Primary Matters, Part I

Here in Texas, early voting is already underway for the Primary election. As I’ve said before, if you want to really have an effect, choose the candidates by voting in the Primary.

The Harris County sample ballot
available here

It’s not a big presidential election year, but there’s still quite a lot going on. Among them, for me, is the congressional race for retiring Congressman Ted Poe’s seat. There are nine GOP candidates, so I’ve spent a fair amount of energy trying to decide on that.

I need to go through the whole ballot to prepare myself to vote. And friends have begun asking me for my recommendations. So that is my goal for today and tomorrow.

There are quick ways and longer ways. I’m doing it mostly the long way, with explanations for my decisions. This looks like it is going to take three posts. I’ll try to do them on consecutive days (or even two in a day, if I get done). And I’ll also do the short way: I intend to provide a chart of all my choices in the end. Along the way, I highlight the names of candidates I’m endorsing.

·         Part I will cover the contested statewide races (except judicial).

·         Part II will cover the Congressional District 2 race.

·         Part III will cover the judicial races, any other county races, and the propositions.

US Senator from Texas

Ted Cruz is running for his second term as the junior Senator from Texas. I don’t know a single Republican not supporting him. There are primary challengers, but I have received zero contact from them—not a mailer, not an email. Nothing. I don’t know their purpose in running, but it doesn’t seem even quixotic; it seems insincere and pointless.

Ted Cruz has been doing what we here in Texas have asked him to do. I’d give him a 99+% approval rating—and I can’t think of anything in that imperfect 1%.

Governor

I endorsed Governor Greg Abbott and volunteered to help with his campaign way last July. He has two primary challengers, but I have heard nothing from either. One of them has changed his first name to (all capital letters) SECEDE. This cannot be a serious challenge to our very effective governor.

Lieutenant Governor

Dan Patrick was our state senator prior to his run for Lieutenant Governor. We miss having ready access to him, but he’s been doing a good job. He helped the legislative session go much better than it might have, considering the stonewalling caused by the House Speaker. So, again, I endorse Dan Patrick.

Commissioner of the General Land Office

There has been a tough campaign against incumbent George P. Bush. Much of it revolves around the Alamo. Here’s what I know. I hesitated last time around to vote for yet another Bush (George P. is the son of Jeb Bush, a nephew of George W. and grandson of George H. W.), because I don’t like the idea of ruling families. But George P. Bush was trained and qualified for this specific job, so I voted for him. As far as I’ve seen, he doesn’t have other political aspirations. Since his election, I have followed both the Land Office and the Alamo projects, mainly through a Facebook friend, Bryan Preston—former employee of Laura Ingraham, and was associated with local force Not On This Watch—who went to work for the Land Office.

When Jerry Patterson and others started complaining about “Reimagine the Alamo,” and claiming that they would ruin our history, and take away the importance of the Battle of the Alamo, I looked at the Land Office for original sources to verify. I could not find a single complaint that was valid. And I looked through at least two candidates’ plans for what they would do differently—which, to my view, were essentially point-by-point what the Land Office is doing and has planned to do all along.

I ran all of this past my son, Political Sphere, who has a background to understand some Land Office duties, and he found the same thing I did. So did people he has talked with about the issue. There is no threat to the Alamo. What will happen—and which everyone seems to agree should happen—is an annexation of the property directly in front of the Alamo, including businesses across the street, enlarging the footprint of the landmark, so that they can prevent both traffic and protests from getting in the way of tourists who want to enjoy the iconic front view of the Alamo. 

Here is candidate Rick Range’s “Save the Alamo” campaign site: https://savethealamo.us/ . 

“Save the Alamo” [https://www.facebook.com/reinforcethealamo/] is alternatively the Facebook page  of the General Land Office about the preservation projects of the Alamo. 

Here is a piece by George P. Bush from November about the Alamo projects: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/nov/16/the-alamo-must-be-preserved-for-future-generations/  . He summarizes the master plan with these three purposes: “preserve the Alamo, close the street to restore reverence, and build the world’s largest museum dedicated to the Battle of the Alamo and the Texas Revolution.” This is all designed to preserve and protect our Alamo, and to make a better experience for visitors. 

Here’s a one-minute video from last October:

None of the challengers has the expertise in Land Office work that George P. Bush has. It may be that they are just trying to oust a person where they think their might be an opening for their own careers. I watched a forum where all three opponents spoke, and they seemed to agree that Texas was in for disaster if they couldn’t somehow oust Bush. I kept waiting for facts; there were none forthcoming.

Patterson ran against Dan Patrick last time, for Lieutenant Governor. The main race was between Patrick and Dewhurst, but Patterson attacked from the sides, with innuendo and implication rather than facts. It was unseemly, and while I liked many things he said that were conservative, he lost my respect in that race. So this time, again finding so many accusations that just aren’t true, I doubt I will ever be able to support Patterson for dogcatcher.

Commissioner of Agriculture

There are two challengers to Sid Miller as Ag Commissioner. I know less about this position, but I don’t know of any particular complaints about the job Sid Miller is doing. I looked to advice from friends last time and voted for Miller. Friends who do a fair amount of work to figure these things out are recommending him again. So I’ll vote for him again.

Railroad Commissioner

This job isn’t really about railroads; it’s about energy, including especially oil & gas. There are three commissioners, whose terms come up at alternate times. I supported Christi Craddick last time around. I’ve seen a couple of slates that measure her as less conservative than some. But the issues she’s less conservative on are unrelated to her energy-related job. So I’m willing to give her the benefit of the doubt and vote for her again.

Bring on 2018

It has been quite a year, this 2017!

Here in Houston we had a hurricane with an epic flood of 50+ inches of rain. That was the end of August, just days after a total eclipse across the continent (we only got a partial eclipse here, though). We’re still working on recovery from the flooding here, four months later. But in the meantime a couple more hurricanes made landfall, harming Florida, and then serious damage to Puerto Rico. And fires started burning in the West, everywhere from California to Montana.

Less disastrous for Houston was having the Astros win the World Series, and we had an actual snowstorm a couple of weeks ago. In Houston, that brings on a sort of spontaneous celebration.

In the larger nation, there has also been good news this year. We got a Supreme Court justice, Neil Gorsuch, who actually reads and understands the Constitution. We got a healthy number of other judges appointed that we think will adjudicate according to the law. (One third of all sitting circuit judges were Obama appointees, so there's a ways to go.) We have an ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, who is standing up to that corrupt body of miscreants. ISIS has lost nearly all of its territory. Illegal immigration is down, even without a wall, which is at least an improvement. Unemployment is down, and incomes are beginning to rise.

I don’t know that we can credit President Trump with all of this, but having him in office makes all of those pieces of good news possible, whereas having a Democrat—any Democrat—in office this past year would have meant we would have none of that good news, and probably a lot more bad news that we don’t want to imagine.

A piece from American Thinker, “Trump’s Momentous First Year,” lists Trump’s first year accomplishments, if you’d like something more complete. I’m sure there will be other similar lists as we approach the new year, or the anniversary of inauguration in a few weeks.

But the big good news lately has been about Congress finally passing a tax reform bill, officially called the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. 

Speaker Paul Ryan, after the passing of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
photo by Kevin Dietsch/UPI/Newscom, found here

News surrounding that—because news comes mostly through distorted sources—has been fear-mongering, at best. Nancy Pelosi called it Armageddon. Apparently, Democrats think people will be dying in the streets if they have a little more of their money in their own hands, instead of in government’s clutches. And it’s on the backs of the middle class, they claim. But almost everybody will be getting a tax cut. Those few that aren’t are all above the middle class.

Business Insider offers this estimate, showing what happens in 2018 (and it gets better in 2025): 

   

·         Bottom quintile (Incomes less than $25,000 a year): On average, this group would receive a tax break of $60, increasing after tax incomes by 0.4%. This would account for 1% of the federal tax change. 1.2% of tax units would see an increase in their tax burden, while 53.9% would receive a cut.

·         Middle quintile (Incomes from $49,000 to $86,000): On average, this group would receive a tax break of $930, increasing after-tax incomes by 2.9%. This would account for 11.2% of the federal tax change. 7.3% of tax units would see an increase in their tax burden, while 91.3% would receive a cut.

·         Top quintile (Income of $149,400 and above): On average, this group would receive a tax break of $7,640, increasing after-tax incomes by 1.6%. This would account for 65.3% of the federal tax change. 6.2% of tax units would see an increase in their tax burden, while 93.7% would receive a cut.

·         95th to 99th percentiles (Incomes from $308,000 to $733,000): On average, this group would receive a tax break of $13,480, increasing after-tax incomes by 4.1%. This would account for 22.1% of the federal tax change. 9.3% of tax units would see an increase in their tax burden, while 90.7% would receive a cut.

It’s hard to give tax cuts to people who aren’t paying taxes, so, naturally, people who are paying higher taxes are going to benefit more from a tax cut. Unless you’re really into coveting, that’s understandable and fine with everybody.

So, for the sake of those opposing tax cuts, and the media, and anyone else worried about lessening government’s stranglehold over people’s lives, maybe we need to do a little mini lesson on the related economics of tax cuts.

Taxes are money that the government confiscates by force from its citizens—preferably with the approval of the citizens, to be used for essential government services. Taxes, are, then, the people’s money that has been entrusted to government.

Government only spends money; it does not create wealth. Any “revenue” government generates is actually collecting taxes and tariffs—taking money from the people. So, when we’re talking about a budget, we want it large enough to cover the proper role of government—protecting life, liberty, and property—but not so large that our money is wasted. Early on it was assumed about $20 a year ought to do. Really.

I’ve written a number of times about government overspending [here and here]. We do not have a problem with not bringing in enough tax dollars; we have an overspending problem.

The Laffer Curve
from "The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future," 2004

This tax bill doesn’t address that underlying problem. But cutting taxes is likely to raise government revenue. That’s because of a thing we call the Laffer Curve. [I wrote about it here and here.] According to Laffer’s theory, there’s a sweet spot for getting maximum revenue. Too high or too low and you don’t get that maximum amount. If revenue goes up after a tax cut, then you know taxes were too high.

In complete ignorance of the Laffer Curve, there’s this weird rule requiring any tax cuts to be offset, or “paid for.” The purpose is to keep from increasing the deficit, but it doesn’t really do that. And it’s a futile exercise, since we know from experience what happens when taxes are lowered. Here’s how Philip Bump at the WashingtonPost put it: 

[Speaker Paul] Ryan on Wednesday morning offered his nebulous assessment: “Nobody knows” if the cuts will pay for themselves. That’s true, given the uncertainty that surrounds the models. But that’s a bit like saying “nobody knows” if it’s going to rain when the forecasters say there’s a 90 percent chance: You still will probably grab an umbrella.

So even big government spenders ought to be in favor of lower taxes in order to increase revenue. It’s odd that they don’t; it makes it look like they would rather control larger portions of each individual’s money than have more money to work with.

It has been a rough week for Democrats, who stood against tax cuts for the American people. Afterward, what can they say? “We tried to save you from having more of your own money to spend as you see fit”? Well, they’ve been saying the tax cuts aren’t enough (even though they were against any at all). And they’re complaining that they’re not permanent (they sunset in 10 years, as the Bush tax cuts did, but only if Democrats are in power when the sunset comes).

Bernie Sanders, for example, admitted on CNN that tax cuts for nearly all middle-class American taxpayers “is a very good thing.” But then he added, “That’s why we should have made the tax cuts for the middle class permanent.” Of course, it was the refusal of Democrats to discuss any tax cuts at all that led to the ten-year sunset compromise. So Ted Cruz reached out to Bernie by Twitter, saying, 

I agree, @BernieSanders -- let's make the middle-class tax cuts permanent. Join me, we'll co-sponsor legislation (I've already got it drafted) that does exactly that, and we'll get it passed in January!

One happy detail in the tax cut bill is the elimination of the Obamacare mandate, which, we can hope, will lead to the demise of that monstrosity, hopefully before the demise of the health care sector of our economy.

The best news is that business taxes, which have been the highest in the developed world, were lowered from around 35% to 20%. That’s still quite a lot higher than Ireland (11%) or Russia (12%), where lower business taxes have spurred growth, and would have been a good example to follow, but it’s a good improvement.

There has been some concern that businesses won’t invest the money—that they’re already flush with cash that they’re not putting to use. That isn’t likely true. The Great Recession has gone on too long to keep holding onto money. But there is a hesitation to invest in business when there’s uncertainty—such as regulations being added on that they couldn’t have planned for. But regulatory reform is going pretty well under this administration, so there’s less uncertainty.

Ed Fuelner, at the Heritage Foundation, spread this good news: 

AT&T said it plans to give a $1000 bonus to more than 200,000 employees, and to invest $1 billion in the economy. Boeing announced a $300 million investment. FedEx said it’ll hire more workers, as did CVS—3,000, to be specific. Comcast reacted to the tax bill and to the repeal of net neutrality by saying that 100,000 of its employees will get a $1,000 bonus.

There were others—and more to come, you can be sure. “This is just the first wave of many such stories,” tax expert Adam Michel told The Daily Signal. “These announcements show that businesses across America will put their tax cut to good use.”

We’ll have to wait and see, to know for sure. But, instead of dread going into 2018, we might as well enjoy some hopeful anticipation for a change.

Market Solutions to Health Care Costs

Some of us have been hopeful for a long time (since March 2010 when it was enacted) for the repeal of Obamacare. We don’t even like the idea of “repeal and replace,” because any replacement should not be a different government program; it should be free market solutions. All government needs to do is get the heck out of the way.

But, for those who fall into the pit built by the big government control types, and fear what would happen if you take away the boondoggle that has been foisted upon you, please remember: people had health care before the inaccurately named Affordable Care Act.

As Ted Cruz put it in 2013, in an interview with Mark Levin,

Imagine three years ago, when this was being debated, if President Obama said, “I’ve got a great plan. I’m going to take away the healthcare of 5 million Americans in order to cover 100,000. And while I’m at it, I’m going to jeopardize the healthcare of 100 million Americans who have employer-provided plans…. And while I’m at it, I’m going to cost millions of jobs and force millions of people into part-time work, working 29 hours a week.” Is that a good deal for America? People would have laughed at it. If he’d simply been honest, he would have been laughed out of the room…. Because the only way to sell this law was to mislead the American people.

At this point, we also ought to be honest about what the ACA has really cost us. I’ll leave the data to others for now. But here’s a summary from Casey Mulligan, a University of Chicago economics professor, from a couple of years ago:

In summary, the ACA has three major taxes in it. Two are taxes on full-time employment and the other is a tax on income. They may be implicit, they may be hidden, politicians may not call them taxes, but that’s what they are. Their economic impact on workers varies widely, affecting low-skill workers the most. They create all kinds of productivity problems and will have visible and permanent effects on the economy. I have estimated that employment will be three percent less over the long term because of the ACA, and that national income—or GDP, if you like to think of it that way—will be two percent less. If you look at the productivity costs alone—forgetting the fact that there will be a number of people not working anymore—they come to $6,000 per person who gets health insurance because of the law. And I’m not beginning to count the payments needed for health care providers.

In conclusion, I can make you this promise: If you like your weak economy, you can keep your weak economy.

Doing anything but completely repealing Obamacare is to burden people who ought to have the burden relieved.

There are free market options—options people would be more likely to turn to as government stops forcing a bloated, ugly, expensive, coercive plan on them.

To remind us of one of the free market alternatives, libertarian Tom Woods linked to a previous podcast discussing concierge care, or direct primary care. The guest was Dr. Josh Umbehr. I wrote about his practice in 2013, after an interview he did with Mark Levin.

image from Atlas MD blog

Just to remind us that free market options work, and are already possible, I’d like to share some of the interview with Tom Woods. 

Dr. Umbehr is a primary care physician in Kansas. At the time of the interview, his direct primary care practice was five years old. As he described it, the bulk of what most people need is family medicine. At his practice they pay a flat rate per month based on age, like a gym membership.

I looked up his practice, and it’s $10 per child, $50 per adult age 20-44, $75 a month for age 45-64, and $100 for age 65+. He says,

For that membership you get unlimited home visits, work visits, office visits, technology visits. Not limited by what insurance will pay for. No copay at our office visits. Any procedure we can do in the office is included free of charge, because that is what the membership is covering—just like any equipment at the gym is included in the base membership price. So, stitches, biopsies, joint injections, ultrasounds, bone scans, lung scans, urine testing, strep throat testing, minor surgical procedures—all included for free.

He's talking about a lot of savings, because of wholesale medications, labs, imaging, and pathology, that physicians have access to. Here’s an example:

We ordered some blood work. We have our negotiated cash discounts of usually 95%. And a patient’s blood work was accidentally billed through the insurance rate, because of a computer mistake at the lab, and the price that they were quoted was $1028. We ran that back through our system; it cost $39—a 97% savings by just cutting out the middleman.

He describes how they save enough money just on medications to cover the cost of the membership:

We can dispense medications in Kansas, just like a pharmacist. Forty-four states allow physicians to function like this. And so, I can order the medications wholesale from the same places the pharmacies do. But I can get 1000 blood pressure pills for $8.34. Even after my 10% markup, they’re under a penny a pill. Walmart would literally have to give them away to out-compete us. And if they did, great, we still win. It’s not a value that is a revenue generator for us; we’re adding to the value of the membership.

He makes the comparison to Costco membership, or to Walmart or Amazon, who focus on value for the customer.

These savings have been available for at least a couple of decades. It just takes a doctor to look at a new business model and be willing to try it. He said that in medical school they actually taught that dealing with business was beneath them, something they shouldn’t dirty themselves with. But, if they take an oath to “do no harm,” that ought to include no financial harm. If he can save a patient money while providing better health care, that’s giving more and better life. That’s what doctors should be doing.

Some doctors say it’s hard to get patients just to pay a $20 copay; how would they get their patients to pay $50? Dr. Umbehr lays it out like this:

Netflix to Blockbuster. Netflix figured out how to give me 10,000 videos for $7,  when Blockbuster could only give me 1 for $7. So, if we apply that same innovation to health care, it only stands to reason that we can drastically reduce the cost curve.

The Silicon Valley formula is, you have to be 10x better before the barrier to change is overcome. We’re 20x better.

What about the system as a whole? Is this just helping the few individuals who use it but don’t need much beyond basics? He says no, it helps everyone. For example,

The total cost, if you go back to the last year I have data for—I think it was 2011—the cost for all prescription medications in the US was $263 billion. The cost for all cancer care [prescriptions] was $157 billion. So, if we could, with our wholesale changes, and we can get cancer medicines cheaper. Not all of it. Not everything’s cheap. Some of it is just expensive. But if you get that lower…

We had an example where we had a breast cancer chemotherapy pill that was $600 for every two weeks at the pharmacy and $6 or $7 with us—a literal 99% savings. We gave it to her for free just so that we could say now we provided chemotherapy.

So, if we took, let’s just be minimal and say we only save $157 billion out of that $263 billion of prescription for all the things that are expensive—then we pay for all cancer care.

Besides savings through insurance, administrative costs are also much lower:

The average physician would have 7 employees per doctor to run a practice. We have half of a full-time equivalent per physician—because of less regulation, less red tape, less bureaucracy. That would drive down the cost of care.

More savings examples, for the health care system overall:

One of my favorite examples is Imitrex, a migraine medicine, that at the pharmacy, for the name brand, as I pull it up now $565 cash price, anywhere from $447 to $486 with a coupon; the generic is $260 cash price, as well as $101 that I get for $5—my patient gets for $5, because I don’t need to make revenue off the medication.

I’m trying to make them healthier; I’m trying to save them money; I’m trying to show the value of my membership. So, every month they refill that medicine I’m saving them at least $100. Their membership’s $50; their medicine’s $5. I’m giving them $45 of their life back. That’s life—that’s time, that’s energy.

So, when someone says, well this only works well for the rich or the healthy, that’s ridiculous. This works out best for the sick and the poor. Just like any market, I’m reaching the people most likely to benefit from a food service, or a phone service, or a car service. So, people who want to save money on their medicines and are sick enough to need medicines benefit the most from this system.

So, the government is paying $101 for that medicine, instead of the $5 that it should be.

Dr. Umbehr’s practice, in Kansas, is Atlas MD. They also have a blog, and offer free help to other physicians wanting to try this business model.

I looked online for something nearby. Searching “direct primary care” I didn’t get anything closer than Austin. But “concierge care Houston” came up with at least one possibility not too far away with four physicians.

I’m also interested in health savings accounts. In fact, Dr. Umbehr recommends using health savings accounts and a catastrophic high deductible insurance policy in addition to his practice for full coverage at the lowest cost.

If we want everyone to be provided good quality health care at affordable costs, we need to do exactly opposite of the Affordable Care Act: repeal government interference, and replace it with the free market.

Pledges and When They're Broken

There were 16 better options as our candidate for president. And there was one option who actually believes in the Constitution—which the president takes an oath to uphold and defend. So it might be relevant if we look at oath upholding.

The original 17 candidates
Image from here

The question of the week is whether Ted Cruz broke an oath to endorse Donald Trump as the nominee.

Let’s go back to when that “oath,” or pledge, was made. It was a question put to the candidates by liberal moderators of a debate. The question was whether or not Donald Trump would at some point up and leave the party he was newly and only tangentially connected to. (Was it a coin toss that made him decide to run as a Republican instead of something else as in previous half-hearted runs?)

In August 2015 Trump said he wouldn’t promise, and then in September he said he would if everyone else did, depending on whether he was “treated fairly” by the party—which he would judge for himself. There was also a signed statement by each of the candidates saying they would remain Republican supporters, and it included the phrase “endorse the nominee” without defining what that meant. Again, the purpose was to prevent Trump from manipulating everyone and then going third party.

And this past spring, when Cruz had momentum and was additionally acquiring delegates at state conventions, Trump declared that this was unfair and all promises were off.

Right now everyone is declaring that endorse means going out and making an explicit statement of endorsement—or pledging a vote and encouraging others to vote with you. But it does not necessarily mean “I will come out and express my endorsement at the convention, so help me God.” It was a promise of fealty to the party, and to not undermine the nominee. This could mean simply not fighting against, not leading his followers to rebel, not spending his money to continue the fight against. And especially it means to continue to support the Republican Party, including other GOP candidates in various other races.

So far, the only one who threw out his pledge was Donald Trump. Along with that he has thrown out the principles of the party and made everything about him. And so far he has done next to nothing to support other Republicans down the ballot. Cruz has been keeping that pledge.

In addition, Trump followed up what was seen as a successful convention—not with revitalized energy to go against the Democrat opponent, but with a vendetta to take out his final two rivals: Ted Cruz and John Kasich—governor of the state where the GOP Convention was safely and successfully held.

Trump intends to put $10-20 million each in Super PACs to defeat Cruz in his 2018 reelection bid for US Senate and John Kasich for his next run as Governor of Ohio. Not because either of them has betrayed the party and its principles, but because Trump is personally offended that they both believed they would make a better president than he would, and refused, after defeat, to bow down to him and tell the American people to vote for him.

This isn’t about broken promises—because Trump is the only one breaking promises here. This is about a vendetta against anyone who refuses to be submissive to him.

People have been accusing Cruz this past week of holding a grudge and breaking promises. So I’d like to go back over the events to see whether that’s true.

Trump spent months calling Ted Cruz “Lyin’ Ted,” saying it so often that his followers took it up as true, when Ted Cruz is one of the most honest people in politics today. Where did it come from?

On February 1^st, in the evening, just before the Iowa caucus began, Chris Moody of CNN tweeted the news that Ben Carson was possibly suspending his campaign; the Carson campaign had actually said the candidate was going home to Florida and then would show up in DC a few days hence for the prayer breakfast It was at a time when the various campaigns were moving to New Hampshire; and to go home at that point appeared to the politically savvy (i.e., anyone outside the Carson campaign) to be a pre-announcement for dropping out. CNN announced the news on TV, including words on the screen, at 6:45 PM. Someone on the Cruz campaign—as well as someone on the Rubio campaign and probably others—passed along the news report to caucus goers—including the CNN screen shot.

CNN, about twenty minutes later, sent out a follow-up saying the report that Carson was dropping out was an error. By then the caucus was underway. Things were loud and chaotic. There wasn’t any verbal awareness of the tweets either way. There is no evidence, based on polling before and after, that the tweets had any effect on the outcome (Carson did better than polling predicted but still came in fourth). Not a single caucus-goer was found who had changed a vote away from Carson based on the mistaken report.

But Cruz was blamed for passing along the erroneous CNN report. He apologized later that no one had followed up with the retraction in the heat of the moment—an apology that I think was beyond reasonable expectation and was never required of anyone else, including CNN.

Carson said he lost the state because of dirty tricks and blamed Cruz (apparently forgetting the drubbing he got from Trump a couple of months earlier, which effected his slide in the polls). Trump seized on Carson’s accusation and started calling Cruz “Lyin’ Ted.” Cruz hadn’t lied. He hadn’t been involved in any falsehood at all. Nor did the CNN error affect the outcome in the state. And Cruz was more gracious than he needed to be.

But Trump continued the “Lyin’ Ted” theme, because he likes nicknames for anyone he dislikes.

In late March, Trump people put out the accusation that Ted Cruz was guilty of multiple marital infidelities—something Trump is known for, and something no one believed about Cruz. It was painful, but it passed, because Cruz has lived his life in such a way that no such accusation could gain traction.

But there’s more Trump-to-Cruz mudslinging.

In 2000, before they were married, and before he thought he might make her first lady, Trump oversaw a photography session of Melania posing nude, which were published in Britain’s GQ Magazine. So when an anti-Trump (not pro-Cruz) Super PAC found and published the photo, Trump claimed that it was a Cruz Super PAC doing Cruz’s bidding (which would be illegal and Trump had to know it hadn’t happened). Trump immediately sent out an unflattering photo of Heidi Cruz, a snapshot caught mid-blink or other expression, side-by-side with a professional glamor shot of Melania, and commented on how much better looking his wife was than Cruz’s. And not content to stop there, he threatened to reveal bombshell accusations about Heidi’s mental health and/or infidelity.

Trump supporters say Cruz started it, and so of course Trump simply responded. But Cruz didn’t start it. Nor did Cruz threaten or sue or otherwise respond with histrionics and cruelty; he showed his righteous anger at the attack on his wife, called Trump a coward, and then went about his campaign with greater resolve.

Then, at a time when Trump knew the internal polling showed him winning in Indiana, which was something of a final stand for Cruz, he gratuitously attacked Ted Cruz’s father, claiming a grainy photo of JFK’s killer with a Hispanic-looking person next to him was Ted Cruz’s father, a story dug up by the National Inquirer (run by a Trump friend, and claimed by Trump to be a reliable news source).

Remember, there was no strategic reason for the hit piece; Trump already knew he was winning. And of course there was no validity. Trump is simply a beast.

Between Cruz’s suspending his campaign and the convention, there continued to be talk from the disheartened about a coup at the convention. But that did not come from Cruz. He was silent on all of that and went back to the Senate—where he has worked on keeping the internet free and fighting various other Obama extralegal power grabs.

Should Cruz have changed his mind about Trump’s unworthiness to be president after all the sleazy attacks? Trump didn’t apologize, didn’t reach out to Cruz, didn’t broaden his attraction to win over Cruz supporters. Trump even went so far as to say he didn’t want anyone in the party who didn’t fully support him.

So then we had the convention. Trump has party officials doing his bidding, and they silence the floor, claiming it’s to keep people from changing the rules to stage a coup (which was not going to happen). He had asked Ted Cruz to speak, knowing there would be no endorsement.  Note that not all the other speakers endorsed. Some just spoke on their topics and went on their way.

Cruz didn’t have to speak at all. Governor Kasich didn’t attend—in his own state. But Cruz took the opportunity to speak on the superiority of conservative Constitutional principles over the failures of the socialist Democrats. Seems like a reasonable, even essential, message for a Republican convention.

But the failure to explicitly endorse in the speech is being used by Trump as a reason for more venom. He orchestrated the boos. He stirred up the controversy—when people who had heard the speech cheered and approved the message. Frank Luntz’s focus group gave it very high ratings.

Trump could have reacted by thanking Cruz for his support—meaning support of the party—and it would have been enough, and maybe won him some Cruz supporters.

Instead he has reiterated the story about Cruz’s father being involved in the JFK assassination—rallying the GOP chair to join in on that bullying. And Trump vows to take out Cruz and Kasich—because they don’t even belong in the party, or in public life.

Who lies? Who holds a grudge? Who fails to keep his word? Trump.

And who bullies others into submission? Trump.

Anyone out there who is claiming Cruz is petty and unforgiving doesn’t know Cruz. And anyone who thinks Trump’s hateful bullying has been justified because of the slights he has suffered needs to realign their entire moral compass, because it’s off kilter.

As of today, Trump is leading in the polls. I’m not writing this to change that. A rat with bubonic plague ought to be leading Hillary Clinton in the polls. She is the worst Democrat party candidate in the history of the United States.

But that does not mean that the worst candidate in the history of the Republican Party would be good for the country. He may win. But it will have to be without Cruz's submission. Or mine.

But that does not mean the worst candidate in the history of the Republican Party would be good for the country. He may win. But it will have to be without Cruz’s submission. Or mine.

Establishment and Grassroots

Sometimes there are words we assume we understand, but that aren’t clearly or easily defined. Establishment and grassroots are two of these. They are supposedly opposite, but lately establishment has been used as an epithet to silence disagreement from elsewhere in the grassroots, which is the exact opposite of what grassroots is about. So, let’s define and examine for clarity.

The term Establishment identifies an amorphous controlling elite. Lately this refers to those in the Republican Party, particularly in Washington, DC, who have a different agenda than the rank-and-file Republican citizen. Assumed to belong are the party leadership and leadership in the US Congress and Senate. Sometimes Paul Ryan, recently chosen to replace John Boehner as House Majority Leader, is included, and sometimes he’s exempted. He was chosen because he was acceptable to both the establishment and the non-establishment.

But it can’t be that being in a particular position automatically makes someone establishment. That would require, instead, some beliefs and attitudes in addition to position. Otherwise it would be pointless to try to elect people who share grassroots ideas into positions of leadership.

So, for our purposes, maybe we need to identify the beliefs and attitudes. There’s not an overriding authority, so this is from my observations.

The GOP Establishment consists of House and Senate members, sometimes including leadership, who focus on party power more than on party purpose—plus some lobbyists, crony capitalists, and various opinion makers who share an agenda with the rest of the establishment. Sometimes the difference in beliefs is as slight as wanting to go the right direction, but wanting to do it slowly and incrementally rather than suddenly. In other words, change slowly rather than radically.

But sometimes it’s more a matter of wanting to keep the status quo—quite a lot of power in Washington, DC, regardless of authority from the Constitution. And sometimes it’s a matter of going along with Democrat ideas because the media makes it seem that is what the public wants, so, to maintain power, going that direction but slower than the Democrats go there.

Staying where we are or going further the wrong direction are not acceptable to the grassroots.

Came across this on Facebook;
can't locate origin, but found here

Grassroots ideas, or political movements or campaigns, start and grow from the local community. This includes the grassroots of a party. I need to repeat that: the grassroots include ideas, movements, and campaigns within a party. The definition includes where the movement comes from: from local people in communities. They share the idea—or word about a candidate—with friends. This could look like local clubs and meetings, like my local Tea Party, where we hear from candidates and speakers, plus share ideas with each other. Or it could be what we do at precinct meetings, when we elect delegates for the next level up and propose ideas that we’d like to have included in the party platform. It might also include sharing our opinions on social media, or going around to people in our precinct to get them educated and registered to vote.

Grassroots ideas tend to come from people dissatisfied with the status quo. So they’re likely to disagree with any establishment in the “maintain our own power” camp of keeping the status quo.

Grassroots in the Republican Party is conservative in ways outside the status quo box. The Grassroots want smaller government—like you’d get if you actually followed the Constitution. Grassroots want lower taxes and less government spending. And less regulation interfering with innovation and entrepreneurship. Or interference with personal beliefs and opinions—like those listed in the First Amendment and the other Bill of Rights amendments.

It’s possible for grassroots movements to be extreme. Most associated with Democrats are. But it is not extreme to value the basic law of our country—the Constitution.

Grassroots tend to be made up of people committed to their communities, and to taking action to make things better. So, at the local level—precinct chairs, for example—you’re likely to find conservative grassroots ideas being shared around.

At least that has been my experience everywhere I’ve been involved. I started going to precinct conventions (by another name in a different state) as soon as I was old enough to vote. I first became a delegate to a county convention in 1984. Then we lived briefly in a couple of states where I never figured out how to get involved. Then, in yet another state, Mr. Spherical Model became a precinct chair. Both of us were delegates at the county convention. He went to the state convention several times. In Texas I started attending precinct conventions—and district and state conventions—as soon as I figured out how. And now I’m a precinct chair.

So I’m involved in my party. And I have been for decades. When the Tea Party showed up in 2010, I started attending, to make connections and to educate myself as a voter. But it has turned out that I also get to express my opinions quite a lot. During the past three legislative sessions I’ve led a group of us in following legislation and expressing our opinions to Texas lawmakers as citizen lobbyists.

Not all Tea Party people have been involved as long as I have. Some just woke up after Obama’s election and imposition of atrocities like Obamacare. And we have a range of opinions, although I’d say they’re nearly all in the Republican-to-Libertarian range, with not much (if any) overlap with the Democrat-to-Socialist range.

But the reason for my post today comes from a misunderstanding—or misrepresentation being exploited—by some newer to politics who think anyone involved with parties is corrupt establishment.

Some of this misrepresentation comes directly from the Trump campaign, which might indicate whether it’s actually grassroots or not. But they’re trying to convince the relatively new “activist” followers of Trump that no one who disagrees can be trusted.

About a contested convention, which happens if no candidate gets over 50% of the total delegates before the convention, there are no “brokers,” or establishment powers who get to override all those delegates and the voters who sent them to the convention.

On the first ballot, the delegates from most states are required to vote for the candidate they’re assigned to as a result of primary voting. Some states require the delegate to remain with that candidate for more than one ballot.

But when no candidate wins a majority of delegates on the first ballot, many—probably most—are free to vote their personal choice on the next ballot. And the next. Until a candidate wins a majority. There’s no stealing involved. The delegate was elected because of his/her leanings. Elected by delegates at lower levels, reaching to the most local grassroots.

Of the remaining candidates, longtime grassroots Republicans are much more likely to choose Ted Cruz, because he is a Constitutional conservative. He has reached out to those delegates and their grassroots support—in every state—and has given them his message and asked for their vote. And he has worked to find like-minded grassroots workers to run to become delegates.

It’s not a game. But it is a process. And he has shown respect for the grassroots through this process. Whereas Donald Trump has carried out a mostly-free-media top-down campaign with little attention offered to grassroots politics.

It wouldn’t matter whether Washington insiders actually wanted Trump to be their candidate; if a majority of the delegates do not want him (and he hasn’t won a majority coming in to the convention), he doesn’t get to be the nominee.

It is a grassroots decision.

It’s informative that some of those who are just recently awake to the dire condition of the country, who haven’t been participating in the grassroots for very long, might be skeptical and cynical about everyone and everything that disagrees with them.

But people involved for quite a while—people who are familiar with the Constitution, and are fully engaged in searching for leaders committed to lower taxes, less government interference in our lives, and protection of our God-given rights—are not inclined to support a candidate who blusters about some of those things but has no coherent plan to get us there. And no record of believing in the things that will get us there. And lacking the character that would show any actual change of heart.

In summary, I’ve been involved a long time—at the grassroots level only. I do not support Trump, specifically because I am a grassroots conservative who loves the Constitution. Calling people like me establishment because I have participated with the party and do not support Trump is ignorant both of the process of growing ideas, and of the strength of the grassroots desire to return to the Constitution.

And I support Ted Cruz because I am a grassroots conservative who loves the Constitution. We grassroots have been praying and watching for such a consistent Constitutional conservative for lifetimes.

I know and trust the grassroots around me here in Texas. We’re somewhat dependent on the grassroots elsewhere. But I have watched Ted Cruz reach out to others like me, and others respond to him as I have. So now it’s time to spread that word in our own grassroots communities. And then trust that what needs to happen for the sake of our beloved country will happen.

The Tax Day Flood

It’s tax filing deadline day—an extension from the usual April 15^th. We’re having a flood here in Houston, from storms all night long. Several hours during the night we got 2-3 inches of rain per hour. In our neighborhood we got 15.6 inches overnight, double what we got during Tropical Storm Allison. The nearby bayou went over its banks; it’s a 500-year flood level. Our neighborhood, relatively new, is built up several feet about street level, so we’re safe. But a number of neighbors and people we know from church have some flooding. And the main street we have to take to get out of the neighborhood has flooded.

Houston's Tax Day Flood
photo from Houston Chronicle reader, here

This afternoon we’re having a bit of a reprieve between storms that are predicted throughout the week. That should give the water a chance to flow into the reservoirs down the road. We’re the bayou city for a reason; bayous (i.e., drainage ditches) are in and around every neighborhood. Because heavy rains happen here. So we’ve planned for them. And, when whatever we do is not enough and flooding happens, we dig in and help each other out.

There ought to be some metaphor in here about taxes. One might be that we’ve been suffering something of an economic catastrophe since around late 2008—that’s eight years. At last there are signs of the bad stuff letting up in the not-too-distant future.

I’m looking at the possibility that we could get lower taxes, simpler taxes, higher growth—all the things that happen when the government gets out of the way. These things might just happen, if we get the Ted Cruz tax plan.

It’s a simple plan. He put out an ad this past week, explaining it in one minute:

You can read the summary on his website. 

On Friday Ted Cruz appeared on CNBC’s Squawkbox, where he talked about his tax plan with Joe Scarborough and team. It was a good opportunity to hear what the outcome for the economy will be of this simple plan. So I’m sharing a few portions of it.

Joe Scarborough starts the conversation asking about economic growth.

Ted Cruz: Growth is foundational. My number one priority is growth. Every other problem we’ve got, whether it’s unemployment, the debt, the deficit. Whether it is strengthening and preserving social security and Medicare, or whether it is rebuilding our military and keeping us safe—you’ve got to have growth to make it work. And we have been trapped in stagnation for the seven years. And if we don’t turn that around, nothing else gets fixed….

Historically, since WWII, our country has grown an average of 3% per year. And yet from 2008 to today it’s averaged only 1.2% a year. If we stay at… this level of growth, these problems are not solvable….

My economic agenda is focused very directly on growth, because if you get back to historic levels, 3, 4, 5% growth, suddenly the federal government numbers turn around dramatically….

Joe S is concerned about what looks like a global problem and asks about that. Ted Cruz responds with examples from history, from Coolidge, to JFK, to Reagan, where the right policies turned things around.

TC: Taxation reform and regulatory reform are the two most potent levers that the government has. In the 1960s, John F. Kennedy did the same thing. In the 1980s Ronald Reagan did the same thing. We have three periods in the past century, the 20s, the 60s, and the 80s, and in every one when we passed tax reform and regulatory reform, when we reduce the burdens of government on small businesses—and small businesses are critical; they’re the job creators; they’re the innovators; they’re the catalysts—the result has been record-shattering growth. We just need to do what works.

At 13 minutes in, Ted Cruz gets to describe the actual tax plan.

TC: My tax plan is simple. It is a simple flat tax. For a typical family of four, for the first $36,000 you earn, you pay nothing. Zero income tax. Zero payroll tax. Nothing. Above $36,000, each marginal dollar you pay a simple flat tax of 10%.… Everyone pays the exact same….

Another difference, by the way, no longer do you have any differential rates between ordinary income and dividends or cap gains…. Everything’s 10%, which means people actually allocate capital based on where it’s efficient, rather than on what the tax laws say, because the tax laws are neutral to everything.

And then, on the business side, we abolish the corporate income tax. As you know we have the most punitive corporate income tax of any developed country in the world. We abolish the Obamacare taxes. We abolish the payroll taxes, which are the single biggest tax most working Americans pay. And we abolish the death tax, which is a tremendously unfair and punitive tax on farmers, on ranchers, on small businesses. And we replace all of those with a simple 16% business flat tax.

And the effect is an incredible catalyst for job creation and wages going up, and bringing jobs back to America. That’s my priority: high-priced jobs coming back to America, wages going up for everyone.

When government people score a plan, they give a number on what it will cost. But they assume the tax cut will do nothing but reduce government revenue. That is called static scoring. Ted Cruz gets to talk about that, and offers a more likely dynamic scoring scenario.        

                                                                                                                             

TC: I suspected you might say that, so I actually printed out a comparison of tax plans that was done by the Tax Foundation. The Tax Foundation is a nonprofit…. It is nonpartisan, and it scores everybody’s plan. If you look at it the way they score it, in terms of the cost—Now, the static cost is $3.6 trillion; that’s a lot of money. But scoring it static is assuming that cutting taxes has no impact on the economy—that doesn’t make any sense. I mean, that is an Alice-in-Wonderland scoring.

If you score it with dynamic scoring, which is, you take into effect what is going to happen when you cut taxes, then the total cost of this plan is $768 billion. It’s less than a trillion. If you contrast that, for example, to Donald Trump’s plan, Donald’s plan costs over $10 trillion. So mine is less than a trillion…. And the difference is, even though Donald’s is more than ten times as expensive as mine is, my tax plan produces more economic growth. 4.9 million new jobs, coming from this capital investment, increases 44%.

One of the big reasons is that any business, when you invest in capital, it’s immediately deductible. No longer do you have complicated depreciation tables. None of that matters. If you make a capital expenditure, you immediately expense it. That is a powerful catalyst for growth.

And then, the most exciting thing about it is just the impact on after-tax wages, take-home pay. Every income group, from the very poorest to the very richest sees a double-digit in after-tax pay. The average family in America under the Cruz simple flat tax will take home $7600 dollars more. Seven thousand six hundred dollars. That’s real money that makes a difference for someone struggling to make ends meet

Around 34 minutes into the conversation, Joe Scarborough brings in economist Art Laffer. Laffer, best known for the Laffer Curve, advised Reagan back in the day, and has helped Cruz in developing his plan. He is asked whether he can verify this “dynamic scoring.”

Art Laffer: Of course dynamic scoring’s the right way to do it, Joe…. I did watch the other segment. I thought Ted did a great job of explaining exactly how it works and what the dynamics of it would be—except that I think he underestimated the dynamics that will occur.

If you look at his tax plan, it makes Reagan’s tax plan look weak, in the 1980s. I would expect to see a greater growth rate, not only because Obama is worse than Jimmy Carter, but because this tax plan is even better than Reagan’s. It’s would take the top rate down to 16% on businesses and 10% on individuals. And I think you’ll get growth rates higher than Reagan’s, which were enormous, Joe. You’ve got 6, 7, 8% real growth annualized on a quarterly basis in the years ‘83, ‘84. And in a number of the quarters you’ll get more than that. Our economy is relatively much worse off than it was even under Jimmy Carter.

There’s some discussion about the excuses, relating to the Fed, about why this recession is supposedly different from all others, and then Ted Cruz is brought back in.

TC: I agree with Art that the numbers that were estimated, if anything they’re underselling the GDP impact. My object is a minimum of 5% GDP growth. And I would note JFK, when he campaigned, he campaigned promising 5% GDP growth, and he ended up producing 5% GDP growth. 

AL: And the tax revenues were much higher too. He went into surplus because of economic growth.

TC: That is exactly right. And the wealthy ended up paying more. When you cut the tax rates, the wealthy paid a higher percentage of taxes.

Art, tell us, what would the impact be on the economy? What would the impact be on working men and women, if we had four years or eight years of 5% GDP growth, instead of the stagnant 1 and 2% we’ve got right now?

AL: Well, the impact would be huge. I mean, the biggest driver of tax revenues, Ted, is GDP growth.

But what very few people have talked about on your plan, and, if I may, is the revenue impact on cities, counties, local districts, and state budgets would be enormous as well. And no one’s even looking at that.

The impact on income redistribution would be also huge. I mean, John F. Kennedy put it so beautifully—you referred to Kennedy, and he was my hero—John F. Kennedy said the best form of welfare is still a good high paying job. And creating those jobs will reduce inequality dramatically. And that will lead to more prosperity everywhere.

So you’re going to have much higher revenue impact. I think you’re going to get even higher growth rates than 5%. And you’re going to reduce inequality. What’s not to love in this plan?

Indeed. What’s not to love?

But would those good outcomes really happen? I think they would. I remember the Reagan years, which is helpful. But I think hearing from business people is helpful. I came across a five-minute video by businessman/speaker Ryan Moran, in which he talks about the so-called “fair share” he has to pay. He holds up a check for $170,000 he’s paying in taxes. This is not his tax bill; he paid the estimated tax in December. This is just the overage, by which he was off. He explains a bit about what he’s paying. And then he talks about what he could do with that money.

Now what could a businessperson do with $170,000? You know what I would like to do? Hire more people. I’d love to hire three highly paid people at $55,000, or five people at $35,000. But I can’t. ‘Cause it’s going to the government…. I’d love to put it back into a business, or back into people….

So the government can’t just create things out of thin air. It has to take—it has to take— from what would be productive: hiring people, investing into more products and services, creating better experiences for customers, putting into a college fund for my ten-month-old daughter. Any of that would be a better use.

But, no. People got to pay their “fair share.”

It’s not just speculation. People really do make better use of their money than government does.

I like that a 10% flat tax is pretty similar to what God does, with tithing. Let’s limit what government takes from us, and limit what government does with the tax money it gets—to the powers enumerated in the Constitution. 

Let the government-caused catastrophes end. And then watch us thrive.

Being the Arbiter

ar∙bi∙ter  noun  1. A person selected to judge a dispute; umpire; 2. a person fully authorized or qualified to judge or decide

There are two sides to every disagreement. Not necessarily equivalent sides. Sometimes one side is in the right and the other is in the wrong.

If we are in the position of being the arbiter, we do harm if we dismiss the differences. All of us at some point are the arbiter—the authority needed to make a just ruling among disputing parties. So today’s post is about learning to be a good one.

Example 1: You are the parent of two children who are quarreling—at least at the point you arrive on the scene. Both kids are giving you their side.

found here

Sister: “He took my cookie.”

Brother: “No, I didn’t.”

Sister: “He did. Look. He’s still eating it.”

Brother: “It was my cookie, not hers.”

Sister: “He took his already. I was going to eat it right after I finished my lunch.”

Brother: “It was just sitting there; everyone was done. One cookie left—I took it.”

Sister: “He knew it was mine.”

At some point you get tired of hearing the complaints. You stop listening to the details, and just want it to stop.

Parent: “No more cookies for either of you the rest of the day. You don’t deserve any if you’re going to fight over them.”

Parent sees the argument has been silenced and breathes a sigh of relief. Brother smirks at sister; he’s finishing his second cookie, and she gets none. Sister gets no cookie, because hers was stolen. And she has learned that she cannot trust the arbiter to deal with the injustice to make things right for her.

Example 2: Big guy walks down the school hallway, bumps into little guy, knocks him aside, gives a little extra nudge and causes him to drop his books. This is the third time in a week this exact thing has happened.

Little guy: “Hey! Cut it out, you jerk!

Big guy (stops): “You talking to me.”

Little guy (stands up after picking up mess—says nothing, just glares).

Big guy: “You need help with those things?” (knocks books again, blocks a punch from Little guy, then tries to punch him.)

Fight ensues. Other students surround them in a growing circle. A teacher steps out of a classroom. Tries to step between them to break up the fight.

Teacher: “Hey. Stop! No fighting allowed.”

Big guy: “He started it.”

Little guy: “He started it. He knocked my books to the floor—twice.”

Big guy: “He punched me.”

Little guy: “After he’s been shoving me around.”

Teacher: “I don’t want to hear it. No fighting allowed at school. Both of you—straight to the principal’s office.” (Walks them there.)

The teacher stopped the fight; he’s satisfied. Big guy and Little guy will both get reprimanded equally by the principal, because of the “no fighting” rule. So the Big guy has done additional damage to Little Guy without much effort or risk. The Little guy gets punished because he stood up to a bully after being victimized several times.

What would a just arbiter do in these circumstances?

·         Pay attention.

·         Hear both sides.

·         Weigh the evidence.

·         Make a wise judgment.

·         Base consequences on what actually happened.

That may be more challenging than it looks, since judging whether a person is lying is a somewhat rare skill. But these are kids. You ought to be able to ascertain some truth, if you’re attentive and caring.

Some years ago I read about a family (too long ago for me to know how to cite the story) that held court. If a contention came up during the day, Mom could ask if this was something they wanted to take before the court of Dad. When Dad got home on these days—maybe after dinner—he would hold court around his desk. Each child in turn would present his side, including evidence, and possibly testimony from witnesses. Sometimes the true wrongdoer just gave up. But just about without fail, the Dad court could tell, after hearing both sides and paying attention to the evidence presented, what really happened. And then he could mete out consequences.

He did those five steps. And the result was that whoever was in the wrong (like the cookie stealer) would be held accountable. The one who got her cookie stolen would feel vindicated and supported. Right and wrong are put safely in their places. Both kids are better off for it.

At school it’s a little more challenging—yet another reason to homeschool. Still, a lot depends on what the teacher does, and follow that with what the principal does. If the principal assumes both are equally guilty, because of the no fighting rule, then she has been unfair to the victim of the bully, and she hasn’t done anything to reform the bully.

Wouldn’t it be better if the principal heard both sides—possibly separately—and heard from witnesses when possible? Maybe look at the record (chances are a bully, in a school with a just arbiter, would have a record). Then the bully might even learn what kind of behavior is unacceptable among civilized people—which ought to be an important part of education.

So, what about bigger, grown-up challenges?

Example 3: Israel exists in a country about the size of New Jersey, surrounded by enemies, subject to frequent, continual attacks. The “Palestinians” have been refugees since 1948, when they joined with the enemies of Israel to annihilate Israel—but they lost. They think they should be let back in to the country they tried to do away with. Generations pass with them failing to assimilate anywhere and continuing to blame Israel.

So you have one side that attacks innocent civilians, then sets up circumstances to make it nearly impossible to fight back without harming innocents, by using schools and hospitals and population centers as their military attack points. And the other side is totally defensive, and goes beyond what anyone should expect to avoid harming civilians.

Anyone who says the two sides are equivalent and ought to just learn to get along hasn’t taken the steps to be a just arbiter.

Who is the arbiter? In this case, it is individuals, like us, as well as the nation we belong to. The current leader of our country is not a just arbiter. That does damage to the small country in the Middle East that has heretofore been our ally. Without paying attention, hearing both sides, and weighing the evidence, there’s not much chance of making a wise judgment, let alone leading to a just consequence.

Example 4: A political candidate (Trump) makes personal, untrue attacks on all of his opponents in turn, as each one seems to become a threat. Another candidate (Cruz) consistently stays on the message of issues, comparing plans, persuading based on law and principle. Trump sees the comparison, using his own words along with video of himself saying things, as an attack. And he attacks back—without truth, without shame, without limits (admittedly, so far no murder that we’re aware of).

This past week there was an exchange that included the candidates’ wives. Trump’s current wife worked as a model. Back before they were married she did a nude photo shoot for GQ Magazine—the essential bikini parts are covered, but it’s obvious she’s unclothed, and it’s meant to be provocative. She made a living that way back then. It’s available out there on the internet, but I’m not linking to it. (I heard that the shoot took place on Trump’s jet, with his approval. Don’t know how to verify that.)

If it’s in print, it still exists. That’s what published means. Besides back issues available online, libraries out there keep back issues of practically everything. So it’s not surprising that the photo surfaced. It was used in an anti-Trump ad—a single-frame internet picture with words over it, saying something like, “Is this who you want as First Lady?” If Trump is so proud of his sexual exploits, and his wife’s body, then he should be expected to just say, “Yeah,” and shrug his shoulders. But he didn’t. He used it as a political media opportunity.

He accused Ted Cruz of running the ad. He didn’t—it was an anti-Trump PAC (political action committee). Then Trump said they did it because Cruz told them to. Cruz couldn’t—besides it not being a Cruz committee, law prevents any interaction between a candidate and a PAC.

Before blaming Cruz, Trump immediately retaliated with a threat of bad news he was ready to spill about Heidi Cruz. Shortly after that turned out to be a photo of Heidi, taken mid-sentence and mid-blink, side-by-side with a professional head shot of Melania. Trump not only implied that Heidi was ugly by comparison, he stated it bluntly. 

And then, a day or two later, suddenly there are accusations that Ted Cruz has had, count ‘em, five affairs with women. In my opinion, the accusation is laughably false. No woman will verify. The story comes through the National Enquirer, purveyor of lies for profit, which happens to be owned by a Trump friend.

Cruz's response to the attack; it looked at the time
Trump was involved, which may prove true. But little
has been said by Cruz about it since. Found here.

Trump immediately says it wasn’t him, but that “Lyin’ Ted Cruz” will have to deal with it himself. Stories are starting to build the case against Trump on this, but it may be that someone who supports him or simply hates Cruz put out the accusation without Trump’s direct involvement—in which case Trump would see himself as innocent, even though he insists Cruz was responsible for the actions of an unrelated Super Pac. Hmmm. 

And on radio Monday in Wisconsin,  Trump reiterated his reason for the escalation of personal attacks to include family: “He started it.”

So it has been frustrating to hear multiple media sources, typically supposed conservatives, complain about all the bickering—and that it’s both sides’ fault. They should just get together and get along.

That, to me, sounds like an unjust arbiter. They have not paid attention. They have not noticed the overwhelming evidence that one side is a lying, manipulative narcissist whose campaign is based on, “Vote for me; I’ll make America great again, but don’t ask for details, just believe me that I will do it,” while belittling women, talk show hosts, all of his opponents, and anyone who disagrees with him. And the other is an expert on the issues related to our constitutionally protected freedoms and how returning to the Constitution will bring us a return to the freedom and prosperity we expect in America—a promise given while being scrupulously against personal attacks on his opponents—up until the attack on his wife.

If you’re a Republican voter, you’re an arbiter in this case. You need to pay attention, hear both sides, weigh the evidence, and make a wise judgment. If you do that, you will definitely know better than to send a crude, vulgar, self-obsessed bully to the White House. You might instead consider sending a very smart, very accomplished and principled man there.

If you’re in a position to judge—and you are, in many circumstances in your life—then be a just arbiter.