Six Seconds to Live

The WSJ had an OPED of the above title recently. Part of a speech given by now WH Chief of Staff, Kelly.

Last week there was lots of turmoil about the words used by President Trump to console the wife of a Soldier killed in the middle east. Trump asked Kelly what to say and tried his best to put those words into his own. Well, the words were heard by a Congresswoman who was riding with the wife and she then criticized Trump for his tone and words.

Take a moment to read the WSJ piece. Kelly Six Seconds to Live. General Kelly knows of what he speaks, yes, he spent most his adult life in the Marine Corps and thus dealt with death  on a regular basis. Consoling loved ones and being consoled when his son was killed.

Did Trump do right by calling, absolutely. Were his words perfect? The conversation was not recorded so we live with what the congresswoman and the bereaved wife reported. Who knows how to console perfectly? I am not sure anyone does, but does the effort count? Absolutely.

Instead of criticizing how the message was delivered in such times of sorrow, how about having some decency and not comment. The congresswoman should be ashamed of herself, if the wife wanted to come out with a comment, that’s her right. The congresswoman is using another’s grief to attack another politician; it is just gross, smarmy, low down, worthless, unseemly and many more “Roget’s” synonyms.

Respect seems to have left the public domain. Make your point with facts then enter into a conversation about differences. This applies to both sides.

NHS Refuses Care

The health care mess continues. The Bernie followers want single payer. Talk to the those using the VA, see how they like it. “But ours will be better they say.”

Britain has had single payer since they threw out Winston CHurchill immediately after he won WWII.  An OP-ED in the WSJ on October 24th is  attached, NHS Refuses Treatment. Although I actually agree that if a person has health damaging life style choices, over eating and smoking in the article, there ought to be consequences. My view is much higher health insurance premiums.

But, the government saying we will with hold treatment until you change is a typical over reach of bureaucracy, “I am in charge and I will actually endanger your health because I can.”

How about other lifestyle choices. I refuse to exercise! Well if your doctor decides you need to exercise then you will have to utilize the tools available today to monitor your exercise. Today those tools are used by companies to encourage healthy exercise so to lower premiums, or receive a bonus, whatever. I want to race cars, or pilot an aerobatic plane, or climb Mt. Everest-you pay a higher premium. You increase your risk of  needing medical care, you suffer a consequence.  All of the above will raise life insurance premiums, why not health?

My view of the issue is we want freedom without consequences. How about not requiring all people to purchase health insurance?  Sheer idiocy. “You can’t force me to buy anything!” Well actually we can, do you want a car, you must buy a minimum insurance policy to cover liability. When some idiot decides not to buy health insurance and gets cancer, who pays, WE ALL DO!


“Citizens United Disaster That Wasn’t”

The WSJ, October 17, 2017, headlined an editorial with the above title. Since SCOTUS decided 5-4 that corporations can spend money on elections (not directly to candidates) the Democrat Party and others have been dodging the pieces of sky falling on them.

The issue was large in the 2016 cycle, HRC and BS (I love his initials) were all over it. “Special interests are going to buy elections….”

Well, the results are in. And as usual in politics, the facts trash all the hype. The top twenty donors in the 2015-16 cycle donated $607 million dollars, $398 million went to Democrat focused super PAC’s, $208 million went to Republican focused super PACS’s. The top donor was Thomas Steyer-$89 million (D); the second was Sheldon Adelson, $77 million (R).

Of the $1.8 BILLION that was sent to super PAC’s, only $85 million, 4.7% came from corporations. WILL SOMEONE WHO CATERWAULED SO MUCH ISSUE A RETRACTION, BERNIE, HILLARY, SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, WASHINGTON POST, NYT, ANYONE!!!!!!  Of course they won’t;

“A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.”  M Twain

Maybe John Paul Stevens’ 90 page dissent against the ruling can be used in law schools as a caution about blathering on without understanding the facts.

2008 Financial Crisis, Government Responsibility

Peter J Wallison’s book, “Hidden in Plain Sight: what really caused the world’s worst financial crisis and why it could happen again” was a fascinating read.

He is an eminent economist and member of the committee to investigate the 2008 crisis,

Did the banks, mortgage companies, mortgage brokers contribute to the crisis? Without a doubt, yes. Were they totally responsible, absolutely not!

The role of government has been disregarded by the press and Congress. The private sector has had all the bad press, and they deserved some of it. But, Government deserves at least as much criticism, and both parties share in this criticism.

Government created the petri dish that this crisis grew in, as one of the leaders has admitted after retiring.  Barney Frank has admitted the policies to increase home ownership rates resulted in unintended consequences, the crisis of 2008, page 25…

If you read the book you cannot deny the conclusion, the data and evidence from those interviewed is overwhelming. Why is it not publicized, well, when the committee was formed by President Obama the makeup of the committee was not bi-partisan-chapter 3-eighty staff members total and one assigned to the republican members: six democrats and four republicans. Should it not have been half and half?

The lack of condemnation of government actions is infuriating to me. But the end of the book talks about this mess could happen again.

We are all entitled to our opinions, but not to our facts. This book is fact filled, please read, please contact your representative.