in the history of the Institution.  As of 2015 he officially became a member of the Democratic Party and now calls himself a Democratic Socialist. 


In 1964, as a student at the University of Chicago, he was a civil rights protestor.  After settling in Vermont he ran as an unsuccessful socialist candidate for governor and U.S. Senator in the 1970s.  He was elected as mayor of Burlington as an independent in 1981 and reelected three times.  He was then elected to the House of Representatives from Vermont’s at large congressional district where he served through 2007 when he was elected to the Senate.  He is still serving in the U.S. Senate.


Bernie Sanders rose to prominence in 2010 with his filibuster against Bush’s extension of his tax cuts.  He favors policies similar to those in the Social Democratic parties of Europe, particularly of the Nordic countries.  He is a leading progressive voice on issues such as campaign financial reform, corporate welfare, global warming, income inequality, parental rights, and free universal healthcare.  He has been critical of U.S. foreign policy and was an early and outspoken critic of the Iraqi War.  In addition he is outspoken on civil liberties and civil rights.  He has criticized the racial discrimination of the criminal justice system and advocated for privacy rights against mass surveillance policies as the patriot act.


I suspect that Bernie Sanders chose to run for the presidency of the United States in 2016 as an act of protest against the traditional political structure of the U.S.  As a long-time member of Congress he knows that there is little he could do with the current Republican dominated Congress.  After all, they make the laws and the President just carries them out. 


Inadvertently Sanders picked a time when a goodly percentage of the population was disgusted with the inaction of Congress over the last five years, since the Republicans took control of the House of Representatives, and later in 2014 when they also gained dominance in the Senate.  The Republican majorities in Congress have either not cared to or not been able to pass any laws needed by the nation.


In addition the overall population that was either fourteen years of age to just below eighteen years old in November of 2012 has now come of voting age and they want a candidate to represent them; most of these people believe that Bernie Sanders is that person.  They represent a goodly percentage of the over 350 million people who make up the population of the United States.


To Bernie the extent of his success has been euphoric; he apparently believes that a Giant Revolution is in the process of occurring and that he will not only be elected President of the United States but that the Democrats will sweep into Congress with giant majorities in both Houses of Congress.


Is this true?  That’s an interesting question.  It could happen in the Senate where 24 Republicans will be running to get reelected, some in swing states.  We could get a lot of politically disgusted people in those states voting for Democrats.  In the House of Representatives through gerrymandering in 2010 the Republicans were able to assign Districts along the line of the voters.  This will not change until 2020 when the next census occurs.  In 2012 over a million and a quarter more votes were cast for Democrats running in the House of Representatives but the Republicans still maintained the majority.  It will probably take at least two million addition Democratic votes for the Democrats to win control of the House of Representatives.


Donald Trump has attracted those disgusted with the government who, for whatever reason, could never get themselves to vote for Democratic candidates.  It would seem that most of Trump’s followers are not overly educated.  Many of them like his simplistic view of the world.


The election has its own special energy and no one can truly predict where it is going.


The other major Democratic candidate, Hillary Rodham Clinton, was born in 1947, which makes her currently 71.  She is the wife of the 42nd President, Bill Clinton, has served in the Senate from 2,000 to 2007, then unsuccessfully ran for the presidency against Barack Obama in 2008, was his Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013, and is at present the leading Democratic Candidate in the 2016 Presidential Election. 


She came originally from the Chicago area and graduated from Wellesley College in 1969.  She achieved a doctorate from Yale Law School in 1973, married Bill Clinton in 1975 and moved to Arkansas, where her husband became governor.  While first lady of Arkansas she led a task force that reformed the state’s public school system. 


Her husband, President Bill Clinton appointed her to lead the Clinton health plan of 1993 which failed to reach a vote in Congress.  The Republican protagonists came out with a catchy slogan, “There has to be a better way.”  The “better way” was no health care bill.


She played a major role in advocating the creation of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, the Adoption and Safe Families Act and the Foster Care Independence Act.  During most of her adult life Hillary Clinton has been involved in causes for the needy.


In 2,000 after the end of her husband’s term as President of the United States, she moving to New York and was elected as the first woman Senator from that state.  Clinton was reelected to the Senate in 2006.  She ran against Barack Obama in 2008 for the presidency.  Instead she became Obama’s Secretary of State for the first four years of his term.  Probably no other candidate in the history of the United States for the presidency has had as much experience as Hillary Clinton.  She has been involved in public service most of her adult life.


If an individual has watched the debates in this 2016 Presidential Election year that person gets the impression that two separate and distinct elections are going on.  The magnitude of the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats tends to give the impression that we are dealing with two entirely different countries.


For the Republicans this country has been abused and taken advantage of by all the other nations on the planet.  We have been militarily inept, not capable of carrying out any military operation.  We have signed unfair treaties with countries like Iran.  Our trade agreements always favor the other nation or nations, taking needed jobs out of the United States.  The U.S. under its current leadership, as a nation, is totally inept.  Only by electing Republican leadership can the country properly function again.


Listening to them one get the impression that treaties need to be renegotiated and other countries need to be straightened out in their relations with the United States.  If the United States reneges on past agreements with other nations this could be a direct path to war.  Iran spent two years negotiating a compact with 5 Security Council nations plus Germany.  I can’t see the Republican U.S. President telling them that the terms are now unacceptable and that the treaty now has to be redone on a much harsher basis with the U.S.  To me that’s a recipe for war with Iran.


If Affordable Health Care (Obamacare) were to be suddenly cancelled, then no matter what is said a large number of people will suddenly lose their current health coverage.  They and others adversely affected will be extremely unhappy.   The Republicans have continually denounced this program since it came into existence in 2010.  It was initially a Republican plan put into existence by Mitt Romney as governor of Massachusetts.  It was voted into existence by the Democratic majority.  The Republicans have denounced it since its inception, calling it a job-killing bill.  They have never offered any real proof of its so-called negative aspects.  Mainly they seem to object to it because it came into existence under a Black President, Barack Obama. 


Somehow it seems that the Republicans have forgotten that the prior President was George W. Bush and that he got the country involved in a needless war in Iraq, wastefully spending trillions of dollars while reducing taxes mostly for the wealthy, and massively increasing the National Debt while making the U.S. a laughing stock to other industrial nations.   It was also toward the end of his administration that the economic Real Estate Bubble burst almost bringing about the greatest economic decline in the history of the nation.  It appears, to many Republicans that these events never did really happened.  It was also Bush’s actions that destabilized the Middle East and brought about the current situation there.  Basically a study of our current economic and military problems can be traced back to Republican Administrations which were then left for Democratic Administrations to deal with and, of course, were blamed on the Democrats by their Republican colleagues.


On the Democratic side we have a country with a broken or outdated infrastructure where state governors like Rick Snyder of Michigan can appoint inept city managers who then can arbitrarily switch a healthy water supply to a toxic one, poisoning a whole generation of children with lead infested water arbitrarily and even after that fact comes out, continue charging the residents of Flint for using the poisoned water and then when questioned about it by a Congressional committee blame the inexcusable problem upon the EPA.    


We have a country where roads are filled with pot holes, bridges, in many instances, were built 100 years ago; where ports cannot handle modern shipping, railroads are today inadequate for properly transporting goods, many airfields are out of date, many school buildings are so old they are unsafe.  Flint’s problem of unsafe water exists in many cities and buildings.  The list goes on and on.  In essence we are living in the 21st Century with an early 20th Century infrastructure.


According to Bernie Sanders we have, among many other problems, a broken legal system that incarcerates more people than a dictatorship like Communist China or Russia.  And the bulk of those jailed tend to be Hispanic or Black.  We have serious racial problems which are not really being dealt with.


As far as both Democratic candidates are concerned, both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sander, this country needs a lot of internal repair and the major factor that has kept any of it from happening has been the Republicans in Congress and the state governments who apparently believe that this country can go on forever with little or no  maintenance.  Upgrading the infrastructure will probably take a decade or more and will cost trillions of dollars.   Both feel it’s time we got started, particularly since the country still has an unemployment problems left over from the Great Recession of 2008.


It would seem that the Republicans have no understanding of the principles of economics.  Most, if not all, Republican members of the House of Representatives believe that all economics is Microeconomics.  That is, if one has raised a family and provided an adequate income then that person has a proper understanding of the discipline.  They have a total knowledge of all they need to know about financing the United States.  The nation takes in so much in taxes and that is its income.  If it spends more than that it has to borrow the money and pay it back at some time in the future.  That is all a person needs to know about finance it order to run the country.  It’s a rather naïve and limited view of National financing.


To them money is like gold, it has an intrinsic value.  Actually money today is just paper that is treated by most people as something of great value.  It has not been gold since 1933 when Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal collected all the gold coins, melted them down into blocks that were then buried in underground depositories, like Fort Knox, and issued paper certificates in their stead known as Federal Reserve Notes.  Gold then was worth $18.00 an ounce, today an ounce of gold is worth slightly over twelve hundred dollars and the Federal Government has sold most of its gold bullion.


Money today is just a token that is used in the exchange of goods and services.  It has no intrinsic value.  The Central Government can print and issue as much as it wants.  There are, however, general rules and regulations that govern this process which is done by the Federal Reserve.  Both the 2008 oncoming depression and the banking collapse of the Housing Market were largely resolved by the Federal Reserve through its use of Creative Monetary Policy.  This became necessary because the Republican dominated House of Representatives refused to deal with the problem with Fiscal Policy.  In fact they exacerbated it by shrinking the size of the government and increasing the level of unemployment.


The Republican dominated Congress today cannot even accept the existence of the idea.  Their concept of increasing employment is to get rid of the EPA, lower taxes for the rich, and allow increased pollution.  The increased wealth that the rich gain through lower taxes, they say will allow for industrial expansion and the new wealth being spent on new productivity will tinkle down to the middle class and the poor.


This is the Republicans basic concept of job creation.  Lowering the costs of production by allowing for more pollution.  We can have industrial centers like China where the air is dangerous to breathe.  This they believe, according to what a number of the candidates have said in the Republican Candidates 2016 Presidential debates, that if they do away with the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) restrictions on production, unemployment will automatically disappear and there will be more jobs for everyone. 


It’s a nice thought but it does not deal with reality.  During the Reagan years as taxes for the wealthy declined their additional wealth was put into old production, the stock markets and what was then considered other safe areas of the economy.  Very little, if any, trickled down to new production.


During Ronald Reagan’s Administration it was called “Supply Side Economics.”  Its chief advocate was David Stockman who became President Reagan’s Director of the Office of Management and Budget from 1981 to 1985 when he resigned from that position.  Eventually even Stockman admitted that it didn’t work.


It should be noted that under Reagan the National Debt not only reached a trillion dollars for the first time in U.S. history, it also rose to over double that amount.


The Republicans are also convinced that climate change is a hoax that the earth is too large to be affected in any way by anything man does.  It seems that they are never bothered by evidence of what is going on around them as they plod through life.  Donald Trump believes that the Chinese started the rumor of climate change. 


To the Republicans the melting of the Southern and Northern ice poles and the decreasing glacier areas would have happened even if man did not live on this planet, it is a normal, natural event.  And this is also true of the rising ocean water levels.  The tons of carbon that automobiles spew out into the atmosphere and other gases added by man to the air do not effect temperature change on the planet, which is naturally getting hotter.  


The real problem for the Republicans is that the people who fund their elections are the producers of all this garbage that pollutes, fouling the air and warming the planet.  It is to their advantage that pollution causing oil is used.  The Koch Brothers who deal heavily in oil have had a law passed in Kansas making green energy illegal.  The law is generally ignored but the brothers had enough political influence to get their state to pass it.  They are heavy contributors to the Republican Party.


The Republicans mainly have vested interests in maintaining their contributor base—the wealthy producers and political contributors in the country.  They have consequently adjusted their prospective to support the upper economic percentile of the population, making the interests of these people their interests and ignoring the needs of their economic base.  As a result they cannot accept any facts about global warming being true, since that reality would separate them from their major political contributors.


If Donald Trump is not chosen as the Republican candidate for president he has threatened riots by his followers.  That would seem to mean that if he is short the 1,237 delegate votes but is still leading the other two potential presidential candidates he still expects to be nominated.  Trump has not mentioned being a possible third party candidate if the Republican Nominating Convention in July were to choose another candidate. 


In terms of public statements he seems to be moving toward total monomania at this point in the election process.  2016 may be an historic election year!

The Weiner Component #104 – Obama & the New Republican Congress

English: U.S. President Barack Obama meets wit...

The day after the 2014 Midterm Elections President Obama and the two Republican leaders of Congress were sitting down together, smiling at each other, and discussing how they could get along and get necessary legislation passed. This era of good feeling lasted for one day.

On the subject of climate change both the United States and China are the two greatest polluters in the world today. It is estimated that these two nations produce the bulk of the carbon emissions of all the countries that pollute the atmosphere. During a recent visit to China both President Obama and China’s President Xi Jinping agreed to lower CO2 emissions by 2025 for the first time and also to reduce carbon emissions by 2030. Will the respective countries succeed in doing that? Obviously we’ll have to wait and see. But this brings pressure on other industrial nations like India to act in a similar way.

Almost immediately after the announcement was made both Republican members of the current two Houses of the U.S. Congress and those who will become members in January came out with irate announcements denouncing Obama for daring to use what they consider the false promise of Climate Change to justify limiting business growth in the United States. Some apparently threatened to shut down the government rather than let this happen. It should be interesting to see what happens. Fox news in its non-intellectual fashion suggested possible impeachment. I hadn’t realized that this act by President Obama constituted “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

On the subject of immigration, President Obama is at the point has issued executive orders attempting, as much as he can, without the aid of Congress, to reform the system.

He returned Sunday, November 16, from his eight day trip to China, Myanmar, and Australia. His declaration with China’s president has upset the Republicans. President Obama has promised to take action on immigration before the end of 2014. This he has now done.  Just prior to the trip his senior aides gave him a list of all the potential actions he could order in regards to immigration without congressional approval. He will receive their final recommendation on Tuesday, November 18 and will unveil his executive order any time after that.

One probable reform would be to allow the parents of children born in the United States who are citizens to have some sort of legal status rather than being subject to deportation while their children stay in the U.S. This, I understand, will affect about three and a half million people of the estimated ten million illegal aliens in the country. There are numerous other possibilities of what the President might do.

It should be interesting because the House Speaker has stated that “We’re going to fight the president tooth and nail if he continues down this path. This is the wrong way to govern.” Other Republicans have come out with more vicious messages about what they will do. Senator Jeff Sessions (Republican, Alabama) has threatened to defund any executive action of immigration. Sessions will be the new head of the Senate Budget Committee in January of 2015.

President Obama’s comment to the Republicans in Congress is that if they don’t like his actions then they should pass an immigration bill to supersede them. Approximately a year and a half ago the Senate passed an immigration bill. The Speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner, has refused to bring this bill up for debate and to be voted on. It is believed that both Democrats and enough Republicans would vote for this bill and pass it. The Far Right or extremist Republicans are against this bill and apparently they have been able to force Boehner to not act on it. The immigration crisis exists because of the will of a minority within the Republican controlled House.

On Wednesday, November 12, 2014 the House of Representatives by largely a strict party vote again passed the Keystone XL Pipeline bill allowing Canadian Oil Companies to ship oil slag from Canada south through the central United States to the Gulf of Mexico where it will be sent overseas to be processed. The bill came up the following week in the Senate where the Democrats currently have the majority until the end of December. It did not pass.  What will happen there in January is unknown. However the Republicans will be able to pass it in both Houses of Congress next year, when they have a majority there but the President will probably veto it.

The pipeline opens up all sorts of possibilities that can contaminate the water table in the areas under it. President Obama has stated that the United States will not benefit from the pipeline because the oil-muck will be processed overseas where the gasoline will be used. What happens should be interesting. Particularly the President probably will veto the bill causing inordinate levels of rage among the Tea Party Republicans as well as those who have already installed parts of the pipeline.

As I understand it the major problem with the Keystone Pipeline is leaks. Even in Canada where there are short stretches of pipeline there have been innumerable leaks and the oil containing muck that flows through these pipes is highly toxic, virtually contaminating the land upon which it leaks, poisoning the water table if it gets into it. The pipeline through the U.S. has been built by assorted entrepreneurs who see a quick profit if it is used and a loss if it is not used. It has been built as cheaply as possible with few, if any shut off valves in case of leaks. These people have contributed to the Republican Party campaigns and expect a return for the investments.

There is also the question of responsibility if or when a leak occurs. Is it the company in Canada that is shipping this toxic muck with the consistency of toothpaste or is it the owner of that particular section of pipeline that is responsible for the damage caused by the leak? I have the feeling that everyone will be blaming everyone else and that the local or federal government will end up being responsible for whatever possible repairs that can be applied. It could take years for the courts to determine responsibility and by then the person or group will apply for bankruptcy. Certainly no one who is adamantly arguing for the pipeline will take responsibility for their decision. It could take years for the courts to determine responsibility and by then the person or group will have disappeared. Certainly no one who is adamantly arguing for the pipeline will take any responsibility for their decision. Or to put it more simply it is the taxpayer who will in the last analysis foot the bill for whatever can be done to bring conditions back to where they were before the leaks.


What I visualize from all this is a basic feeling of spite that a goodly section of the Republican Party has for Barak Obama. It and the rage that accompanies it is a bit psychotic. They blindly hate the President and strongly feel that anything he does or wants is wrong for no other reason than he desires it. Their opposition is based upon hate. How dare a black man oppose them since they now control the Congress! It will be fascinating watching the next two years unfold. Unfortunately a goodly percentage of the population will suffer needlessly.

There will be other issues over the next two years. The Republicans mostly will meet them with fury and frustration. In fact if they get incensed enough they may again shut the government down by refusing to fund it or they may actively try to impeach the President.

By November of 2016 I’m sure the general public will have had a stomach full of Republican gridlock. The 2010 Congress passed the least legislation in the entire history of the existence of the United States Congress. Even far less than when the Congress used to meet in the 19th Century for three or four months a year. The 2012 Congress, not only shut down the government costing the Federal Government several billion dollars but they also passed a fraction of the legislation that the 2010 Congress passed. How much legislation will the new Congress pass. From some of the statements made by Republican congressmen the implication is that the Congress will spend the next two years investigating actions by the Democrats to ascertain if they have broken the law. We would seem to be in for two years of investigating committees all chaired by Republicans.

There is also the issue of the Internet: President Obama backs rules that would force broadband providers to treat all Internet Data the same, regardless of who produces it. The Republicans favor the opposite position. The President also in terms of immigration has agreed with the Chinese president to extend the length of current visas for businessmen, students, and tourists currently in the U.S.

Obama returned to the United States on Monday, November 17. To quote former President Harry S. Truman, “The manure will hit the fan” at that time and continue for the next two years. It should be interesting or horrible to watch.