Friday, June 19, 2015


From Seattle: Missoula, Bozeman, Billings, Detroit Lakes, Santa Fe, Tucson, San Diego, Aptos, San Francisco, Ashland back to Seattle about June 30.  This is the Tour.  Look for us.

This is our initial Listening Tour.

So we'll be back in July.

Friday, June 12, 2015

The End is Nigh: the Rule of Law and Private Property

President Obama some months ago declared the Corinthian Colleges guilty of fraud.  No indictment, no trial, a diktat. The Department of Education went along (naturally, he's the boss!) and withdrew new student lending to its students. The result was Corinthian's bankruptcy, students stranded and hundreds of instructors, administrators and janitors added to the unemployment lines.  No trial, no defense, only what the president (of the Democrats) arbitrarily wanted: the destruction of for-profit companies.  At the first of his term he took student lending out of the hands of all private sector companies, again arbitrarily by diktat,  the Megaphone of the Left piles on: the New York Times and its tentacles plus the Alphabet of Propaganda: NBC CBS ABC AP MSNBC PBS NPR. They parrot their beloved Leader and label the students as "defrauded" arbitrarily.  Investors in Corinthian lost all their investment.

LiberalProgressiveDemocrats are eliminating the Rule of Law, one of the strongest foundational elements of the United States of America, and the concept of private property, the bellwether of capitalism.  Obama despises and doesn't understand either, having never touched either in his real world!

The End is Nigh.

Saturday, May 30, 2015


The "Republican Party" or actually the historic businessmen who supported it in the past, have relinquished political power and there was little to take its place. To be fair, they were busily building companies after World War II, innovating for the benefit of everyone in the world, and creating jobs and prosperity at home. And so came and went the greatest moment for the greatest country in the history of the world. Politically however the country was being infiltrated by liberals who went on to become socialist-informed Progressives. Then came the '60s and the kids went crazy. Most university professors climbed aboard sex, drugs and rock n roll to be popular -- the "achievement" goal of that time. Mainstream, older university administrators were ill prepared and with little backbone gave in to the kids. From there on it simply was a matter of time. JFK got killed and LBJ took advantage. The world of squeaky-wheel activism was born and grew...almost all on the Left because Republicans were too polite and too busy building businesses. Somewhere around then, trial lawyers thought activism was a great thing for making money. They started suing and business executives, frightened of negative reputations and potentially large awards by clueless jurors, they caved and settled for cash their insurance companies paid. The Democratic Party saw the same opportunity and legislated for more possibilities to sue, and greater awards, including class actions where the awards became gigantic. Trial lawyers slowly became one of the major sources of financing for the Democratic Party which handed out quid pro quo whenever possible.

Fast forward to NOW. Republicans are clueless. The Democratic Party owns the educational establishment from pre-K through Ph. D.; the educational industry, non-profit activist non-profits; the entertainment industry; the non-Fox/WSJ media from the New York Times and its long tentacles, and  Rolling Stone, to the alphabet of propaganda NBC CBS ABC NPR CNN MSNBC PBS MTV;  The Left is financed by Democrat-legislated union monopolies over government workers and mandated dues taken from them; and, of course, the aforementioned trial lawyers..... The end is near. 

I am writing a book about The End.

Thursday, May 14, 2015

The World Needs Jeb Bush

In his blog Bernard today, Bernard Goldberg declares that The Donald will not run for president, again.

 I respond:

I for one am sick and tired of a narcissist mismanaging our country and the world.  Trump would be unable to work with anyone else or certainly to give a modicum of credit to anyone else.  Sound familiar?  That is the situation the world faces with who I like to characterize as the President of the Democrats. Obama has attempted naive resets with killers around the world: Putin, Assad, the Castros, and now the Ayatollah of Iran. These people have taken advantage of Obama's dangerous ego coupled with his absolute ignorance of much of anything except how to convince the ignorant and naive to elect and reelect him. With the outright anti-Republican support of the New York Times, and its branches of "news" (sic) papers around the country including the Seattle Times; the wrongly labeled popular media assisted: NBC MSNBC CBS ABC PBS NPR CNN. Plus the educational establishment,   entertainment industry and more. All want LiberalProgressiveDemocrats to control this country. Why? Because they seem to think the Left is standing firm against The Man who they see as businesses and Republicans.  While in reality The Man is the Democratic Party clinging to its near-absolute power. Its destructive-to-prosperity union bosses, trial lawyers and non-profits that take the money created by businesses and use it to destroy those businesses. It is working, our growth after the Democrat-run federal government-caused recession has been miserable while the government has thrown billions around to keep its power, calling it "stimulus."

The world is on fire from dictators' uprisings or plunges into near-anarchy: Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, Burundi and others I can't remember or spell.

Russia and the Peoples Republic of China are ominously threatening us and former allies in the Gulf states, Egypt and Israel (and France, Germany and England) are distancing themselves from a confused and weak America. 

All the while, Obama is worried that there aren't enough women here running businesses or that homosexuals can't get married or that some people succeed while others don't.  And he states that the greatest threat facing our country and the world is...the sun.  Hun?  Yep, Global Cooling (the '70s and '80s), Global Warming (the '90s and '00s), and now that those two labels have been proven wrong: Climate Change (no duh, it ALWAYS changes). "The End of the World is NIgh!" Malthus stated in the 1700s and now Obama promises that centuries later.. WTF?  Are most Americans just wanting to be fooled? And hasn't humanity proven the ability to innovate to solve every problem since 5 billion years BC (Oops, that is not politically correct, it's B. C. E. now.  Look it up.) Either you believe in "We the People" (Republicans) or you do not (Democrats)!

So in reality, the world NEEDS an experienced, solid, sober, comfortable, intelligent, modest pro-business president with a sense of humor. That leads only to one person who can win: Jeb Bush. The country and the world are at the brink.  The U. S. can die from bitter Progressive oppression of any single person or organization that disputes the primacy of its funding groups (freedom of speech): union bosses, trial lawyers (the quiet thieves), environmental billionaires, and the moral superiority of its "squeeky wheel" microrities who reap billions of dollars in payola: The gay, the rich, those with darker-colored skin, government workers and the less-than-1%ers.  True that covers most everyone in the country except the rational, the hard-working, the employers.  Bush has a better chance of capturing the non-Hillarites.

Friday, May 8, 2015

They Got Us Again

Here they go again.

The LiberalProgressiveDemocrats (PLDs) have turned the tables on the regular people of the United States of America. Used to be -- when I was young -- we were respectful and a little bit afraid of the police. Afraid enough not to commit crimes.  Well I did a couple times. My brother and I threw stones to break windows in an abandoned house in Cedar Hills, Oregon. After the act, we looked at each other and not wanting to go to jail, hightailed it (as we used to say) home. No one ever said anything.

That wasn't the case two other times.  Once alone I shoplifted a couple of candy bars at Ranko's Pharmacy in Tacoma. The clerk caught me and luck wouldn't have it, a policemen was outside.  He was brought in to lecture me. I was about eight, and he truly scared me, he was tall and imposing in his blue uniform and deep voice. Mom was called and she came and led me home in shame.

It was years later, about seven or eight when my cousin and I were at the grocery store in Lakewood, Washington.  Seemed a good idea to steal some more candy (I think, I really can't remember what it was) and we did.  Apparently we weren't opaque with our activities: the store manager was watching from a mezzanine-office window. He came down, nabbed us, took us up to the office and called the police.  Then Mom, again, and I suppose my aunt, my cousin's mother. We were 13 or 14. The police came and as they say, read us the riot act, and scared the heck out of me. I don't know about Diana, whether she even remembers. That did it! My life of crime was scared out of me.  I have never committed another robbery.  Or theft.  Or crime, except perhaps speeding.

Fear worked.

Now, though, fear seems to be evil (or perhaps "against Progressive social norms," because there is no such thing as "evil") and that concept is supposed to be a reminder of Republican times. There is a new federal Justice Department probe of Baltimore is to "repair the public's trust in the Baltimore Police bringing about transparency, accountability, and greater community understanding" said Baltimore's mayor, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake wrote in a letter to the new United States Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, both darker-skinned females. This federal probe which looks only for misconduct on the part of police officers in order to renew "trust" of the community with the police. ("Poleeeese.")

Call me old fashioned.  But I actually naively thought that the duty of the police is to degrade and destroy crime. Crime against citizens and their property. Part of that is to cause a healthy respect and fear of the police, not derision.

The LPDs have convinced us -- "We the People" -- that the police are hanging around to make the community feel great about itself, just after that community burned, destroyed and looted its own community and beat a few of them up.  WHAT?  The community that pelted a retreating police troop with huge, dangerous rocks and cement blocks. And a week or so later, amidst celebratory parties and media coverage of the arrest of policemen.

Yes, here they go again.  And they got us again.

Ladies and gentlemen we have lost our country to a gaggle of mad power-hungry politicians and reporters.

They will never stop!  No one in power EVER has voluntarily relinquished their power except by our political system that itself is being ignored, and George Washington.

Sunday, May 3, 2015

BLACK LIVES MATTER: Blacks, Whites and crime in New York CIty

There are approximately 8,500,000 residents in New York City.

Blacks make up about 23% -- 1,955,000 people--
They represented 62% of murder victims
          committed 80% of all shootings
                            70%  of all robberies
                            66% of all violent crime

Whites make up about 35% -- 2,975,000 people
They   committed  1% of all shootings
                               5% of all robberies
                               5% of all violent crimes

There are about 25,000 police and allied law enforcement officers.

Since the 1990s a Republican Mayor, Rudy Giuliani and Police Commissioner William Bratton launched a war on crime, of sorts.  Since then crime has dropped 80%!  Correlation not causation?

Beginning 1994 they began to attempt to stop crime not react to it, using data, and including legally-justified asking questions to those thought (arbitrarily and racist to some, based on experience and common sense to others) to be acting suspiciously. Precinct commanders were held responsible for crime in their areas. Like it or not, playing with the numbers comes up with about 10,000 black and Hispanic male lives saved, since nearly 80% of the homicide deaths were of those groups.  BLACK LIVES MATTER!

Instead of "Hands Up, Don't Shoot!" how about "Hands Up, Please Frisk!?" And live.

Sunday, April 26, 2015


Females: You are proudly admitting that you are not strong enough to listen to words, "Trigger" words. (As Mom and Dad said: "sticks and stones will break my bones, words can never harm me!") You really think you can be president of the strongest nation in history, Leaderess of the Free World? What a pathetic, laughable thought. So if Vlad Putin tells a President Hillary Clinton that she's a useless old thieving hag that ought to be raped by Boco Haram, she'll scurry to find a Safe Room to hide?  ARE YOU F'N KIDDING? Thinking about it, that was the default action of President Barack Obama: seek out a safe golf course. Pathetic.

Research actually shows that children and adults have the capacity to grow stronger after experiencing some traumatizing event, perhaps a hurricane, for example. Lawrence Calhoun and Richard Tedeschi, professors of psychology, University of North Carolina, Charlotte, found that post-traumatic growth can occur in from 30% to about 80% of survivors. Those who grow from a trauma tend to take time to think and and try to make sense of the event. They struggle to grasp meaning to gain perspective and understand that indeed they have the inner resources to deal. It helps to be with a group that listens and discusses rather than ignoring for fear of traumatizing all over again. Hiding from "Trigger Words" makes the experience worse. If friends and family believe that trauma can change a person for the better, it does. And as LPDs advocate, vice versa is worsa.

And here is the evidence: Published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (October 2010) a study by researchers at the University of Buffalo--the State University of New York and the University of California -- Irvine. 2,398 participants to test "resilience" after 2001. Asked if they had experienced any of 37 negative events, those who had a history of some lifetime adversity showed lower distress, fewer symptoms of post-traumatic stress and higher life satisfaction. Adversity can help people develop a "psychological immune system," especially a few of them and some time ago.

Hey, LiberalProgressiveDemocrats, we have God you have the Clintons. We have the better deal.

You LiberalProgressiveDemocrats talk about fairness, diversity, equality, and the like while YOU are consciously separating us, by sex, race, ethnicity, achievement, and wealth to gain your own selfish power, raw power over "We the People." As Hitler accomplished, you are trying to isolate and create hatred against whites, males, successful entrepreneurs, and the police. You seem to be trying to start WAR, the Second American Civil War, and your media is too ignorant or  pandering (and money hungry) to get it, or maybe it does: The New York Times. NBC, CBS, ABC, NPR, CNN, MSNBC, PBS. You began with super rich Frank Roosevelt and  his getting Negroes dependent, then came the poor and union bosses dependency, now it's many, many more minority factions including some you make up: Trigger Word Victims, LGBTRSTQs.  Hitler started small and as his power increased so did his violence. Millions of Jews died. Would you of on the Left desire that we white successful men be put in camps and given what we deserve? If you think that absurd, where will you stop?  Think about it! But funny thing, you on the LEFT, we have the guns and the will and God and righteousness and happiness and the American Dream on our side. You have Hillary. We will FIGHT to keep them, when you get us there. You might be winning now, but you won't stop until you are killed. Sorry, but check out non-Zinn history...Power once obtained is never voluntarily given up. Never. 

Wednesday, April 22, 2015


Unfortunately the once-innovative United States Constitution has not been able to keep up with the new ways of factionalizing groups which since about FDR has slowly undermined it. Madison and the authors of the Constitution and many founders of the country understood how affinity groups could get together and gang up on the rest of the country.  The Constitution brilliantly limited that with the bifurcated government of individual states and the central federal one.  It itself was further divided into lawmaking (Congress, itself divided into two parts, originally one for the successful, "knowledge class" and the other of "the people." And administration charged with carrying out the laws. The third, judicial, would settle arguments between the other two.  It worked pretty well going into the Depression when the so-called independent Federal Reserve caused another decade of damage by tightening money. Rich, marriage-cheater won several elections by segmenting the country into the factions feared by Madison.  The "poor," union bosses, Negros and others.  The big change was his ability to communicate to disparate people and herd them into voting blocs. FDR -- again a rich man who had an allowance from his mama all his life until she died and who plunged into financial scheme after scheme all of which failed, turning him not against his poor judgment but against capitalism as a whole.  He was on his way to strangling the country with anti-business regulations when he abruptly turned to businessmen to industrialize weapon-making, logistics and the war. World War II and its success by American business "made" the country as the strongest in history. FDR's insane belief in Stalin which led to the Cold War, was a pediment to America's future. The country's power, innovatively, financially, industrially, culturally and morally grew. But so did the central power of the federal government.

FDR's initiation ultimately led to Lyndon Johnson's paean to assassinated John F. Kennedy: the Great (socialist) Society.  Government grew larger overwhelming the states.  The Supreme Court enabled it with "activist" decisions.  Ronald Reagan slowed the power accumulation and launched the final thirty years of America's prosperity and growth. Then along came Obama. 

Today, the incentives are heavily against a limited, rational federal government of by and for the people.It has become the financial and regulatory supporter of those factions that can deliver the most votes or money. Union bosses and trial lawyers have been given monopolies. Negroes have been deceived into believing that they are less able than whites. A variety of other pet causes have been encouraged by the party in exchange for votes and money: the Climate Change Religion believers; the endangered species protectors, abortionists, the prosperity-haters (capitalism haters like FDR) trying to grossly limit necessary energy for life; And tinority (tiny minority) groups with the loud megaphones of the bias feeders like the New York Times, NBCBSABCPBSNPR, the so-called LGBTQ?s and the likes. The Democrat government favors those it gets the most money from and showers gifts upon them in exchange.

Obscene monopoly money from union bosses and trial lawyers has upped the ante and most actions of most politicians now is toward raising money. Guesses are that Hillary Clinton, Democrat candidate for President in 2016, will raise $1,500,000,000 to get into the office.  THIS IS INSANITY. The United States government is all about money now with the Democratic Party measuring and weighing everything by money. Income inequality. Bank profit. Business executive compensation. Justice Department accusation settlements. The greedy "rich" (who in actuality but not popular belief are Democrats). The "poverty level" (as defined by Democrats). The Pursuit of Happiness as guaranteed by the U. S. Constitution has been replaced by the Democrats' pursuit of money. But actually all this LiberalProgressiveDemocrat activity has not been ABOUT money or rights (they have been tools) it IS ABOUT POWER, RAW POWER OVER "WE THE PEOPLE." President Obama wants those he dislikes (Republicans, the successful, white folks, conservatives, businessmen) to give the fruits of their success to those who -- for whatever reason -- have not succeeded. PERIOD. 

The hegemony of the LiberalProgressiveDemocrats and the mad need to raise obscene amounts of money to win a seat in power in Washington, D. C. for candidates of both parties, could easily be changed: prohibit all organizations, including non-profits, corporations, labor unions, and the like from donating cash or time to candidate elections.  Limit each live U. S. citizen to, say. $5,000 per candidate per election.  And prohibit private lobbying and hold ONLY open group meetings on specific subjects of legislation so ALL interested parties would get the same information and be able to act on it. Federal government rules and laws requires this of corporate disclosures: transparency and equality. Finally, put in term limits of 2 or 3 terms for Congress and one 6-- 8 year term for president.  Then politicians could devote time to "We the People" and not they the buyers (tort lawyers, union bosses, etc.) of what the government can provide with taxpayer money.

But Congress must change Congress and THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN until the U. S. becomes unable to repay its debt. $20 trillion today; $30 trillion in 2025.  Somewhere will be too much and then if there's anything left, Hope and Change can be real again.

Monday, April 13, 2015

A Strong Republican Must Run

With the entire U. S. Government, the educational institutions from Pre-K through Ph. D.s, the entertainment industry, the non-Fox/WSJ media, union bosses' billions of monopoly-coerced dues, trial lawyers' Democrat tithes from legislatively-bought extortion, and trillion-dollar subsidized Far-left non-profits 100% for ANY Democrat, and certainly a female cis-gender woman, a Democrat will win.  Unless the Republicans can run a true fighter, unlike Wuss Romney, Dementia-McCain, who will stand up strong and proud and tell the country that ProgressiveLiberalDemocrats only want power for themselves not what's good for America.  That LPDs want to dictate how businesses need to run, how we need to live our daily lives ans thstbthevONLY choice they will give us is to kill our fetuses. Nrepublicans need to offer CHOICE in schools, mortgages, consumer products, autos, energy, healthcare, and on and on and on.  "We the People" can make better choices for ourselves than some Harvard elite that actuall only know how to read not live.


Jeb Bush can beat Hillary.

Monday, March 9, 2015

Ashley Furniture, Selma, Alabama And Free Enterprise or Political “Assistance?”

The CEO of Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. thought “I knew I couldn’t compete,” as described in a front page article in the Wall Street Journal (“U. S. Furniture Survivor Tries to go Global,” Friday, March 6, 2015). Products from South Korea and Taiwan were cheaper and of better quality than those made by his company. Immediately he went to his Congressman desperately seeking help.  Republican Steve Gunderson, his representative from western Wisconsin, said, “You need to prepare to compete.” Further, he told Ron Wanek, also founder in 1970 of the privately-held family firm, not to expect any government help. Ashley, then with thirty-five employees, was and still is located in Arcadia, Wisconsin, with a population of 3,000; 45 years later, it is now the largest manufacturer and retailer of furniture in the U. S. with nearly $4 billion in revenues.

“In Selma, Struggle and Hope” (page A3 of the same paper) the 50th anniversary of “Bloody Sunday,” the violent civil-rights clash that helped usher in the 1965 Voting Rights Act” is lauded. With a population just over 20,000, Selma is one of the poorest cities in America and 80% black. Its black state senator, Hank Sanders is quoted as saying, “Selma has been left out of the very progress that it helped create.” President Obama will go to Selma to celebrate its past (and doubtless, ignore its bleak future). The Journal article features Jerria Martin, Selma resident and civic leader, who is executive director of Selma’s 21st Century Youth Leadership. According to its website, “The mission of the 21st Century Youth Leadership Movement is to inspire, assist, organize, and develop young people of all ages to be skilled community focused leaders, resiliently and creatively empowering themselves and their communities.” Among other goals it is focused on training young people to create a community garden; beautiful perhaps but nothing to help the financial future of Selma’s youth. Ms. Martin earned a master’s degree from Princeton Theological Seminary and wanted to use the skills she learned there for “transformative change.” State Senator Hank Sanders, a Democrat,  received degrees from Talladega College and Harvard Law School. Wikipedia writes:  “Hank has helped found or build many [non-profit, at least partially government-funded] organizations.” His wife, Faya Rose Toure, also a lawyer and an activist, wants the anniversary to reconnect youth with the past civil rights struggle, and the “long hand of slavery and segregation that is still affecting consciousness today.”

And there you have it.  On one hand, free enterprise thrives in a tiny Wisconsin town; Ashley employs 13,000 private sector workers in the United States. On the other hand is upwards of 50 years of public sector “assistance” and White House encouragement in a poverty-stricken, majority-black, Alabama city. For his part, the President of the United States has encouraged more community activism and government dependency instead of growth in the private sector. President Obama, through his takeover of the student-lending process, has enabled college students (both graduates and dropouts) to borrow over one trillion dollars from the U. S. taxpayer (funneled by the U. S. Department of Education). If these debtors, around 50,000 Americans, go to work in non-profit organizations or government entities, their loans can be forgiven in ten years. If they go to work for for-profit companies it will take twice as long for the government to forgive the loans. Since they can restrict their payments to ten percent of their wages, it pays them to work in low-pay non-profits.

These two articles present a sad commentary of the stark contrast of the two municipalities. Are there lessons to be learned? Does government “help” encourage more Selmas and the maintenance of poverty I wonder? Then I wonder, is this kind of government for the benefit of the United States of America?  Or for the Democratic Party? Further, what if Selma had been told it couldn’t compete, and that there was no government assistance available?  Would the leaders have stepped up and started for-profit companies and thrived? The CEO of Ashley was told he’d get no assistance. He had a free choice. Perhaps give up, sell out or think of how to compete. No doubt luck had something to do with the difference. Mr. Wanek “has long been inspired by the hardy stock of rural Minnesota and Wisconsin.” But are the workers in Selma not hardy stock? Do they work less hard? Wanek was a leader, being president of the graduating class of 36 in his hick town high school, but “didn’t stand out.” Clearly there are leaders in Selma, but perhaps the Democrats in power don’t trust the private sector enough to steer these  leaders toward the profit-seeking, prosperity-building private sector.

There are vital lessons to be learned in analyzing the two entities, if anyone cares.  But, then, there must be action if such lessons learned are to be fruitful.

Wednesday, March 4, 2015


From the New York Times, Sunday, March 1, 2015: Historysource by Michael Beschloss

Discussing the bond between Lyndon Baines Johnson and Harry S. Truman...

"In the mid-1960s, Truman was by no means the popular cult figure -- embodying plain speaking, decisiveness, honesty, common sense and a modest lifestyle -- that he became after his death."



Tuesday, March 3, 2015


Democrat-labeled "distressed homeowners" who borrow and can't make mortgage payments are about to get some more forgiveness courtesy of his feel-sorry-for Mel Watt, head of his Federal Housing Finance Agency. Arbitrary NEW RULES force extension of loan terms, forgiving principal or -- this is critical -- stopping sales of foreclosed property to investors.  Investors are a despised class to the Obama administration since they compete with the federal government's giveaways of tax payer monies to get Democrats elected. In this case investors who might take the property away from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to lessen taxpayer risk can't.  Only obviously-Democrat advocacy housing activists get in first. Or people who will live in the houses (and vote for Democrats.) The far-left Center for American Progress lobbied for it, as did the New Jersey Community Capital non-profit which buys foreclosures.

CRONY "CAPITALISM" is not capitalism.

President Obama's arbitrary, illegal action to grant to ILLEGAL ALIENS Social Security cards and numbers, among other goodies, will give them UNEARNED INCOME SUBSIDIES immediately without them ever working. YOU will be paying for their Democrat Party windfalls.  For whom will these newly-fat cats vote in the next and every subsequent election?  DEMOCRATS. Using your money.

And I thought bribery was illegal.  No matter nothing is illegal for the President of the Democrats.


Republicans: Kiss Choice

The Messrs. Reinhold Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee, and Karl Christian Rove, Republican political consultant, can sure raise the money, but they can’t turn a phrase. In the Wall Street Journal’s “How Senate Republicans Can Close the Sale,” by Karl Rove, Opinion, October 2, 2014, he discussed 11 Republican principles that Priebus presented in a speech at George Washington University. They included, "we should leave the next generation opportunity, not debt" and “our country should value the traditions of family, life, religious liberty and hard work;” 23 words all together. Remember K. I. S. S.? It is an acronym for “Keep it Simple, Stupid,” which is a principle that systems work more effectively if they are kept simple and understandable. For example, “choice” is one word while Priebus’s and Rove’s philosophy is 23. That one simple word – choice – encompasses Republican principles better than any other.  Yet it is virtually owned by the Democratic Party which puzzlingly offers actually only one “choice” and that only to women. It is time that Republicans seize that word – choice – and present it to the nation as the embodiment of their philosophy. Republicans want to offer many choices to everyone, Democrats want to control.  That is the dividing line between left and right.

Why can’t all Americans choose the schools their kids go to? Why can’t we choose to keep our long-time family doctor? Why can’t we choose not to join a union? Why can’t we choose to have an adjustable-rate mortgage, if it fits our budget? Why can’t we choose the crib we want, a crib won’t hurt our baby, only our neglect will. Why can’t I choose to take a drug that might save my life? Why can’t I choose whom to hire and whom to fire in my business? Why can’t I choose not to wear a helmet when I ride my motorcycle?  (This is a 55-year old gripe of mine!) I think I can make  better choices for me than some political appointee sitting in Washington, D.C. can.
Myriad governmental institutions limit the choices of the American public. They include the Federal Trade Commission, its Division of Advertising Practices and Fair Information Practice Principles, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission among countless other U. S. government agencies, commissions, divisions and so on. They substitute their choices for ours.
Obviously, there are circumstances when the knowledge of elite experts in a field is needed for something dangerous that I can’t begin to understand. But is using the word “natural” to sell corn flakes something really so dangerous it needs an expert to stop me from choosing whether to believe it or not? Really?
Why will the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) prohibit me from being able to be one of 75,000 students to choose Corinthian Colleges, Inc. to get an education, or its 15,000 employees from choosing to work there if the government forces it out of business but doesn’t protect me from choosing or working for Harvard or the University of Washington? The CFPB says Corinthian deceived, bullied, misled and was predatory to students.  But what if I am a bartender with a B. A. from Yale and owe $100,000 in student loans, that’s OK?
Why can’t I choose to buy Bucky Balls, those magic magnetic magnetized balls? Because the Consumer Product Safety Commission banned them in its first stop-sale order in 11 years. Kids might eat them. What about pennies, nickels or quarters?
Sure, I might get hurt or cheated but it will be my choice; anyway, I think we’re smart enough to know. After all, practically all the information ever known to humanity is available to anyone on a little cell phone. But it seems politicians primarily of the Democratic persuasion don’t think we’re smart enough so they invent governmental institutions and pass laws to protect us from ourselves. Or do they?  Over a million U. S. government employees belong to unions, which contribute vastly more to the Democratic Party than to any other. So for whose benefit really is it to have thousands of union members make decisions for me?
Politicians can say anything true or false, benign or dangerous, and it is protected. The Supreme Court decisions on the First Amendment make core political speech more important than other forms of individual expression. I’d argue that political lying can be severely dangerous to individuals and the country.
The question is, should We the People be able choose for ourselves or should a few politicians, unelected political appointees and union members choose for us?  Who is more capable of looking out and deciding for us, we ourselves or politicians? Republicans, advocates of free enterprise, believe we ourselves generally are capable to choose for ourselves while Democrats, advocates of a large, powerful government, believe that generally their elite political appointees or hires are capable and they should make our choices for us.
Mr. Priebus and Mr. Rove, which do you think more powerful? "[W]e should leave the next generation opportunity, not debt" and “our country should value the traditions of family, life, religious liberty and hard work;” 23 words, or “Republicans offer Choice” one word?” Choosing or obeying?

“We the People” is democracy, free enterprise, and choice.  That is the Republican Principle.

Monday, March 2, 2015



From the New York Times, Sunday, March 1, 2015, page 2: "Our problem is that we have too many good jobs."

A quote from Leonard M. Siegel, an environmental activist who was recently elected to the City Council of Mountain View, California. "Silicon Valley"  He just hates the taxes Google pays...or maybe he loves the cash but hates the 1%ers who bring it.  It causes housing prices to skyrocket and traffic gridlock.  I don't know what Siegel does for a living (possibly works for a government-funded non-profit environmental activist lobby group, but I don't know.)  Sounds like the Idiot Savant socialist in Seattle's City Council.


Thursday, February 26, 2015

Political Language makes lies sound truthful.....

“Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. ”

NYT: 2/9/15

More than a dozen New York City buildings inspectors and clerks have been charged with exploiting their positions as gateways to the city’s booming real estate industry to obtain hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes, law enforcement officials announced on Tuesday.
In return for bribes of home mortgage payments, sport-utility vehicles and a luxury cruise, among other payments, city buildings inspectors cleared complaints and stop-work orders on properties and expedited inspections, according to the Manhattan district attorney’s office. Some inspectors were charged with trying to evict tenants under false pretenses in exchange for cash from a Brooklyn property manager.
City investigators stepped in before any tenants were illegally evicted.
Sixteen city employees are accused in bribery schemes — 11 of them from the Department of Buildings and five from the Department of Housing Preservation and Development. Prosecutors also charged dozens of property managers and owners, expediters and other construction workers with making payments to bypass the proper inspection channels.

Monday, February 16, 2015

The problem of the Republican Party

The crux of Republicans' problem is that the Democrats act as one.  The media supports whatever the Obama administration, working through its lead spokespaper, the New York Times, tells them to say or write. Most of the other Democrats fall in behind.  Any outlier is ignored.  NOT SO with Republicans. The radical viewpoints of nominal Republicans (now that the Tea Party has been vanquished by the far-left) are announced repeatedly and loudly as the word of the entire evil Republican Party. We all know that truth is nothing the LiberalProgressiveDemocrats care about, winning is everything! Since "religion," along with anything homosexual, pervertsexual or any other sexual and abortion are gigantic trigger words, they are used relentlessly against any Republican who even thinks of them and are identified as belonging to the Republican Party as a whole.  It is lucky -- certainly not strategy, of which there is little -- that Republicans win even one election.

Thursday, February 12, 2015

Diversity is in the Eye of the Beholder

Bill Gates, a founder of Microsoft and Craig McCaw, essentially the creator of AT&T Wireless both graduated from The Lakeside School, Seattle, the preeminent private school in the Pacific Northwest, from where I graduated in 1960.  I just received the Fall/Winter 2014 Lakeside Magazine entitled “The art of politics.”  Page 5 presents the letter from the school Head, Bernie Noe.  He wrote …”[D]iscussions about politics…[by] students at Lakeside offer viewpoints across the political…spectrum.”  That would mean diversity of political thought. In the section “Political Thinking” in a Q & A Carl Engelhardt, Middle School history department head, said “I wouldn’t say [Lakeside has] a liberal bias, I would say that Republicans and conservatives are underrepresented in education.” Underrepresented! Then he continues, “If by liberal you mean most of our faculty vote Democratic, that’s decidedly true.”  Well then. 

In the magazine a number of political operatives are featured.  One section, “What working in the Political Field is really like,” featured Lakeside graduates, four Democrats all winners in local elections; and two Republicans, one who was asked about his guilty plea for Driving Under the Influence and a second who had run and lost in three campaigns and won none. Is that a fair presentation?

In “The View From D. C.” the stories of seven Lakeside alumni working for politicians or political parties all were Democrats. Republicans zero. “The Lobbying Life” article headlined three political lobbyists who are liberals and one, reaching way back to the class of 1965, was once assistant to a Republican governor of Washington

The “Inside Lakeside” section presented the “Global Community Theme 2014” – “Hot to Learn About Climate Change.” One would think that an educational institution would present both sides, for and against. No! It was taken for granted in the full page describing the theme that climate change is a scientific truth.  There was nowhere any possibility of discussing whether in fact climate change is happening. Clearly, “climate change” has a connotation of catastrophe, naturally caused by human activity and greed. Interesting, a “Lakeside parent,” a lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report in 2013, will be a guest speaker. Recommended books include “The Cartoon Introduction to Climate Change” by former Lakeside teacher, Yoram Bauman, about which its review from Kirkus states: “Having established a tone of moderation, invoking scientific method rather than ideology, Bauman and Klein nonetheless reinforce the realities of global warming, fossil fuels and greenhouse gases as potentially catastrophic.” On the book’s back cover, John Michael Wallace, Professor Emeritus, Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington, and co-author of Atmospheric Science: An Introductory Survey, writes the book is “Gently persuasive.”  Is there any argument that climate change is not caused by humans?  Not at Lakeside.

Yet Lakeside celebrates its diversity.  Forty-five percent of its admitted students are “students of color.” But is the color of one’s body truly define diversity? To Lakeside School and by far the preponderance of educators and educational facilities it is.  As Carl Engelhardt went on, “In the public-school world, the teachers unions are probably the second largest donors to the Democratic Party.” But what is the private-school world’s excuse?

One political viewpoint does not diversity deliver.

Tuesday, February 10, 2015

There is No “We” Nor Any “Core Values”

There is No “We” Nor Any “Core Values”

I hate to break it to you readers, writers, pundits and politicians, but there are no “we” or “core values” of the United States of America. However these two concepts are used indiscriminately as if there were such things. For example, by President Obama defending his latest scheme, “And in this moment we must do what other generations have done...” [part of his recent remarks on the American Graduation Initiative at Macomb Community College, Warren, Michigan.] People say “we” need to do this and “we” need to do that.  But there is no “we;” while their definition seems to be all Americans.  But all Americans don’t believe in the same things, so “we” cannot do what “other generations have done.” At the macro level there seems to be at least four factions of “we:” Republicans, Tea Party conservatives, Democrats, and progressive Democrats as significant political entities. In other words, when “we” must perform some action in order to make the country better, which we is it?                                

The editorial staff of the Wall Street Journal writes about the “West’s commitment to its core values…”[January 8, 2015 Opinion piece Islamist Terror in Paris.] As for core values, where do I begin? What are our America’s core values? They seem to revolve around “rights” as defined by some faction.  Not long ago abortion was considered immoral and was illegal. Genetically, humans desire survival of their seed and expansion of the species but forty-two years ago seven people – a majority of the Supreme Court justices – decided that abortion was a fundamental right of American women. Is abortion now a core value of the United States? It inarguably is a core foundation of liberal and Democrat ideology. Yet “right to Life” is supported by roughly half of Americans, according to some polls. So what is the core value? 

Not so many years ago homosexuality was considered an abomination against nature. The American Psychiatric Association only dropped homosexuality as a psychiatric diagnosis in 1973. Fifteen years ago two thirds of the nation believed homosexual behavior was not morally acceptable. Today’s society's rethinking of sexual orientation still has one-third of society disagreeing and this population is now targeted as prejudicial homophobes. So is homosexuality a core value?

While the Declaration of Independence stated that a self-evident truth is “all men are created equal” yet many of those drafting and signing that monumental document owned slaves.  It finally took a charismatic black man and the assassination of a president to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  There were advances along the way including six hundred thousand people killed in the Civil War and the passage in 1920 of the Nineteenth Amendment guaranteeing women’s right to vote. Equality in theory has been granted, but many argue vociferously that there is no equality for so-called African Americans, including lately the view that policemen target African American youths for death. So just what are American core values? Abortion, homosexuality, equality in theory or in practice?

What about criminal justice? Our Constitution provides for “the right to a speedy and public trial” by an impartial jury with other details. But it doesn’t require perfection in outcome, which, of course is impossible with human beings. But many Americans are demanding perfection in judgment and compensation for imperfection. Which is a core value?

The rule of law was once hailed as a foundational core value of American democracy. But it is under fire. A number of bills passed out of Congress and signed into law include the Defense of Marriage Act, federal drug laws including marijuana, and numerous laws  concerning undocumented immigrants, for example. All of these laws have been ignored, unenforced, or unilaterally altered arbitrarily by the president of the United States and his attorney general, both of whom are constitutionally obligated to enforce such laws. Is the rule of law still a core value as many believe? Or is taking into account a person’s circumstances, background and purported skin color in order to soften written laws depending on one’s feelings – “social justice” to many – now a core value?            

Other core value arguments revolve around social justice versus incarceration for crimes committed; free speech versus political correctness; capital punishment or not; the definition and use of “torture;”  

Commerce and its control was part of the reason for a schism between the colonies and Great Britain.  There should be little doubt that improvement in commerce was a core value of the founders, most having been successfully engaged in it.  Today, however, only around a quarter of Americans consider large corporations beneficial to this country. Many on the left seem to distrust business and the leaders thereof. They feel rigorous, close control of business is necessary and that to do so a large number of government employees are necessary. Though polls indicate government is thought beneficial. Interesting though, polls show three-quarters of Americans believe small businesses and technology companies are positive. Individual entrepreneurs who became leaders of corporations industrialized the United States and brought the greatest innovation and prosperity to more people than ever known in the world.  This has also brought millions of human beings on the planet out of abject poverty and up to a higher standard of living.

Business people such as the Carnegies, Harrimans, Mellons, Morgans, Rockefellers, Stanfords, and Vanderbilts of two centuries ago, the Edisons, Fords, Gateses, Jobses, Sarnoffs and Watsons of the last century and myriad others already in this new century has made the world a better place.  Yet the Roosevelt, Taft and Wilson Progressives labeled them Robber Barons; unregulated they were, but while accumulating and ostentatiously spending vast wealth, they also created the greatest country in the world. No doubt regulations were necessary, but perhaps for their own survival the Robber Barons would have changed. This incessant criticism of business has brought However today, the Progressives continue the disparagement of business and aggrandizement of government – lead by themselves, of course.

This has brought another tension of core values. Is free enterprise and successful prosperous business a core value or is more equality of wealth and wages a core value? Is society and our economy better served by the central control by Ivy League elites or the unplanned and raucous chaos of distributed “free enterprise?” Does business reward only the few, the 1%?

“Luck of the draw,”  more fairness and equality (what is the end goal? Where does it stop) – or perfection?

Profits are believed………….. PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans think the U.S. economy benefits when big businesses or small businesses make a profit, although, by 84% to 64%, more consider small-business profits helpful. Relatively few believe profits made by either type of business are harmful to the economy. None of these views have changed appreciably in nearly three years.

Big business is not wildly popular in America, particularly relative to small business. However, despite recent efforts to draw national attention to the perceived economic pitfalls of corporate wealth, nearly two-thirds of Americans still believe the profits big businesses make are more helpful than harmful to the nation's economy.
Importantly, the public's views on this are virtually unchanged from January 2010, spanning the emergence of the Occupy Wall Street movement. To the extent there is public concern about corporate profits being harmful, it is greater among nonwhites, college nongraduates, those in households earning less than $24,000 per year, and -- potentially important for the future -- adults under age 30, although even among these groups it is the minority view.

Friday, January 9, 2015



What does Elizabeth Warren (the latest poster child of the Progressive Movement) mean by "fairness" and "equality?"  At a recent WashingtonD.C., forum hosted by the AFL-CIO, Elitist Senator Lizzie Warren who has always worked in government jobs and, in fact, lied about being an Indian, with a tear in her eye began:  “If you are young and starting out life with tens of thousands of dollars in student loan debt locked into high interest rates by Congress..."  Well, no. Her beloved President Obama unilaterally took possession of the United States Student Loan Industry, so the $1,300,000,000,000 owed by the students locked into high interest rates are mostly courtesy of the Democratic Party. Why is that so? Fairness and equality to her and her LiberalProgressiveDemocratic fellow partiers mean everyone gets a college education.  No matter prior achievement, IQ, work ethic, or ambition the U. S. government will "loan" you the money. If your extracurricular activities, such as in the local tavern or frat house, means you take five or six years, or you drop out half way, what has the nation accomplished for society as a whole? And the money is owed by the kids.

Analog to the obvious upcoming student loan fiasco, many believe that the Democrats forced U. S. banks into loaning money to people not making enough money to pay their mortgages back. That in the name of "fairness" and "equality" subprime loans became the norm, with the government-sponsored entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac wildly jumping aboard. Underwriting, what's that? Soon came the inevitable crash, when many of those loans defaulted and property values dropped causing more default.  (Just this year -- six years later, President Obama appointed unemployed Democrat politician Mel Watt as head of  Federal Housing Administration; Immediately going against his rational predecessor, he immediately relaxed new mortgage loan requirements back to subprime specifications.

President Obama, in a clear anti-free enterprise, anti-private sector, pro-Democratic Party, big-fat government move, ordered that most student loans need not be repaid IF the students (graduates or not, I am not sure) work in the government sector or for non-profits (the bulk of which are Democrat-leaning) for ten years.  If the students lower their goals and go to work for the for-profit, private sector they have to work twice as long -- twenty (20) years -- to be forgiven.  And so as not to tax, so to speak, the former students they need only pay 10% of their income to service their government student loans (which will typically not pay the interest accruing, thus increasing what they owe). This arbitrary and unilateral action incents workers to obtain lower-paying jobs, -- in non-profits, for example -- to allow them to pay less. And speaking of "tax," yestthe real taxpayers, the so-called 5% who pay       % of all income taxes will pay off by forgiving allt those student loans...TRILLION

 Like our healthcare system, our housing/financial system, among many. many others, our educational system has been ruined by "fairness" and "equality" coming along with piles of free  government money and its central control by Ivy League elites.  Until the country and its voters clearly understand that central control of most anything by politicians leads to disaster.  And that freedom to act, freedom to innovate, freedom to be unfair by "We the People" brings higher standards of living for all.  Our "poor people" excluding the mentally ill or substance abusers, live better than most everyone else IN THE WORLD.   That has been brought about by the "Robber Barons" of  the Rockefellers, Morgans, Carnegies two centuries ago, the Fords, Sarnoffs and  Olsons, Gateses and Jobses of the last century and myriad others already in this new centur

Thursday, January 8, 2015



Political Correctness is nothing more than an attempt to muzzle the free speech of people with views different from those of the LiberalProgressiveDemocrats (LPDs). Verboten to LPDs -- even explicitly through "speech codes" forbidden in many college campuses in the U. S. -- are so-called trigger warning words: "Coarse" content, "insensitive" words or concepts that “trigger” traumatic or "anxious" thoughts of discrimination, or other “violations” including "dishonoring" feminism, gender identity, sexual orientation or activity (including the word "rape"), class, race, religion or national origin or other concerns. Are the American people and especially college students so frail of mind that they would be damaged by hearing...words?  My parents drummed into me: Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me." (IT OVERWHELMS ME THAT, ON ONE HAND, WOMEN ARE POWERFUL, INDEPENDENT AND AS GOOD AS MEN.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THEY ARE TOo WEAK TO READ or heAR THE WORDs "VIOLATE" or "rape" SINCE they MIGHT CAUSE DISTRESS. DISTRESS, DISCOMFORT, STRESS, HURT FEELINGS, DISRESPECT, AND ON AND ON ARE EMOTIONS TOO POWERFUL FOR WOMEN TO BE ABLE TO cope with AND SO EVERY WORD THAT MIGHT "TRIGGER" SUCH AN OPPRESSIVE EMOTION NEEDS TO BE BANNED FROM THE VOCABULARY OF EVERY AMERICAN.)

How is political correctness different from the desire of Muslims to suppress free discussion of Islam or even mentioning the word "Muhammad?" Is the difference the violence of a certain relatively few extremists? I would argue that the killers in Paris January 7, 2015, were insane, however it is defined. It seems probable that they were driven by Muslim ideology as interpreted by the likes of ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boco Haram,Yemen-based Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and other like-minded and -acting murderous fanatics.

How are the Kouachi Brothers and Hamid Mourad, the Paris killers, different from Ismaaiyl Brinsley, the killer of the two policemen in New York?  He was also surely insane, yet probably driven by
ideology, in this case Progressive ideology, and was explicitly energized by violent demonstrators including the Trayvon Martin Organizing Committee (TMOC) "Dead Cops Chant" -- "What do we want? Dead Cops. When  do we want it? Now!" Unfortunately, these activities were inadvertantly yet implicitly encouraged -- by not being roundly denounced -- by New York mayor del Blasio (his most recent name), Al Sharpton, U. S. Attorney General Eric Holder and President Obama. But is "I can't breathe" political correctness? Is Islamic radicalism of the very few similar to political correctness of the Progressives? Think about it.

How can it all end?  Human beings rarely give up power voluntarily.  Both Muslim crazies and Progressive Americans have significant and growing power.  Although Republicans won control of both Houses of Congress in the November 2014 election, that didn't seem to diminish the thirst for power of Progressives.  Check President Obama's threats of the veto pen and executive orders. ISIS and Boco Haram continue making military gains and enslaving and demanding ideological compliance with Islam and Shariah Law of their captured peoples. Or they are beheaded. Similar ideological compliance with Progressive dogma is demanded by Progressives but, of course, in America the consequences of failing to do so are not so severe.  Except sometimes. Check the "Dead Cops Chant."

#Je Suis Charlie

Wednesday, December 24, 2014


This is the end of 2014 one of the most dangerous years in American History.  The country is divided into the so-called Progressive Left and the Conservative Right.  The bottom line of the conflict is power.  Raw power over the lives of Americans and the world, since America is the strongest world power ever known to such world.  The Left believes it's a negative power and the Right, positive.  Whoever is reading this has been forced into one side or the other.

The Civil War divided our country for the same reason: POWER.  Then it was the southern states which needed or thought they needed slaves to enable commerce and prosperity in our country and the other states who believed or at least argued that slavery itself was horribly wrong and against the freedom promised to Americans by the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.

Around 600,000 mostly young American men died in the bloody, dirty civil war that came.

Some wars are "worth it." That one was.  But the divide continued.  Some believe that it continues today.

The question for 2015 is: How will this divide play out?  The Left expresses disdain or worse for the Constitution. At its core it believes that unfairness as they define it monetarily exists because of capitalism.  The Right argues that capitalism and free enterprise, while not perfect, has allowed billions of human beings to be brought out of hand-to-mouth poverty, and our country to possess the highest prosperity, the most freedom of speech and action than ever experienced by human beings.

The divide is strictly about POWER, every argument is simply a constituent part of the desire for power.

Few, if any, of those in power voluntarily give up their power.  The question for 2015 to me includes the possibility that the Left if further taken from power by elections will renounce such elections as being invalid because of white entitlement and that rich white men nearly 150 years ago invented this political and economic system to benefit themselves.





Notable & Quotable

Harvard Law Prof. Jeannie Suk on students too sensitive to discuss the law of sexual violence.

Harvard Law Prof. Jeannie Suk writing at, Dec. 15:
Students seem more anxious about classroom discussion, and about approaching the law of sexual violence in particular, than they have ever been in my eight years as a law professor. Student organizations representing women’s interests now routinely advise students that they should not feel pressured to attend or participate in class sessions that focus on the law of sexual violence, and which might therefore be traumatic. These organizations also ask criminal-law teachers to warn their classes that the rape-law unit might “trigger” traumatic memories. Individual students often ask teachers not to include the law of rape on exams for fear that the material would cause them to perform less well. One teacher I know was recently asked by a student not to use the word “violate” in class—as in “Does this conduct violate the law?”—because the word was triggering. Some students have even suggested that rape law should not be taught because of its potential to cause distress.
*                         *                         *                        *                    *                            *
To add to this ALL LAW STUDENTS are too shaken up by the events of Ferguson and Staton Island, where law breakers died at the hands of sworn policemen, to be able to take their end of term or mid-term examinations.  Too shaken up.   So some law schools delay such examinations for fear of...   

Wednesday, December 17, 2014

Federal Government Policies Encourage Short-Termism

The Wall Street Journal

OPINION (Published December 10, 2014, page A16)

Federal Government Policies Encourage Short-Termism

Never before has the incentive been so stark to make short-term business decisions at the expense of the long term.

Wall Street Journal Dec. 1, 2014

That “‘Shareholder Value’ Is Hurting Workers” (Politics & Ideas, Dec. 10) there should be no doubt, as William Galston writes. To any rational observer, the abundant money showered on the world by the Federal Reserve at near-zero interest rates is too appealing to private equity and hedge-fund operators. They easily borrow massive amounts of it and buy some or all of the equity in companies, and force the directors and managements to do what they think right for short-term payoffs. Included is slashing employment for “efficiency”—hurting workers but bringing greater profits. Some of those additional profits are used to pay fees and expenses of the new investor/owners and make dividend distributions or buy back outstanding company stock. That money paid or “returned” to the investment funds creates billions of dollars of performance fees for the partners of the investment funds.
The outlooks of the companies become shorter and shorter as the fund managers seek more of those performance fees for their own enrichment. While company managers and directors must always balance the long term against the short term, never before has the incentive been so stark to make short-term decisions at the expense of the long term.
The ultimate enabler of this practice is the government. If it really wanted corporations to make longer-term decisions—hiring and training more employees for the future—it would raise interest rates, rein in the money supply and tax the incentive compensation for private-equity managers at ordinary rates. Also long-term capital gains should be taxed according to holding periods, with a lower tax the longer the holding period.
Theodore M. Wight

The piece that this Letter was discussing:

‘Shareholder Value’ Is Hurting Workers

Financiers fixated on the short-term are forcing CEOs into decisions that are bad for the country.

Dec. 10, 2014

Buried in the positive employment report for last month was a small fact that points to a larger reality: Between November 2013 and November 2014, the U.S. labor force grew by 0.7%. If that strikes you as a small number, you’re right. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the labor force grew annually by 1.7% during the 1960s, 2.6% during the 1970s, 1.6% during the 1980s and 1.2% during the 1990s, before slowing to 0.7% during the first decade of the 21st century. Between now and 2022, the rate of increase is expected to slow still further, to only 0.5% annually.
The surge of women into the paid labor force peaked in the late 1990s, and baby boomers—all of whom were in their prime working years in 2000—are leaving the labor force in droves. Youthful immigrants are replenishing the workforce from below, but not nearly fast enough to counterbalance the aging of the native-born population.
When Bill Clinton left office, every baby boomer was in what is considered to be the prime working-age category, between 25 and 54. By the end of 2018, none of them will be. By 2021, more than half of the boomers will be over age 65, participating in Medicare and—in most cases—Social Security.
In 1992, 100 workers supported 92 nonworkers—mainly the young, the elderly and those with disabilities. By 2012, 100 workers were supporting 102 nonworkers, a number that is projected to rise to 107 by 2022.
These dry statistics have real-world consequences. For example, just about everyone believes that we need to accelerate the pace of economic growth and sustain that higher level. This is harder to do when the expansion of the labor force—a major source of economic growth—slows to a crawl. It means that during the next decade, growth will depend more on increased capital investment, faster technological innovation and improvements in the quality of the workforce, than during the past generation. And that means that firms will have to change the way they think.
Few investments will produce high returns as fast as shareholders (especially activist investors) have come to demand. That is why businesses are hoarding so much capital—and using a record-high share of their earnings to buy back their own stock. And businesses have become more reluctant to invest in training their rank-and-file workers, in part out of fear that valuable workers will move and take their human capital with them, and in part in the belief that workforce training is the responsibility of the education system.
An article by Nelson Schwartz in the Dec. 7 New York Times offers a vivid example of what is driving current business behavior. In the name of “unlocking value,” Relational Investors, a firm that manages pension funds, forced the Timken Corp. to split into two firms, one making steel, the other bearings. In the aftermath, the new bearing company slashed its pension-fund contributions to near zero and cut capital investment in half, while quadrupling the share of cash flow dedicated to share buybacks. In place of an integrated, low-debt firm whose stable but less-profitable bearing lines could help cushion swings in the more-profitable but more-volatile steel business, the split left two firms that will be pressured to assume as much as $1 billion in new debt.
High leverage may make sense in some sectors, but not in industries whose competitiveness depends on large investments and longtime horizons. Timken survived the deep recession of the 1980s, which drove many American manufacturers out of business, only because it made massive investments in state-of-the-art production facilities that meant, says Mr. Schwartz, “lower profits in the short term and less capital to return to shareholders.” Because of this patient approach, Timken was able to dominate the global market in specialized steel while providing good wages to workers and contributing to schools and public institutions in its hometown of Canton, Ohio.
It is often argued that managements, such as Timken’s once was, are violating their fiduciary responsibility to “maximize shareholder value.” But Washington Post economics writer Steven Pearlstein argues that there is no such duty, and UCLA law professor Stephen Bainbridge, past chairman of the Federalist Society’s corporate-group executive committee, backs him up. In practice, Mr. Bainbridge has written, courts “generally will not substitute their judgment for that of the board of directors [and] directors who consider nonshareholder interests in making corporate decisions . . . will be insulated from liability.”
The Timken episode has nothing to do with legal fiduciary responsibility. It is a microcosm of the struggle between a financial sector fixated on short-term returns and corporate managements who are trying to run profitable businesses while sharing some of the gains with their workers and communities.

If we continue down this road, we won’t have the long-term investments in workers and innovation that we need to sustain a higher rate of growth. And that would be bad news for the country.