There's a piece written by Mitch Daniels which has attracted a fair amount of attention this morning. Via a Fox article, his chatter is over this....Connecticut, California, New York, New Jersey and Illinois.....are reaching the stage where they will be insolvent. Chief cause? Well....trying to fund pension programs which are beyond imagination. In the case of California, it's a failing bond which amounts upward to $428 billion. Daniels statement is that reality will soon hit the Senate, and in some dramatic way....they will have to save these five states. The taxpayer, in his opinion, is screwed.
The timeline? Daniels doesn't say, and the Fox host doesn't guess. If you were asking me....it won't happen in 2018, or 2019. But I could see Illinois reaching a stage where they ask for some 'gift'....some ten-billion-dollar loan with zero-percent interest and ten years to pay it back. The problem is that paying it back will likely be impossible unless they go and remedy their pension program in a massive way. In some cases, the idiots were stupid enough to write it into their Constitution, and the judges will enforce it to remain. Because of this issue, whoever is President at the time when this comes up....could render a dramatic 'no', and force the state deeper into a pit.
Trump at this moment of chaos? He probably won't be their friend.
I think three dramatic things must occur. First, each state has to remedy its pension (by law or Constitutional efforts) before you can come and request federal help, and that state supreme court must sign off on the pension change. If the two groups won't work to achieve the matter, don't bother giving them a nickel.
Second, the amount of money given shouldn't go over the sum of twenty-five billion dollars per state, with a zero-interest deal for the first five years, and a 3.5-percent interest deal for the second five year period. If they need a third five-year period? Fine....attach the 5-percent interest onto it.
Third and final....write a simple federal law into the deal that once you take the federal loan to cover the pension mess....you can't go and get another loan via a credit group or bank for the same problem, until you've paid off the federal loan.
On the pension amount? This is the curious thing. When you've got some fireman retiring in California at age 55, and he's collecting $120,000 a year on a pension.....there's something wrong. When you have some city finance chief for a town in Illinois retiring, and collecting $225,000 a year....there's something wrong.
So somewhere down the line, some idiot is going to have write and pass a 'limit-law' to say you can't collect more than $40,000 on pensions. If a guy wants to take his promised money and invest into some 401k-type pension deal, then I don't have a problem with that. But I doubt if any of these five states have the type of employees who would accept that deal.
Here's the bad news....Trump is likely around for 6.5 years and the odds of any of these characters approaching the Senate to beg for help? They'd have to convince Trump to help them.....deep-blue Democratic voter states? There's this odd likely chance that it'll be 2025 before they can ask for help and they will go and get even deeper into debt.
Sunday, 29 July 2018
Austin in the News
I noticed this coming up today.....a report from the Austin, Texas’s Equity Office. They say there's some problems brewing over existing Confederate monuments, some neighborhoods in the city of Austin, at least ten streets, and the city name itself.
The Austin name? Well.....it comes from Stephen F. Austin, who happened to oppose Mexico's effort in the mid-1800s to dump slavery in the Tejas region. Austin at the time said that freed slaves would become "vagabonds, a nuisance and a menace."
So, the question is.....would this discussion reach a stage where you'd have to rename an entire city?
Someone did a study and said that if you just went out and renamed one single street....it costs around $5,000 to do the signs, maps, and paperwork required. But then you have to go and figure out the new names, and folks tend to get real creative.
Like.....some idiot could say Lee Street is a bad thing, and then you'd get sixty suggestions on the new street name (Barney Street (after the dinosaur), or Hippy Street, or Skywalker Driver, or Dallas Cowboy Avenue, or Stormy Daniels Street).
But then a whole city?
You'd have some idiots suggest Humperville, DaWaDaWaDaWa or Meth-City. Or how about Batmanville, Dusty Rhodes (after the wrestler), or West Trump.
The odds that it'd get this far? You might be able to persuade folks to just accept a couple of street name changes, but an entire neighborhood being renamed? I have my doubts, and there's zero chance that the city itself might change it's name.
But we are at a stage with society where people are cynical and sarcastic.....willing to rename their city 'Kim-City' after North Korea's dictator, or Hooterville after the TV show.
The Austin name? Well.....it comes from Stephen F. Austin, who happened to oppose Mexico's effort in the mid-1800s to dump slavery in the Tejas region. Austin at the time said that freed slaves would become "vagabonds, a nuisance and a menace."
So, the question is.....would this discussion reach a stage where you'd have to rename an entire city?
Someone did a study and said that if you just went out and renamed one single street....it costs around $5,000 to do the signs, maps, and paperwork required. But then you have to go and figure out the new names, and folks tend to get real creative.
Like.....some idiot could say Lee Street is a bad thing, and then you'd get sixty suggestions on the new street name (Barney Street (after the dinosaur), or Hippy Street, or Skywalker Driver, or Dallas Cowboy Avenue, or Stormy Daniels Street).
But then a whole city?
You'd have some idiots suggest Humperville, DaWaDaWaDaWa or Meth-City. Or how about Batmanville, Dusty Rhodes (after the wrestler), or West Trump.
The odds that it'd get this far? You might be able to persuade folks to just accept a couple of street name changes, but an entire neighborhood being renamed? I have my doubts, and there's zero chance that the city itself might change it's name.
But we are at a stage with society where people are cynical and sarcastic.....willing to rename their city 'Kim-City' after North Korea's dictator, or Hooterville after the TV show.
Saturday, 28 July 2018
The Lack of a Law
Generally, to be in violation of a law.....the law has to exist. I know it's hard to believe.....but if you've gone and done something that is perceived as illegal, but there is no law written to define the action or how the court can handle it.....then there is no violation.
I've sat for several months looking over this action where Team-Trump is said to have worked on getting 'dirt' on Hillary Clinton, and maybe could have met with Team-Russia or Team-Fusion GPS undercover folks....to get this 'dirt'.
There's talk that maybe someone might have paid or promised something....for the 'dirt'.
CNN has spent literally hundreds of hours discussing the potential here on the legality of Team-Trump in doing this.
So the question....what 'dirt' law exists? The answer? None.
If you notice....neither the GOP or Democrats....are interested in writing a 'dirt' law.
All of this chatter? Over some imaginary law involving 'dirt'? Yes, more or less. You can't go to jail, or be fined....without the creation of a 'dirt' law.
I've sat for several months looking over this action where Team-Trump is said to have worked on getting 'dirt' on Hillary Clinton, and maybe could have met with Team-Russia or Team-Fusion GPS undercover folks....to get this 'dirt'.
There's talk that maybe someone might have paid or promised something....for the 'dirt'.
CNN has spent literally hundreds of hours discussing the potential here on the legality of Team-Trump in doing this.
So the question....what 'dirt' law exists? The answer? None.
If you notice....neither the GOP or Democrats....are interested in writing a 'dirt' law.
All of this chatter? Over some imaginary law involving 'dirt'? Yes, more or less. You can't go to jail, or be fined....without the creation of a 'dirt' law.
Thursday, 26 July 2018
White House Press Briefings
I don't think I got around to watching an entire press conference from beginning to end....until 2010. I'm like most folks....I'd watch the capsulated version via NBC or CNN, and you got the filtered version of what they felt you needed to know.
Between 2010 and 2016....I might have watched four or five of these total.
So after 2016, for some reason (being a retiree, and having time)....I've actually started to watch at least two or three of these each month. At some point last year, I was up to around ten of these in one single month.
I've come to four observations:
1. Probably some of the most stupid people on the planet.....are employed as journalists to cover the White House. Nothing personal, and I won't name the individuals, but some of these folks ought to be selling tires, or managing apartment buildings.
2. If you can't get to the actual question in twenty words or less....then it's not really a question.
3. Follow-up questions are generally worthless.
4. I'd really like to see the first five questions taken....to be from the general public, and limit the reporters there to just the same number. The idea that journalists are smarter than regular people? That's a joke.
Between 2010 and 2016....I might have watched four or five of these total.
So after 2016, for some reason (being a retiree, and having time)....I've actually started to watch at least two or three of these each month. At some point last year, I was up to around ten of these in one single month.
I've come to four observations:
1. Probably some of the most stupid people on the planet.....are employed as journalists to cover the White House. Nothing personal, and I won't name the individuals, but some of these folks ought to be selling tires, or managing apartment buildings.
2. If you can't get to the actual question in twenty words or less....then it's not really a question.
3. Follow-up questions are generally worthless.
4. I'd really like to see the first five questions taken....to be from the general public, and limit the reporters there to just the same number. The idea that journalists are smarter than regular people? That's a joke.
Wednesday, 25 July 2018
Socialism Chatter
Over the past couple of weeks, some hyped-up political folks have been talking about this new 'Bernie-era' opening up and Democratic-Socialism being the new chief sales gimmick.
So, you might need to go and dust off your understanding of what socialism is about. In general.....socialism is a open 'menu' of economic and social systems, built around public 'ownership' and public self-management of the 'menu'.
For example, if the public came to say all university degrees would be free, or that the college loans would never have to be paid back....then it'd just happen.
Rather than letting the market manage and control the economy, you'd have public groups which would eyeball the situation and have control over banks and industry.
What generally happens at this point of the discussion....some idiot would stand up and ask who pays for everything, and the answer is industry and rich people.
Then the same guy would ask....when you've taken all the money from industry and rich people....who will come and take money from, and the answer is.....the middle-class. At that point, the conversation usually ends because no one really believes the end-result is what people talk about.
It would be different if folks actually made their own shoes.....lived off the grid....had two cows and did their gardening....rode everywhere on a bicycle, and never threatened to take anything from neighbors or the folks over in the other valley. For some reason, most socialist episode end up in revolution (civil unrest), and they then revert back to the combo version of mostly capitalism with a base of socialism (mostly to hand out a few free gifts).
This Democratic effort now? Most working Democrats won't buy into this. So I don't see this going that far. Maybe the college crowd are stupid enough to fall for the gimmick but eventually....when they get jobs and grasp the whole concept, that will be the end of their 'thrill'.
Kind of a vicious circle, if you think about it.
So, you might need to go and dust off your understanding of what socialism is about. In general.....socialism is a open 'menu' of economic and social systems, built around public 'ownership' and public self-management of the 'menu'.
For example, if the public came to say all university degrees would be free, or that the college loans would never have to be paid back....then it'd just happen.
Rather than letting the market manage and control the economy, you'd have public groups which would eyeball the situation and have control over banks and industry.
What generally happens at this point of the discussion....some idiot would stand up and ask who pays for everything, and the answer is industry and rich people.
Then the same guy would ask....when you've taken all the money from industry and rich people....who will come and take money from, and the answer is.....the middle-class. At that point, the conversation usually ends because no one really believes the end-result is what people talk about.
It would be different if folks actually made their own shoes.....lived off the grid....had two cows and did their gardening....rode everywhere on a bicycle, and never threatened to take anything from neighbors or the folks over in the other valley. For some reason, most socialist episode end up in revolution (civil unrest), and they then revert back to the combo version of mostly capitalism with a base of socialism (mostly to hand out a few free gifts).
This Democratic effort now? Most working Democrats won't buy into this. So I don't see this going that far. Maybe the college crowd are stupid enough to fall for the gimmick but eventually....when they get jobs and grasp the whole concept, that will be the end of their 'thrill'.
Kind of a vicious circle, if you think about it.
Thursday, 19 July 2018
November 2018 Predictions
This is my list of seven predictions for the November election business:
1. Joe Crowley is on the NY ballot, not as a Democrat. He will in fact....beat Ocasio-Cortez and the GOP candidate....probably with 50-percent or more of the local vote. The Democrats will be faced with a problem because he wants Pelosi's leadership chair, but he's not a pure Democrat anymore.
2. From my homestate, Kay Ivey wins the election for Governor with near sixty-percent of the vote. It'll be her last election, and set into play various folks planning for the 2024 election.
3. Four Democrat Senate seats flip to the Republicans, and one Republican Senate seat flips to the Democrats: Losers.....McCaskill, Heitkamp, Nelson, Donnelly, and Heller (R). I also think Tester (D) of Montana probably will lose. So you can figure a four-seat gain (on the best scenario) for the Republicans.
4. The 3-way split for California will not be on the ballot. You already see court challenges to remove it, and I think the whole attempt is doomed at this point.
5. House situation? I will go and predict three GOP House members losing their election, but at least five to eight Democrats who were considered 'safe'....losing because of Democratic voters leaving the party structure.
6. All of this leads toward a strategy meeting for the Democrats and discussions over how to bring voters back into the party. The chief idea? The big 2020 candidate will have to be either black or Latino. It can't be Hillary.
7. The Wisconsin Tammy Baldwin race. Well....six months ago, I would have said she had a safe election and easily won for the Democrats. Things have flipped, and I might go suggest that even a 6th GOP Senate seat win-plus-up is possible. All of this, with Corker and Flake (the two fake GOP guys) out in January.
All of this will worry Democrat Senators who have to run in 2020. It's a smaller group than what you have today, but if they were to lose another three seats....it would be an incredible problem for long-term strategy-planning.
1. Joe Crowley is on the NY ballot, not as a Democrat. He will in fact....beat Ocasio-Cortez and the GOP candidate....probably with 50-percent or more of the local vote. The Democrats will be faced with a problem because he wants Pelosi's leadership chair, but he's not a pure Democrat anymore.
2. From my homestate, Kay Ivey wins the election for Governor with near sixty-percent of the vote. It'll be her last election, and set into play various folks planning for the 2024 election.
3. Four Democrat Senate seats flip to the Republicans, and one Republican Senate seat flips to the Democrats: Losers.....McCaskill, Heitkamp, Nelson, Donnelly, and Heller (R). I also think Tester (D) of Montana probably will lose. So you can figure a four-seat gain (on the best scenario) for the Republicans.
4. The 3-way split for California will not be on the ballot. You already see court challenges to remove it, and I think the whole attempt is doomed at this point.
5. House situation? I will go and predict three GOP House members losing their election, but at least five to eight Democrats who were considered 'safe'....losing because of Democratic voters leaving the party structure.
6. All of this leads toward a strategy meeting for the Democrats and discussions over how to bring voters back into the party. The chief idea? The big 2020 candidate will have to be either black or Latino. It can't be Hillary.
7. The Wisconsin Tammy Baldwin race. Well....six months ago, I would have said she had a safe election and easily won for the Democrats. Things have flipped, and I might go suggest that even a 6th GOP Senate seat win-plus-up is possible. All of this, with Corker and Flake (the two fake GOP guys) out in January.
All of this will worry Democrat Senators who have to run in 2020. It's a smaller group than what you have today, but if they were to lose another three seats....it would be an incredible problem for long-term strategy-planning.
Wednesday, 18 July 2018
Russia and Trump Reset
This was supposed to be the signal that the Obama Administration was going to be different from the 'stupid' Bush Administration and rebuild relations with the 'evil' Russians.
To be honest with the Bush Administration....Russia was always on the 50-50 deal.....sometimes a friend...sometimes an enemy.
In some ways, from Nixon on.....the idea was always to use the Russians in some 'theatrical' sense to plus up appearances, or to appear as some 'cowboy in a white hat' against the 'evil land baron'.
This week, everyone is hyped up the evil Russian scenario....because President Trump went by a different script than usual. Most people are sitting there. They remember the stupid reset-button that Hillary presented. They get 'bad Russia' stories each month through the news media. Some stories are probably true.....some fake.
In some ways, I think most Americans are fed up with the 'scripted' storyline over Russia. Trump just walked in with his own version of the reset button, and the news media freaked out. If he'd just bought some fake button kit and gave it as a joke to Putin....things would be fine. Well....people just laugh over that suggestion.
All of this 'evil' talk resembles some Seinfeld episode...a bunch of stuff, about nothing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)