Why Bernie Sanders Would Be the Most Fiscally Conservative Candidate

    I'll bet you think it's crazy to suggest the Sanders Administration would shrink the deficit more than any other potential candidate's administration.   But it's blatantly obvious.  

     Although Republican Obama-phobes would have you believe that the President can unilaterally enact new spending programs and that Congress is helpless to oppose it , America is still a a democracy, and increasing the budget is simply not possible without a vote from the House and Senate.   Both of these are solidly in Republican control and would likely remain in Republican control in an unpopular Presidency.  Certainly Sanders might ask for a new bill to provide free tuition, say, but there is no way that the Republicans would vote for such a bill.  It is simply a fantasy from both sides that Sanders can increase spending by himself.  

     On the other hand, what he might do is to disengage the military from its current role as enforcer in Middle Eastern political systems and reduce operational military expenses.   That might reduce spending a little.  

     Conversely, Hillary Clinton embraced American intervention as Secretary of State, and the Republicans hope to prove their manhood by doing even more.  That means more spending for military operations.  

     As far as taxes are concerned, Bernie might like to carry out punitive taxation on the rich, but here again, the Republican majority would never permit it.  Perhaps, some token tax increase might get through, but that's about it.  

     Conversely, if a Republican President gets in, he will ask for and receive from Congress a bill with additional unnecessary tax cuts.  Trump, Rubio, Cruz, Kasich and Carson are all on record as favoring big juicy tax cuts despite the fact that the deficit is currently 400 billion dollars per year. A six year old can figure out that the Republicans will definitely increase the deficit if they get their guy in the White House plus control both Houses of the Legislature.   

     Hence it is obvious that if you want to control spending, the best way to do that would be to elect Bernie Sanders and to maintain Republican control in both the House and Senate.
 
      Okay, it's a stretch to call Sanders a fiscal conservative. But his Administration will be forced to restrict spending growth whether he likes it or not.  

Trump's Popularity Explained to Those on the Left

The Village Elliot says Mr. Trump's popularity is not so hard to understand.   

Why is Donald Trump so popular?  Some of my friends on the left are astonished, and others are horrified by the success of Donald Trump.   All along I've said that Donald Trump has a realistic chance to win the White House, and that appears to be the case.   

I'm not saying that Donald Trump is a great candidate or my favorite candidate even among Republicans.  For the record, I am a registered Democrat and will vote for Bernie Sanders in the Ohio primary.  I am not an expert on measuring political sentiment, but I think I do understand the sentiment for Trump and I admit that in some ways I sympathize with it.    

   I believe that the center of American Politics has become corrupt in some important ways, and many Americans would like an outsider to come in and fix it. The Republican center in particular has become the party of Obamaphobia, too terrified of President Obama to participate in politics, and now totally devoted to simply opposing Obama on everything.   This does not sit well with many Republicans any more than it does with Democrats.  

     The last time a Republican President was elected, he created a depression and two wars, went from a slight surplus to an enormous deficit and increased both non-defenses and defense spending across the board.   True, many Republicans celebrate that style of government, but not all do.  Many Republicans genuinely believe the government should limit its role in the economy and that moreover there need to be limits on taxation.  Centrist candidates like Jeb Bush (the Republican centerfold at the beginning of the election) do not have much appeal for true economic conservatives.  

     The party bosses support perpetual war in the Middle East (hopefully at an even higher level than the Democrats), are okay with 400 billion dollar deficits and are willing to muddle through the immigration situation without resolving anything. Not all Republicans are happy with this. Many Republics do in fact want to see an end to war sometime, and they want to see some real spending cuts because they think that the current situation is unsustainable.  They are also afraid of tax hikes, because the Democrats can mobilize millions of have-nots to vote to take away all the hard-earned money that the middle and upper class have saved for themselves.  

Trump has loudly stated the obvious, that going into Iraq was a mistake, not a stroke of genius as Jeb and others would have us believe.   If you want to have policy shifts, increased levels of deportations, spending cuts, you're going to have to have a tough guy who is willing to accept criticism. 

All these reasons add up to a great desire to support a political outsider this year.  The same logic applies to someone like Bernie Sanders for the Democrats.   The center of the Democratic Party likewise may be on unstable footing and people are not happy with it.  Is Sanders the answer?  I don't know but he's the only alternative out there.  

Moreover, the rules for winning have changed in the Internet age.  To cite one example, it used to be that televised debates were not allowed to show the reaction of the audience.   Now the media rules favor candidates that can draw cheers and applause with snappy sound bites, and even slinging insults and interruptions.  Trump has realized this and he is playing the game the way that it needs to be played in order to win.  So, to some extent if we don't like Trump's sound bites, a lot of it has to do with the way that the Media has set things up.  This is the what the rules favor.  At the beginning of primary season, I thought that his experience in his chaotic reality TV “boardroom” would serve him well.   

In view of the media preference for shouting, interruption and sound bites, I think it would be very very difficult for Hilary Clinton to beat Donald Trump one on one.  Hillary will say smart things, Trump will say a few dumb things, and a lot of outrageous things, and that will probably work well for him.  

Primary Season is Upon Us!

What season is it?  Why, it's primary season!

   Today (Feb 9) is the New Hampshire primary, and the election gets into full swing.  I'm both excited by it and repulsed.   

     I'm repulsed by the normally sensible center of American politics which has learned to embrace huge deficits, perpetual war in the Middle East, out of control immigration and several other huge problems as the norm.   

    Not surprisingly, then, we have serious challenges being mounted by relative outsiders to the political process such as Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Ben Carson.  The Republican inside man, Jeb Bush has already been thoroughly routed whereas the erstwhile Democrat juggernaut, Hillary Clinton, has been hit hard by a 74 year old socialist named Bernie Sanders. 

    At this point, nine months before the election there is plenty of time to pick which party to support.  I think it is good to look at both sides, just like when you go to buy a new car you're better off to look at more than one brand of car.

    In my humble opinion, if you can't differentiate between candidates from the "other" party (say, you're a Democrat and you see no difference between Donald Trump and Jeb Bush), you're in danger of becoming a partisan ideologue. There are huge differences between the nine or so Republicans duking it out, and even the two Democrats are sharply divided on most issues.  

   The Democratic National Committee has done a good job of eliminating potential candidacies of people like Elizabeth Warren who is young enough and bright enough to make a difference.  Hillary Clinton is their annointed candidate, with only Bernie Sanders to challenge her.  Bernie is apparently too naughty to obey the memo.  The Republican primary is kind of like the clown car in the circus, with all sorts of zany characters along for the ride.  I think there may be a good one in there someplace, but I'm not sure.  

    I don't know who it I'm going to vote for for President, but I know it won't be Hillary Clinton, or Ted Cruz.   Clinton is addicted to war in the Middle East, in my opinion.  I believe as Scretary of State she hoped American would lead an extended Arab Spring revolution to "liberate" Arab peoples via the "Regime Change" policy, in which the US is allowed to take down foreign governments as kind of a public service to the inhabitants, but which instead is dragging down the US economy and nobody seems to much like us in the Middle East despite our wonderful intentions.  This is simply a disaster, compounding the mistakes of the Bush Administration, and I can't accept it or even make sense of it. Why in the world are we intervening in a Civil War in Syria while not supporting either of the two warring parties?  Cruz on the other hand, appears to be incapable of accepting a compromise, and moreover tried via filibustering to cause the US government to default on the Federal Deficit in order to destroy the banking system.  I'm not sure how either of these two got to the point of being so highly respected as politicians.     

Can somebody please do better than these two, I hope?  

     If the major parties diverge too far from reality, might a third party candidacy take hold? Michael Bloomberg may be leaning that way.  

    Earlier, I offered the opinion that a third party might emerge this year for a number of reasons.  Perhaps even someone with some common sense might be needed if the major parties veer too far from the sensible center.  We're hearing now that Michael Bloomberg is strongly considering a run.  That might be a good thing.

.  

Trump Can Win, But Can Hilllary?

No, seriously!  Why does anyone think Hillary could beat Trump?  

     Conventional wisdom is that Trump can not win.  That's what the Huntington Post said when it announced it was going to cover Trump's candidacy from the Entertainment News, since he couldn't be given a serious chance to win. Surely Jeb Bush would prove to be an insurmountable force in the Republican electorate, and Trump could be given no chance to beat him.

     That was conventional wisdom a few months ago. 

       The Village Elliot figured Trump had a chance because he is extremely good on TV, has better name recognition, and because the policies of the Bush family have been idiotic and most normal people realize it.  It turns out that Ben Carson, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio have all been kicking Bush's ass, and Trump is on the front page, contrary to the confident promise by Huntington Post. 

       My Democrat friends are gleeful, rubbing their hands in expectation of an easy victory by their heroine, Hillary Clinton, in the fall.   Well, why can't Trump win?  

     "Trump says stupid things, Hillary says smart things," they assure me.  

     "Well, isn't it better to say stupid things if you want to win over a lot of voters in America?"  I protest.   

      Donald Trump has spent more than a decade fighting in the "Boardroom" of his TV show, "The Apprentice."  I think he is going to tear Hillary to shreds if she becomes the nominee. 

     Hillary, it must be pointed out, helped to craft our wonderful Syrian policy, in which America has strongly intervened in their Civil War, while hoping that neither side will win.  Incredible genius.  Meantime, there is an enormous refugee problem since there is no safe haven.  And we are committed to staying in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and the entire Middle East until peaceful and stable pro-American governments arise.  I'm sure this plan will work, sometime between now and the next 500 years.  Together, mainstream Democrats and Republicans have crafted a tacit agreement to spend trillions of dollars with no end in sight, and they can not imagine why a Washington outsider might be a tiny bit popular with the people.

     I think Hillary is very vulnerable here, and Trump will blast her record (plus throw in gratuitous insults).  

         By the same token, mainstream Democrats are proud of having reduced the deficit under 500 billion dollars per year, and Republicans don't seem to mind as long as wealthy people don't have to pay for it.   With such a great system, how could outsiders hope to break in?  Here again, the mainstream has a tacit agreement not to mention this embarrassing issue, but I think Trump will drive home the point that the country needs responsible management of public monies.

        Speaking of the wealthy, I'm not sure that Hillary is going to be able to run over Bernie Sanders.  There is no possible way that a 74 year old socialist from Vermont should be able to take on Secretary Clinton.   I give Mr Sanders great credit for his honesty (except for how he would pay for all the services he wishes to provide), but if Hillary can not beat Sanders, I don't see any way she can beat Trump.   

       No, I think it is clear that this is going to be the year of the outsider.  Trump can certainly win, and will probably beat Hillary badly if she is in fact the nominee.  Sanders would probably fare better because he is a more tenacious debater, and has less of the horrible baggage that Secretary Clinton has to carry around.   

       Stay tuned, it should be an interesting election at least.  

Will a Third Party Presidential Candidate Emerge in 2016?

    I was very interested to see that former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is considering a third party run for the US presidency this year.  

    I believe that this is a very good opportunity, as the major US Parties are so dysfunctional that neither represents America very well.  

   The major parties are united in the belief that a deficit of half a trillion dollars is just fine.  

   The two major parties are also enamored with continuous warfare in the Middle East, believing that this is a wise investment that will pay handsome dividends as new governments emerge that are Pro-American Democracies. Personally, I find that idea hideously repugnant. 

    Currently the leader among the Republicans is Donald Trump, who pledges to build a wall around America, bomb Muslims and restrict immigration.  Republicans are embarrassed by the low level of the favored candidate, but this is what happens when you have tried your best to appeal to ignorance over the past few decades.  Now it is coming home to roost.  Many establishment Republicans are very distraught over the pathetic state the party finds itself in.  The foolish hope has been that Mr Trump will simply go away, but it is increasingly obvious that he is the front runner.  The second place man is even worse, with Ted Cruz previously seeking to force the US government to default on its debt, the theory being that the destruction of the US government would lead to a better one to take its place.  Good luck with that one, Senator.   We haven't had candidates this crazy since the heyday of Strom Thurmond.  

   On the Democratic side, Socialist Bernie Sanders is giving Secretary Hillary Clinton a run for her money.  In my opinion, it's not that Sanders is so good, it's that Hillary is so bad.  Hillary is a champion of massive intervention in the Middle East filling the same role for the Democrats that Dick Cheney played for the Republicans.   With Hillary we can be sure to be in for another round of trillion dollar mlitary "investing" as Hillary seeks to be the first female president not only in America but also in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Egypt and Afghanistan.   Meantime, the security violations involving classified information in her non-secure emails might be under-rated as a problem, as there is a real concern that laws may have been broken. 

    Nevertheless, the Democrats have tried to reign in potential competitors to Hillary, but Bernie evidently did not get the memo.   Although scoring big points for honesty and sincerity and his desire to disengage from Middle Eastern warfare, I don't think America really wants to go Socialist.  I think we would rather try to reduce the role of government, and elect someone that believes in coming closer to balancing the budget.    But these centrist Democrats are not running, having been chased away by the Democratic National Committee.      I think someone with common sense with an appeal to the sensible center of America might win.  Perhaps if the Democrats can set social agenda, while letting the Republicans try to balance the budget, a strong candidacy could emerge. Bloomberg, Mitt Romney or Elizabeth Warren might win.  Especially in combination.   I think Elizabeth could get us out of perpetual warfare, and Bloomberg or Romney would present a very credible economic recovery agenda.

The Village Elliot believes Elizabeth Warren is the best person to take us out of Middle Eastern Wars, while Mitt Romney or Mike Bloomberg could reduce the deficit.  

     Nor are there practical alternatives presented by perpetual fringe parties such as the Libertarians, who ran former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson last time; nor the Greens, who ran Jill Stein, who was a town representative in Lexington Mass.  I can't imagine that these candidates will engender much support.  For that reason I think that a third party candidacy in 2016 is likely to be an ad-hoc affair, similar to the candidacies of Ross Perot in 1992 or John Anderson in 1980.  

    The two-party system is broken, as both parties are too comfortable with running a half-trillion dollar deficit and funding perpetual death in the Middle East as a public service.  Out! Out! Out!  I don't think any third party candidate could possibly mess us up as badly as Republicans and Democrats.  

.

The VIllage Elliot Slumbers at Star Wars the Force Awakens

Don't worry I won't spoil the ending.  I can't because an hour after it started, I walked out on The Farce Awakens, one of the weakest science fiction movies I have ever endured.  

I was first of all bored by the Storm Troopers, the wimpiest fighting force ever assembled.   They still can not hit the broad side of a barn with their high tech but ineffective weapons. After they shoot and miss the good 10,000 times in a row over 38 years, they cease being scary.  If I saw one in real life, I would not flee in terror, I would order a burger and fries.  

"Welcome to Burger King, may I take your order?"

Then there are some random crappy desert planets on which a handsome guy (Finn, after Huckleberry I suppose) and gal (Rey) live, and they happen to be able to pilot space ships, and can fix them using only a 9/16" wrench and a screwdriver.
    
The Galactic Empire decides to kill the heroic couple, but apparently is too weak to get it done. Some emperor!  Next time send the marines, not Storm Troopers.  Jeez.  
  

If I were to put the plot in 20th century terms, it would be that youngsters in rural England find a message in a bottle with a map to Charles De Gaulle, the one man who can defeat Adolf Hitler.  Well, Hitler finds out about it and sends his storm troopers to kill the youngsters.  But the youngsters steal a fighter aircraft and use it to hold off the entire German army until the great De Gaulle can be found.   They are able to do this by using prayer power to outfly the Luftwaffe and baffle the army, which consists of 150 or so soldiers, most of whom use bows and arrows instead of guns.   Meantime it turns out that the youngsters are all related to Hitler and De Gaulle. Isn't that an exciting little tidbit?  

Throughout the movie I wanted desperately to sleep to avoid the idiotic and boring script, but I was too miserable.   There might have been more to the plot than I saw, but after an hour it failed to emerge so I left.   

Rey and Finn are not only smart and sexy, but they have innate commando abilities, can pilot any starship with zero training and can easily defeat an intergalactic empire. Ah to be that young and talented!  

This little robot may be the father of Darth Vader.  Wow!  Plot twist!

  

Who Will We Support in Syria?

        My main hope in the Paris crisis is that we do not wind up with Democrats supporting one group of Middle Eastern extremists, while the Republicans support a different group of Middle Eastern extremists. 

     In the wake of bombings in Paris, it is easy to jump to the conclusion that we must oppose ISIS.  There is virtually 100% agreement on that point.  No doubt the American Congress will be eager to send more weapons and possibly troops to the area.      

   

     But it's easy to oppose groups in the Middle East.  A tougher question, is who will we support there?  In order to effectively oppose ISIS, there must be some local Syria-based group that we will support.  Who will get these weapons we will presumably continue to send?  

    

      In the Village Ellliot's opinion, much harm was done by the Chief Executive proclaiming "Assad must go!"  I think it was an enormous miscalculation based on the Administration's misplaced desire to appear to be at the forefront of the Arab Spring movement (which totally fizzled once we attempted to insert ourselves in it, by the way).  Moreover, by these three words Obama unequivocally threw his support behind the Regime Change doctrine, which basically says the US is entitled to overthrow foreign governments if we believe that they are bad.  

      There are two major Middle Eastern powers involved in Syria:  the Assad government and ISIS.   Russia has backed the Syrian government, which is the only sensible way to oppose ISIS. However, the US wants to posture itself as anti-Russia and anti-Assad and, more recently,anti-ISIS.   We wish to pretend that there is this sensible pro-American progressively-minded third party in Syria, but it does not exist.  

     Recall Middle East Rule Number 1;  all warring groups in the region hate the US and Israel.   There are no US allies in the region. 

     Rule Number 2 is that a charismatic American leader can not overturn Rule Number 1.  

     In fact, it may not be too much of a stretch to say that the US probably saved Assad by demanding his ouster, because 100% of the peoples in the region hate the US more than they might have hated Assad.

     This does not mean that we can not deal diplomatically with countries that hate us.  "Speak softly and carry a big stick," was the way President Theodore Roosevelt explained it.

     Anything we do in Syria is short term.  If ISIS is the number one threat, we can weaken them by attacking their military presence and set them back.   But the purpose of the US military is to destroy military threats.  It does not create stable friendships, does not create progressive attitudes, does not overcome oppression, does not help suppressed minorities.  Understand?  It destroys the opponent's military, and it does that job very well. But that's all it does.  Don't show me any pictures of GI's handing out candy to grateful foreign tots.   That's simply public relations for the US.     

     It seems to me that if the US, Russia and France wanted to help Assad destroy ISIS we could certainly do so.  The outcome is less certain if the US wishes to also oppose Assad at the same time, while hoping for a pro-American faction to emerge (it won't). Meanwhile we may wind up confronting Russia for supporting Assad.  I'm not sure what France will want to do, but I would bet that they will not endorse the weird US non-plan of being anti-everyone.  

   

     My guess is that France may want to hit back at ISIS.  I doubt whether they are going to care about the fizzled, dysfunctional dream of American leadership of Arab Spring.   If the US had any sense, we would back off this insane concept and stop calling for the overthrow of the Assad government, especially while they are fighting ISIS.