One-note Root today offers his solution to the 2018 Republican election rout.
One can’t argue with his premise that Gov. Brian Sandoval did not live up to his election promises. Instead, he shepherded though the largest tax increase in state history to pay for the highest budget; pushed through the commerce tax on businesses; expanded Medicaid under ObamaCare; allowed illegals aliens to get driver’s licenses; and bailed on school choice.
But Root’s solution is:
Find me candidates who believe in real conservative principles and who know how to proudly and loudly sell that message, and I’ll show you a Nevada that is painted Republican red again. That’s a Christmas message of hope for the Nevada GOP.
Well, they don’t get any more conservative than Bob Beers, who lost the race for state treasurer to an unknown, much less-qualified Democrat. The same could be said for Ron Knecht, who lost his controller re-election bid, and Wes Duncan, who lost his bid for attorney general. And, yes, Adam Laxalt had said he would try to repeal the commerce tax and as attorney general defended conservative principles and values. He lost to a tax-loving Democrat. We’ll skip over tax-hiker Michael Roberson.
Root’s solution has already failed. What now, one-note Root?
I also think the GOP needs to up their game when it comes to messaging, the Vote for me because I don’t suck as bad as my opponent; approach is getting old. The need embrace social wand reach out intelligently to ALL ethnic groups and others.
The insistence on “purity” of conservative principle will not result in more elected conservatives but less. In fact, ultra conservative candidates win primary elections and lose general elections. Republicans like to politically assassinate their own by applying labels to their own like RINO and refusing to support candidates who do not meet their litmus tests of their definition of “conservative”. Look at the changing demographics out there. The trend is towards populism. That is not conservatism.
Forgive the typos on the last comment
Social media is what they need to embrace
(Wish there was an edit feature on these blogs after a post is made)
Agreed Bruce. Your point is well taken. Republicans (and conservatives in general) do not do a good job in messaging.
Bill is right, electing moderates allows those more in line with conservative ideals to sway those moderates away from liberal influences.
The same works from the opposing force. In fact this is Democrats very strength, they accept their moderates and continually point out how crazy today’s conservatives are.
And conservatives keep giving them plenty to point at.
Sandoval is a conservative. Make no mistake.
Conservatives are totally willing to spend money for things they have decided are worth the dollars.
Sandoval saw value and worth in spending on the things he supported.
Sandoval is not a RINO and Sisolak may well prove to be a hawkish Democrat. I saw the cubicles empty out at county offices all over town when I was servicing equipment as one of the vendors.
When the recession hit, he was among those who stopped the spending and worked hard to keep as much functional as was possible.
We are entering another time of significant uncertainty and it may well be Sisolak will find it necessary to repeat much of the hawkishness he exhibited while on, a totally Democrat, County Commission.
I hope you’re right Steve. But the main problem I don’t believe will be addressed by the incoming politicians we’ve elected.
And what is the main problem?
The absolute stranglehold of Clarke County on Nevada elections.
And what are the demographics of Clark County?
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.
Elmer T Peterson
Profound words, Athos. Although we have lasted almost 250 years, Peterson’s prediction has been coming true ever since 1980 or so. Partisans are so busy rooting for their team, they ignore the deficit during the time their team is in power, and wait to complain after they have become a minority and no longer have the power to stop it. Compare the mentions of the deficit in this space from 2008-2016 with the mentions since January of 2017 as a case in point.
“Sandoval is a conservative. Make no mistake.” Yeah and I’m the Wizard of Oz. (What the heck have you been drinking?)
Conservatives will spend money once they see value.
Scrooge never spends money, while expecting gold delivered at the front door daily.
Things that prove my statements are when both extremes don’t like the the subject, in this case Brian Sandoval
And a plus to the mix, they don’t like Sisolak either!
(I feel better)
From the extreme left wingnuttery of Hugh Jackson, we have this:
“Sandoval at heart is a trickle-down guy, with a workforce training flavor spike.”
“You see, for all those policymakers who think Sandoval is hot, currently the most prominent fan of Sandoval’s economic policies is the man who is about to replace him.”
Athos, the South has been dominant in terms of population and governmental power in Nevada since at least the mid 1980’s. Prior to that time, the north dominated. As the South’s population grows, (thank you one man one vote) so too will their political power and political and economic dominance over other parts of the State. So, too, as the demands for more government services and benefits grows, the competition will increase for limited resources and there will be an increasing political cry about more of the tax pie as their “fair share”.
So, IMHO, the North and South thing is here to stay. We also have another geographical political problem in Nevada.
The eastern part of the State (the so-called Cow Counties) versus the rest of the State. Their concerns, ranching, mining and public lands find decreasing sympathy in urban
Washoe or Clark.
As for Sandoval being a conservative or a moderate, it all depends on how you define the term. In these days of ever shifting definitions, what is a “true” conservative?
What is a conservative or a “true” conservative? It’s enunciated quite well here (and it doesn’t resemble Brian Sandoval even remotely) : https://spectator.org/58776_11-principles-reagan-conservative/
Here are the eleven Reagan principles.
• Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life
• American Exceptionalism
• The Founders’ Wisdom and Vision
• Lower Taxes
• Limited Government
• Peace Through Strength
• Belief in the Individual
Lower taxes, no. Limited government, no.
Reagan signed some pretty big tax increases and the federal govt expanded under his two terms.
Seems about right, Sandoval is a Reagan conservative.
No wonder he’s so popular.
Actions are what count. Someone here said that to me once.
Reagan so ‘believed” in his principles, that he sent arms to terrorists, negotiated with terrorists, allowed terrorists to kill Americans, withdrew American forces after terrorists bombed them, pretended that AIDS was a disease that didn’t exist which allowed millions of people to die needlessly, so believed in “the founders wisdom and vision” that he instituted wars without the declarations required by the Congress, and retained the single most corrupt group of conspirators in the executive branch than had ever in history been seen (Exceeded only by the current conservative office holder) all the while declaring under oath, each year, that different terrorists in Pakistan, were honoring treaties that Reagan knew they weren’t honoring, all so that he could continue to usurp the founding fathers “wisdom” and spread wars to other countries, even as his lies permitted the spread of nuclear technology that haunts this country to this day.
If he had principles, his actions were contrary to each of them.
He ended the Cold War, cut and reformed taxes, added 16 million jobs, strengthened the military, pushed missile defense technology …
Well those are interesting takes I guess (although I have a different perspective like that it wasn’t Reagan that ended anything since but for Gorby, it would have continued. And you want to give Reagan credit for what the economy did? Ok well, maybe you ought to take off the number of government jobs “created”? And, keep this in mind; during Reagan’s two terms in office, approximately 2 million jobs were created each year, which breaks down to 167,000 per month, of which a significant percentage were government jobs (Reagan “created” 4 million of them during his 8 years) and yes he did “push” missile defense technology that consumed untold trillions of dollars of taxes taken, I might add, “at the end of a gun” from our honest freedom loving citizens.
And, I don’t see any of those, that are consistent with any of the principles you cited.
“cut and reformed taxes”
After which, he increased taxes. By quite a bit too.
Goes to what I say, real conservatives will spend money when they sense real value, vs simple “feel good, do nothing” legislation intended to keep officeholders in office.
Sandoval is a real conservative, in the Reagan tradition.
Raising the taxes later was one of the decent things that Reagan did. He saw that tax cuts did not increase government revenues as promised and so, took action to reduce the deficit. This was followed by tax increases from the (H.W.) Bush and Clinton Administrations. We were rewarded in the ’90’s with a roaring economy, a government surplus, and solid evidence that tax cuts don’t pay for themselves and that tax increases don’t kill the economy. Conservatives assiduously ignore this evidence, proving Churchill correct when he said, “Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened.”
The 90’s were a direct result of the “dot com” explosion, Rincon.
Stop trying to credit taxes with economic growth, it just isn’t reality. The opposite, in fact is true. Had the dot com economy not come along, those tax increases would have eaten into revenues as well as the tax cuts did before.
My point was not that tax hikes goose the economy. They do not. My points were: 1) It’s rather unlikely that they destroy the economy as advertised, since we had three tax hikes just prior to one of the greatest economic periods our country has seen. And 2) The Reagan tax cuts coincided with a near tripling of the deficit, while the three tax hikes led to smaller deficits and ultimately, a tax surplus. As for your dot com explanation, it appears to be a bit oversimplified if one is to believe Wikipedia:
“The mid to late 1990s was characterized by significantly low oil prices (the lowest prices since the Post World War 2 Economic Boom) , which would have reduced transportation and manufacturing costs, leading to increases in economic growth. The lowest price for oil during this entire period occurred in 1998.
Reform of welfare enacted through the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, which significantly reduced the amount of time individuals can stay on welfare and as a result, increased the labor force participation rate. Labor Force Participation Rates climbed to its highest level before starting to descend in the mid-2000s. Workfare was gaining more credibility among OECD nations during this time.
A more egalitarian tax structure, and the accompanying promotion of Third Way politics espoused by Clinton and Tony Blair, which emphasizes a syncretic form of neoliberal politics along with slight improvements in social capital which aims to give the poor a “hand up” (not a handout), instead of relying on purely laissez faire policies and the purely leftist strains associated with the welfare state.
New Job growth created from the information revolution and the associated capital created from the dot com bubble.
The enactment of NAFTA was thought to increase economic growth via improved comparative advantage, which reduced prices for traded goods.
Increased productivity created from newly invented information technologies (computers; internet)
A healthy dependency ratio when Baby Boomers were still working.
A higher savings rate and thus more available credit and investment.
The New Generational Bulge of Millennials (albeit less pronounced than the Baby Boomer generational buldge) would create a significant market dedicated for young people during this decade, increasing demand and consumer spending. This bulge was apparent in the early 1990s, when more Millennials were born.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990s_United_States_boom
Dot Com got my point across, it’s proper to hike taxes in an up economy. Same as the FED hiking interest rates in up economies. This is also the time safety net programs should be filled with so called “rainy day” funds.
Conservatives know this, it’s Liberals that scare me because they want to spend all the time, claiming all wealth comes from government spending rather than the other way around.
When the economy is down lowering taxes, lowering govt spending (other than safety net programs) and lowering interest rates are ways of increasing the availability of money. Using that money increases economic activity and so the cycle goes, or it should if our representatives follow the bouncing ball and so what they should, when they should. Liberals, generally, don’t. Liberals want to increase spending across the board no matter what the economy is doing.
Of course it was simplified, we aren’t the only ones reading this.
Gotta be simple for Patrick! (Bless his ever, uber, liberal heart)
At least we partially agree. The time to raise taxes is when the economy is hot. Unfortunately, our current administration has done the opposite. I don’t agree that government should restrict its spending more in bad times though, because cutting government spending keeps a fair amount of money out of peoples’ pockets, which slows the economy. Think of a road construction worker who works fewer hours because the government cut them. He will tighten his belt and that keeps money out of the pockets of other people, and so on. Give him a little extra overtime and he’ll probably spend more than usual, which stimulates the economy. It must be done with care though. The temptation is to never quite get around to paying it off.
Government is a cost center.
But that cost must not exceed the profit center.
When profit is down, costs must be controlled.
It’s simple all right. Throwing people out of their jobs and reducing their incomes substantially is not a good way to get out of a recession, especially if it is to enable goosing the economy in good times with tax breaks as we have done in 2018. As a matter of fact, economists (and most sane people) agree that a major factor that perpetuates and worsens recessions is a reduction of spending throughout the marketplace due to a lack of public financial confidence. Cutting government spending during a recession has both of these effects.
In the long run, it would be great to spend only what we can afford in hard times and spend less than that in good times in order to reduce the deficit. Unfortunately, reducing government spending during hard times in an economy addicted to excessive spending is like trying to stop smoking during a difficult divorce. Government spending, if we feel it necessary, needs to be reduced during good times first.
BTW, as a share of our national GDP, we spend no more in government today than we did in 1960 (if we exclude Medicare, which did not exist in 1960 and Social Security, which deserves a separate discussion. This does include Medicaid, a major source of spending today that did not exist in 1960) Whitehouse.gov-historicaltables Table 14.5.
The reason we have such a huge deficit is that Congress eliminated a lot of corporate and excise taxes without increasing taxes anywhere else. Another example of tax cuts that did not pay for themselves.
“The reason we have such a huge deficit is that Congress eliminated a lot of corporate and excise taxes without increasing taxes anywhere else. ”
Nope. (See some of the references in previous 4thst8 posts) Revenues increased and stabilized under the new tax law, but spending was increased far more than revenues could ever justify. Spending is increasing the deficits, not lack of revenues under the new tax law.
OK, then. That spending is what you insist is good for economies.
Put your money where your KB is.
Hire more people when you are running negative revenues at your own practice.
Experience how it affects your micro economy.
Government is a cost center, it does not create wealth, it uses wealth.
If you strangle wealth, government will lose revenue.
“See some of the references in previous 4thst8 posts” Thanks for nothing. I’ll let you know when I have several hours available to try and track down which ones you mean.
Revenues did not increase in the long run after the Reagan and Bush tax cuts. They won’t today either. Revenues did increase in the long term with the H.W. Bush and Clinton tax increases. Like with many voters, you are thinking in the short term, a flawed approach.
If I believe your last two lines, then I would have to conclude that some guy building an overpass on a (privately owned) toll road contributes to the economy, but if it’s for the Interstate Highway System, then he’s a drain. It may take me a long time to understand that kind of reasoning.
Now put your theory to work in your own business.
Let us know how it works out.
I’ve read that 4 out of 5 businesses fail within 5 years. Many businesses go into debt in order to rapidly expand during good times, and then have little credit left when business drops off. In my business, I have stuck with steady growth. My greatest investment was in 2008 and 9, at the height of the recession, when I had a new building constructed. My credit was rock solid the whole time. I have yet to lay off my first employee, cut pay, or involuntarily reduce employee hours. My new building has been a good investment and my employees have paid me back for my support of them many times over. I doubt if government employees feel the same way today, knowing that they are mere pawns in the game played by our President and Congress. If they treated their employees as I have treated mine, it’s possible that their employees would work as hard for them as mine do for me.
And you neglect to add, you spend wisely (when value is well defined for the money being spent), borrow frugally and pay your debts on time.
17 years I worked for the owner. (different business) I saw the same stuff you just described and know what you carefully omitted.
You are a closet (or personal) conservative, while publicly liberal.
Had a printing press in a private shop here. Another vendor had the owner sign his tablet, telling her they were “paperless”. The owner of the print shop, at first, was congratulatory.
Then, realizing her very business relies on printed paper, got very quiet.
This same person will print political campaign ads for Democrats only. Refusing all business from Republican and other smaller parties.
Mitch probably knows who I am talking about. Her last name is the same as one of our previous Metro Sheriff’s (no relation) and she comes from the same place as John Ralston.
Rincon, you and her have a LOT in common.
I’m neither conservative nor liberal. I’m a moderate. I pay my employees on merit, which is rather conservative, and I allow generous credit terms for our pet owners, which is more liberal. In politics, my Conservative friends call me a liberal and vice versa. That’s a sure sign of being a moderate.
As shown by the fact that we spend no more, as a percentage of GDP now than in 1960, our government hasn’t been particularly loose with spending today; rather, they failed to charge their customers enough to support their “business” by consistently reducing taxes while spending the same amounts year after year, hoping that income would somehow increase when they did so. It did not and will not this time either, so our hole grows deeper.
Of course, this was not the case in the great Obama era, right Rincon?
Actually, this WAS the case for the latter half of Obama’s term. For a few years following the worst recession in the last 100 years, the amount was greater than in 1960, a year without major financial hardship. At the time, economists were nearly unanimous that government spending should increase somewhat. This was initiated by the Bush Administration. Additionally, unemployed people always suck up government more than the employed, so it was nearly impossible to avoid spending more. By 2014 though, federal spending (as a share of GDP w/o SS & Medicare, but including Medicaid) was less that in 1960. I believe that now, the federal government spends a greater share than they did in 1960, since tax revenues are up (for now), but our deficits are as great as during Obama’s last years
For some reason, Conservatives severely criticize Obama’s struggles to right the economy when it crashed and burned after 8 years of George W Bush, but then again, partisans are rarely fair minded, are they?.
Regardless of the details, the fact remains that a massive federal government compared to yesteryear is just another Conservative assertion that simply is not true. https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/historical-tables/ Table 14.5
One more detail: Obama also got stuck with two wars started by George W, worth $4 trillion or so. That, along with big time unemployment, made it almost impossible to keep a lid on government spending. Conservatives excuse the cause of all of this trouble, but blame the cleanup crew for the mess, when they weren’t even there at the time it was made.
At some point, government workers stop serving the American people and seek to serve themselves. To be fair, this is human nature and certainly understandable. That is why it is imperative to limit the size of government.
I’m not sure if that is a Liberal or Conservative view, but it certainly isn’t a Socialist, Statist or Communist principle.
The Reagan years were about “starving the beast”. Looks good on principle but didn’t work because the government owns the printing press for money. Record tax receipts and record deficits.
Of course looking at today’s budget, the Reagan years spending was positively frugal!
“two wars started by George W” arguably rooted in the Bill Clinton administration.
“At some point, government workers stop serving the American people and seek to serve themselves.” But private enterprise would not??
“two wars started by George W” arguably rooted in the Bill Clinton administration.” How so? I did look to see if the Clinton Administration failed to adequately pursue terrorists prior to 9/11, and here’s what Snopes said:
Claim: The Clinton administration failed to track down the perpetrators of several terrorist attacks against Americans.
Status: False https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/dead-on-the-tracks/
To me, George W’s decision to invade Afghanistan was reasonable, but when he decided to invade Iraq as well, we took our eye off of the ball in Afghanistan. Although we were capable of winning two somewhat simultaneous military victories, we were woefully unprepared to win two post war situations.
Clinton did not go after Hussein. Bush 2 did.
Clinton had clear cause but did not act fully.
Of course, hindsight (yours and mine) is 20/20
Sometimes you have to accept what happened, happened and there are no conservative v liberal reasons for it.
But you will still insist all cons bad and all libs good.
Think about the job description for our “government workers”. They are there to serve the people, not there to profit from their positions of power. Our Founders wanted a citizen legislator, not a lifetime career. That is a big difference with the private sector. Primarily because prior to Zero’s forcing every American to purchase a private product (health Insurance), government could not make anyone buy anything. As a private enterprise, I can’t force anyone to purchase my product. (at least not legally)
Do you understand the difference?
And I agree, Jorge screwed the pooch going into Iraq and getting rid of Sadam. Stupid. Just like Zero and Hellery got rid of Gaddafi. More stupid. Hindsight or not, why do we have leaders that are so dumb?
“Clinton did not go after Hussein. Bush 2 did.” I wouldn’t want to put words into your mouth, but it sounds like you’re admitting that Clinton was smarter than George W.
Let me make sure that I have it straight, Athos: You’re saying that government employees are there to serve the people, not there to profit from their positions of power, while the purpose of private enterprise is to grab as much money as fast as possible by any legal (or sometimes illegal) means.
This is your peeps biggest downfall, you all absolutely hate to use the full meaning and whole context.
“Clinton had clear cause but did not act fully.”
Business 101 – provide a product or service at the highest price a reasonably informed person will pay that also gives you a profit. That’s how you stay in business. And can look yourself in the mirror.
But then again, I’m old school.
I agree that free markets work best for most things, but do not paint government with such a wide brush that I cannot see the ways that government works effectively. For example, they provided me with a top grade education at a reasonable price, leading to a very rewarding career. That’s way more than anyone can say about Trump University.
I also recognize many of the ways that the marketplace doesn’t live up to its theoretical reputation, but I don’t think you do so much. It reminds me of Rodney Dangerfield in Back to School. His economics professor presented a fictional company, and Rodney drove him crazy by interjecting with his real world experience, effectively destroying the professor’s idealized example. Take a look if you would like a laugh (It’s not to be taken seriously): https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=back+to+school+rodney+dangerfield+business+class
(It’s not to be taken seriously)
Never fear, I don’t.
“For example, they provided me with a top grade education at a reasonable price,…” circa 1950.
And I thought I was old school! (my point being you haven’t been in school lately, have you?)
I’m quite aware of how the market works. That’s why we’re a nation governed by laws (based on moral principles influenced by Moses), but if you could spend money corrupting the system (a judge here, a building inspector there, etc) AND get away with it, that is not a nation governed by laws, is it?
Or what if you could buy off a President to give you the rights to 20% of America’s uranium, get caught and pay no price? There can’t be 2 standards of law, can there?
It appears that our President has already been bought off, but stay tuned for that. I find it ironic that the same guy that follows the teachings of Adam Smith and Ayn Rand criticizes me for using an education completed in 1983 as an example, not of what government does well, but what it has shown it can do.
In truth, we depend on our government every day and by and large, it performs well. I haven’t noticed any rivers catching fire lately, for example, nor has anyone been putting radium into patent medicines for a long time. A list of governmental accomplishments would fill many pages, but when government performs well, we ignore it because it’s not news, but choose instead, to magnify all instances where government is misperforming.
The best government is the government no one feels.
As for “The Donald” being paid off…Time Magazine is not one of his best friends. His net worth has been falling ever since the inauguration. Seems to me, being “bought off” or the being the “most corrupt president” ever would be increasing his fortune? ( “Most corrupt” See Tom Steyer TV commercial. BTW Tom Steyer net worth is about 1.5 billion. This is the war of the billionaires.)
They keep tasking the Trump name off buildings and his golf courses are (overall) losing money and customers.
My fat fingers are in rare form tonight!
After reading your comments and trying to follow your twisted logic, and blind faith in all that’s big government, I would not crow too loudly about your “superb” 1983 education, Rinny. The most common complaint I hear about our current public education is the failure to teach children HOW to think as opposed to teaching them WHAT to think. But all that was covered in the Communist Manifesto, wasn’t it?
And even though Ms Rand was a professed atheist, she lived in a time where God, Jesus and the Church were uplifted and morality was far different from the swill being peddled today. Our college campus is nothing but a money pit.
And the problem has always been the allure of power to reign tyrannical over the masses. It takes a superior man to resist that sort of temptation, and Chuckie/Nancy P don’t come to mind when I think of a “superior man” (nor does Steve Sisolak or Carolyn Goodman!)
It has been good to read the back and forth between Rincon and Steve with some notable contributions by Athos and others. Good discussion with only a modicum of insults.
After all of this, it seems that everyone is right back where hey started which perhaps proves the original point about the fallacy of Root’s proposed solution. Oeople perceive in accordance with their own viewpoint and that is probably why ultras on both sides of the political spectrum tend to win primaries and lose general elections because most of the public lies somewhere between the two extremes.
As for public education today, it is a vast government run monopoly run for the benefit of the education establishment, all the time piously crying for more money in the name of the students. As H..L. Mencken wrote, “The most erroneous assumption is to the effect that the aim of public education is to fill the young of the species with knowledge and awaken their intelligence, and so make them fit to discharge the duties of citizenship in an enlightened and independent manner. Nothing could be further from the truth.”
As for some in higher education who teach our youth, again, H. L. Mencken comes to mind. He wrote: “It is the classic fallacy of our time that a moron run through a university and decorated with a Ph.D. will thereby cease to be a moron.”
As for myself, in this time of changing definitions and changing demographics, I no longer know for sure what label fits whom.
The label Conservative or Liberal do not necessarily apply to someone who claims to be either a Democrat or Republican. Sometimes, I wish that someone would form a new political party. It would adhere to our founder’s charter (the Constitution) but at the same time try to be pragmatic and do the most good for the greatest number with the least amount of bureaucracy. We could call it the PPP. (Populist, Pragmatic, Party).
I think you’re lumping all college educations with that of a liberal arts major. Do you seriously believe that medical, law, engineering and accounting degrees are nothing but fluff? If so, it’s obvious that you never graduated with one of these. While I have plenty of criticisms of our educational system, it prepared me quite well for my first day on the job.
As for government competency, I think we fail to realize just how unusual these times are in human history. The powerful have generally subjugated the vast majority of the people throughout history, and still do in most of the world. A large and inclusive middle class is an historic anomaly. When is the last time that a government employee demanded a bribe from you? I have never had it occur.
We get angry when we don’t receive instant or thoroughly competent service, but we forget how ridiculously corrupt humanity has been throughout history. While there is plenty of room for improvement, our government supports a system of law and order that allows us to trust each other, and the businesses that serve our needs. I would be a lot poorer today if I had to constantly guard myself against the people I serve. Thankfully, almost all of them trust me, and I have found that I can almost always trust them. The same applies to the vast majority of government employees and officials that I have worked with over the years.
We need to continually work to improve our government, but constantly trying to undermine it by blanket condemnation is incredibly destructive. When people do this, it slowly erodes one of the best political systems to have ever come along.
Re: Trump’s falling fortune, saying that losing some of his net worth proves that he is not corrupt is akin to saying that a man who gambles away more money than he can steal cannot be called a thief.
No, Rincon, if your remarks were directed to me, I’m not lumping all college educations with liberal arts degrees. As a matter of fact, there are many fine liberal arts graduates. I am one. Fortunately, I knew how to think before I went to college because I sure as hell wasn’t taught how to think from very many of my professors. To be sure, our colleges and universities turn out some good products but they also turn out some rather sorry specimens as well and our colleges and universities are forced into teaching kids remedial subjects such as math and English because they did not learn it in K-12.
My criticism is leveled at the entire public education system. It is antiquated and inefficient and dedicated to preservation of the bureaucracy just as much of our government institutions are.
I’m not sure how you managed to presume that I have not had a college education because I leveled criticism at the education system in general. Rest easy, I am literate. I have both a Bachelor of Arts Degree (that I completed in 2 years with better than a B average) and a graduate degree from a rather prestigious University. I have worked in both the public and private sector and been modestly successful in both. I have been a government official and was moderately successful at that.
If you are satisfied with the education system then so be it. I am not. I make no criticism of the vast majority of individual educators who are dedicated and work hard. They do so within a system that I consider to be inefficient and overly costly and largely unaccountable. Too often those dedicated educators have to contend with a bureaucracy that rewards and promotes incompetency and punishes innovation. Read the newspapers and the accounts of ineptitude in the education system.
Perhaps it is time to reexamine the delivery system. We are
in the 21st Century operating on a 19th Century model.
And, perhaps we ought to ask ourselves, what is the purpose of education? We recently did a belated shift in focus towards STEM in K-12. We need to look further. K-12 needs to be more than college prep and college needs to be more than turning out more “educators”.
“When is the last time that a government employee demanded a bribe from you? I have never had it occur.” I do not doubt your statement, Rin. I’ve never won the lottery, but that doesn’t mean that all people have never won the lottery, does it?
My point is that power corrupts. And absolute power corrupts absolutely. (that’s a catchy phrase! I wonder if anyone else ever thought of it?;)
The trust of the people is being corroded on a daily basis by the corruption coming from our elected (and unelected) leaders. Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath late ’98 early ’99. How is he worth over $250 million today? Did he invent something that I missed on the late nite infomercials? Flipped houses? Painted a picture or wrote a best seller that turned into a movie?
Or did he and his wife set up a pay to play foundation and speaking tour predicated on Hill being our 45th president? And if so, how are they not in jail (with Bernie Madoff and crew?)
And just when is Bob Mueller gonna be done with this investigation?
I love questions, especially those pregnant questions spoken among friends where the answer to the question is so obvious (even while the answer is almost always wrong)
I got a question along those lines even though perhaps I’ll have to try it on a different audience to get the response we all know is the right one:
“Does anyone believe the putative president didn’t know that his campaign manager was conspiring with the Russians in illegal ways?”
And if so, why hasn’t he been deemed an enemy combatant (thanks former republican president Bush!) and sent to a black site and subjected to some “harsh interrogation” (thanks again former republican president Bush and possibly even more so, thank you former republican Vice President Cheney!)
Finally, corrupt? How do you mention corrupt without a tip of the cap to the single most corrupt administration in history (belonging to former republican president Reagan) and hot on his trail (I mean it’s only been two years so how much can we expect?) Trump?
Does anyone here believe ANYTHING that the current presidential office holder says? And I mean that seriously. Anything?
so the Clinton Foundation and the Uranium One deal have nothing on “…the single most corrupt administration in history (belonging to former republican president Reagan) …”?
So what exactly happened that was so corrupt 30+ years ago, Anny? Was it the killing of 76 Americans (Including 26 children) in a Texas town by federal agents? Was it gun running in Mexico that led to the killing of 2 border agents? Was it a US Ambassador being killed in Libya with its subsequent bogus “it was a film” excuse? How about giving the Iranians $400 million to release our captured sailors? did that happen on Reagan’s watch?
Help me out here, anny!
“The presidency of Ronald Reagan in the United States was marked by multiple scandals, resulting in the investigation, indictment, or conviction of over 138 administration officials, the largest number for any U.S. president.”
Along with a list of SOME of the more heinous corrupt, unconstitutional, actions taken by the most corrupt administration in US history.
Enjoy, and, you’re welcome. Knowledge is power.
As I said, this lists only SOME of the corrupt actions…
The most uncommon of all things is sense.
When will the Mueller investigation end? Hopefully not one day before every criminal action taken by this administration and it’s leader is illuminated. Starting with why is it that Oligarchs closely aligned with Russia, were so involved with the Trump campaign and how that impacted his eventual electoral “victory”.
“Special counsel Robert Mueller has looked into the presence of several Ukrainian officials at President Trump’s inauguration, The New York Times reported Thursday.
The news outlet reported that federal prosecutors have interviewed witnesses about how the Ukrainians gained access to inaugural events and what they discussed during meetings while in the U.S.
At least a dozen Ukrainians attended the inauguration, including several who were at the official Liberty Ball, The Times reported. The officials also stopped by the Trump International Hotel and brushed with congressional Republicans and Trump allies, the news outlet said.
Investigators are reportedly looking into evidence that at least some of the Ukrainians held agendas that aligned with Russian interests, including some who sought to ease sanctions on Moscow and pitch a peace plan between Russia and the Ukraine.”
I fear for our beloved republic.
Sorry Bill. I think I left you with the wrong impression. I think our main difference in education is that I was calling the glass half full and felt that you considered it half empty. Please remember that I was only saying that government can be quite competent in many cases, as in the case of my education. My instruction in my major fields of biology and vet medicine were of high quality, but some of my general education classes left a lot to be desired, especially in squishy subjects like sociology and speech communication. I suspect part of the reason is that the fields themselves aren’t as rational as I would like them to be. In particular, I remember a long debate with my brothers when I criticized psychology researchers doing experiments with no control groups. At the time at least, that was common, and in my field, would be immediately dismissed as inadequate.
I agree with you that our educational system needs a great deal of improvement, but I’m not convinced that public schooling deserves universal condemnation or that private schooling is the answer. With the obvious exception of some of the older, top notch schools such as those in the Ivy League, we have many world class public universities and some really poor private schools, and the converse as well. The performance of private primary education is checkered as I understand it. I believe one of the chief problems in education is that academics form the curricula as a rule. That makes for a fair amount of rather esoteric material being taught which wastes time and often bores students to death.
In answer to Athos, please remember that Kenneth Star’s investigation took 5 years and resulted in no convictions or even indictments, if I remember correctly. Mueller has, I think, 5 convictions in less than 2 years. In that light, interesting that you chose Clinton as your prime example of governmental corruption. If lying under oath about cheating on your wife is the worst corruption you can find, then I think we’re doing great.
I agree that power corrupts, but find it inconsistent that you advocate severe limitations on governmental functions and power, but are pretty blase re: private enterprise that frequently causes just as much harm. Our ridiculous medical costs and rather severe income disparity suggest the likelihood of power abuse in the private sector. There are also many specific examples. Bernie Madoff and Enron come to mind.
Took 6 years to get Nixon….and another 40 to recognize he was the one who opened China to the west.
“Our ridiculous medical costs and rather severe income disparity suggest the likelihood of power abuse in the private sector.” And here we come to an impasse. My beliefs put higher education in the same “ridiculous cost increases” as health care. But it’s the cause that we differ on. You refer to the “power abuse in the private sector” and I attribute it to government involvement. Much like Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac guaranteed all those liar loans 15+years ago, and effectively let banks write whatever loans they want with no downside (because the taxpayers would bail them out) big medical and colleges have taken advantage of the government loans and subsidies to increase their bottom line.
Surely you wouldn’t dispute that building anything with your own money at risk would be cheaper than building the same thing with “someone else’s money” ie. government taxpayers? It’s human nature!
If I was given an unlimited comp to eat at any swanky restaurant in town, I would order (and try) things I would never pay with my own money. And if I DID order the cheapest thing on the menu, trying to be true to my frugal self, I’d be derided as an idiot that didn’t take advantage of the comp!
And certainly not lauded for being upright.
Make sense to you?
Common Sense (I do miss all your other witty names!),
I guess you haven’t gotten to the previous administrations peccadilloes. Email server, gun running, Benghazi, Iran deal, ZeroCare, etc.
When you want to list scandals in the previous administration, give us a post, will ya?
Athos: You asked for a list relating to the corruption of the Reagan administration, otherwise known as the “most corrupt administration in history” and I provided the information.
I wonder why you now want to shift the focus to someone else. Or rather, I’m not surprised you want to shift the focus to someone else.
Arguing over which administration was the most corrupt is a rather pointless exercise. In the 44 or 45 Presidential administrations there have been elements of corruption. In recent memory, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Obama all have been tainted. It serves no purpose to argue over which was worse or better based upon the general category of “corruption”. Or, perhaps we could expand the discussion to look at the corrupt administrations of Jackson, Buchanan, Grant, etc. Rather, IMO, the recognition that “corruption” has tainted just about every administration is evidence of the validity of the old maxim about power being a corrupter. I find dishonesty and abuse of power distasteful wherever I find it. Everyone is susceptible, whether they are butchers, bakers, candlestick makers, veterans, veterinarians, priests or penitents. When it occurs in business or personal relationships it is usually condemned and punished. When it occurs in government, we should all be fearful lest we lost our lives and liberties. Too often, we never find out about wrongdoing in government until too late. As for the current administration, if there was wrongdoing then it should be revealed and punished if proven. “If proven” is a key phrase. At least it should be in a democracy that holds every man is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Perhaps the greatest corruption isn’t recognized as corruption at all. Allowing unlimited campaign contributions as long as there is no absolutely incontrovertible evidence of a quid quo pro allows the easiest possible form of corruption with a nearly zero chance of prosecution. Limiting government power reduces this only in way of degree. Stopping it requires the condemnation of even the appearance of dishonesty, as we did with Gary Hart and John Kerry. Unfortunately, half of our electorate has given up on insisting on honesty as evidenced by the Republican choice of their Presidential nominee and our subsequent election of the greatest liar the office has ever seen, along with the considerable support he has been able to maintain.
Oops, Anonymous is me. I changed computers.
Tell me, Athos, where do you obtain the information suggesting to you that somehow, private business people populate fancy restaurants any less than their governmental counterparts? Seems to me that may be a scene conjured up in your imagination.
False equivalence there Bill.
Be akin to arguing that an individual making a illegal U-turn is no worse than a mass murderer. And go figure that, for purposes of arguing which administration was the mass murderer in this analogy, it was the one most conservatives most revere.
As I said though, the current office holder, and his administration have sure taken up the challenge.
I really though that the Nixon administration would never be topped, then Reagan proved me wrong. Now Bush Jr. was no slacker, and of course the most recent republican is well on course to best them all.
Is there no depth to which a republican administration will sink in their efforts to destroy our beloved constitutional republic?
Barbara? Bill? HFB? Anyone?
Arguing about which administration was the most corrupt would require some parameters for decision. I guess it might be of some historical interest but if offered for anyh proposition such as comparative virtues between Republicans and Democrats it is indeed a false fallacy and does nothing to support any argument of corruption witin the current administration. It really sounds like a school yard argument between juveniles.
There are those that argue that the Obama Administration should head the list of corrupt administrations. . President Obama and key members of his Democrat cabinet like Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, disgraced Attorney General Eric Holder, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, and UN Ambassador Susan Rice were all among the top ten most corrupt politicians in Washington for 2012, according to an annual list compiled by the non-partisan Judicial Watch. Also on the roster were several lawmakers including two GOP congressmen from Florida and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada).
All of which was the point of my post that power corrupts and in my view, is particularly dangerous when it involves the government.
But, obviously, unlike some, I feel that it is a corrupt practice in and of itself, to pronounce guilt of misfeasance or malfeasance in office until and unless those charges are proven. So, in the current context of politics and government, there have been some persons associated with the Trump campaign that have fallen afoul of the law and have suffered the consequences. Also, In the current context, some members of the U. S. Department of Justice have been shown to have abused their offices and have been demoted, fired and criminally referred. That corruption exists within he Justice Department, the legal arm of the Federal Government is frightening, regardless of Party or political persuasion.
“But, obviously, unlike some, I feel that it is a corrupt practice in and of itself, to pronounce guilt of misfeasance or malfeasance in office until and unless those charges are proven.”
Previously Bill said:
“There are those that argue that the Obama Administration should head the list of corrupt administrations. . President Obama and key members of his Democrat cabinet like Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, disgraced Attorney General Eric Holder, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, and UN Ambassador Susan Rice were all among the top ten most corrupt politicians in Washington for 2012, according to an annual list compiled by the non-partisan Judicial Watch. ”
Anyone see the inconsistency here? Oh and seriously Bill, thanks for the riotous laugh I got out the “non partisan Judicial Watch”.
It’s a shame that petey (common sense) and Rinny pretend to “discuss” corruption among our government officials. Trump collusion with Russia from a Hillery paid Steele Report is a joke. Bob Mueller is there to protect all his buddies in the DOJ and FBI that spied on a Republican candidate for President. Loretta Lynch, Susan Rice, Jim Comey, John Carlin etc, etc. have all behaved in ways that should lead to prosecution if the Rule of Law is to be upheld for all.
You want to target Reagan and ignore Waco? Trump and not discuss 30,000 missing emails or Uranium One or Benghazi? Illegal u-turns vs mass murder (does Stalin or Pol Pot or Mao get a mention?)?
It’s useless to argue with a disinformation troll.
“Homey don’t play that!”
What is there argue over? “The truth is not the truth” “alternative facts”, “don’t believe what you see believe what I tell you”? All courtesy of the most recent, most corrupt, republican in history.
You guys man.
“All courtesy of the most recent, most corrupt, republican in history.”
There it is.
Patrick cares to point out corrupt R’s exclusive of D’s…either D’s never fall to corruption in Patrick’s world, or Patrick is just blind to reality.
I will take the latter option as it fits with almost every post Patrick ever bangs out on the KB and the former, well that’s just a laugh.
“Overall, we rate Judicial Watch Questionable based on extreme right wing bias, promotion of conspiracy theories and a very poor fact check record.”
Just shaking my damn head.
Over the past 10 or so years, I have received loads of Emails claiming corruption, and just about every other possible crime and disgrace for the Obama Administration and for Hillary Clinton (none about Trump for some reason). I checked each of them over and I don’t believe there was a single one without some major misinformation. I suspect that has been a source of information for some of us here. If any of you are trusting the political information you receive in Emails, please be sure to vet the facts before passing it on. One of the most unpatriotic things people do on a frequent basis is just that. People who pass on information without knowing it to be true are slowly degrading our entire political process.
One of the most noted examples of these lies was promoted by our President and a whole raft of Conservative mouthpieces, people that many of you still trust for some unexplainable reason. Does anyone still remember the myth that Obama wasn’t born in the U.S.? Many of you believed it at the time, and a few still do.
If anyone wants to see some examples, I have a bunch of them saved.
When it comes to which administration had the most corruption, one can almost always make a case for any of them, since there are so many officials and employees.
As for my opinion, our President has already committed at least one crime for which I would declare him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt: Dangling a Presidential pardon is clearly witness tampering. If he had been caught on tape offering to pardon a witness, any jury would have convicted him, so why is it OK when he made the same offer in public?
And, any number of other people and/or organizations have labelled Media Bias as left leaning and biased against Republicans. Just reinforces the point. Arguing over who/what/which was the worst is an example of the futility of shouting back and forth across he political school yard, in a two way monologue consisting of school kids shouting “Is so,- “is Not” “You’re bad”-“You’re worse” etc. to advance their point of view.
Rincon. Just a couple of comments to your last post. There was a great deal of confusion as to Obama’s birthplace which was added to by his grandmother reportedly saying he was born in Kenya and his brother Malik posting a purported copy of a his birth certificate showing him to have been born in Mombassa, Kenya. If memory serves me, Obama did not provide a copy of his birth certificate until after he was President, and again, if memory serves me correctly, he still, to this day, has refused to release any of his college records that some claim might show that he claimed foregn nationality for purposes of college admission and benefits.
As to criminally “dangling” a pardon, is that like dangling a participle? Pray tell, how does one “dangle” a pardon so as to commit a crime? What constitutes a criminal “dangle”. What specific statute makes “dangling” a crime? As Professor Dershowitz asked, is a prosecutor offering a criminal leniency for recalled/invented testimony tampering with a witness? Why not?
I think the criminal law requires specificity before a crime can be alleged. At a minimum there has to be a violation of a specific statute and a recitation of the precise act alleged as proof of the specific crime. An Op-Ed in the Atlantic does not create a new crime under the United States Code.
Finally, I agree that we should all do more to check the content of what we forward. But, how can you lecture the President and “all of his “raft of conservative mouthpieces”? Before, you publicly declared the President guilty it might have been more patriotic to check your facts and re-read some learned treatises on our legal tradition of presumption of innocence. Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat.
(I added the Latin to show that I do have a degree).
You just accused the President of committing a crime and pronounced him guilty without the benefit of a trial or hearing or even without being specific as to the statute or the specific act.
That is not up to your usual standard.
However, it seemingly is the new standard for the democrats and the left. Witness the spectacle of the Kavanaugh confirmation where simply making an accusation amounts to guilt.
Except when Media Bias Fact Check is biased against Democrats, Bill. Then the right likes them.
Same crap goes for Snopes and the rest.
When it’s your ox being gored you attack the messenger, just like the left attacks the messenger when they don’t like the the message.
Take a look at this:
Then take a look at Media Bias Fact Check’s review of Meme Policeman
I find them to be very fact based and not biased at all in their reviews.
Thank you both for your well considered replies. As I’ve said in the past, Media Bias Fact Check is a valuable and apparently neutral source.
A Presidential pardon is a greater offer than anything else that could be offered – certainly more valuable to a potential witness than say, a bribe. If this greatest example of witness tampering is not a crime, then there cannot be such a crime. Since witness tampering is a crime, then this most egregious possible example must also be a crime.
I never suggested throwing Trump into the slammer without a trial, but I certainly can look at the facts of a case and say the perpetrator is guilty. In this case, it is reasonable because the facts are public knowledge and there is a near zero chance that further information would exonerate him, no matter what those facts may be. Yes, he deserves a trial. He also deserves to be charged. For what it’s worth, I believe that although prosecutors should be allowed to bribe witnesses for providing information by offering immunity from prosecution or time off jail sentences, but they should be forbidden from bribing witnesses to testify. A bribed witness is never to be trusted and should not be allowed to influence a judge or jury.
According to Fact check, Obama indeed has not released his college records – and neither has any other President or candidate. Although I also would like to see Obama’s college records, I believe that anyone who advocates Obama releasing his college records must also insist on Trump releasing his tax returns if they are to be the least bit fair minded. https://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/obamas-sealed-records/
O.K. Rincon, what are the specific facts of Trump’s alleged offer of pardon? To whom did he make the offer? When? Where? Any witnesses? Any evidence? What was specifically offered? What statute was supposedly violated?.
These are the little details that need to be filled in if one is to make a charge of a criminal act. If you can make your case, I’ll support your position. If you can’t, mute the hyperbolic rhetoric.
I still remember the very long speeches given here by Bill and others, when the subject was some other alleged crime allegedly committed by Hillary Clinton.
Not that she was formerly changed with anything, despite the beat efforts of the far right wing majority in Congress that investigated, and investigated, and leaked, and investigated and obviously she was never convicted of anything. But that didn’t stop any of the regulars here, including Bill, from wailing and gnashing his teeth about the end of our beloved republic.
Now though, apparently, what’s needed before anyone can even point out that Trump is up to his Burger King wrappers in corruption and crime, is a conviction of some kind.
It so tragic that this president has given so much material to write about here and yet…not a whisper of the bad deeds and actions taken for more than 2 years now.
Trump beat Clinton.
Is that not punishment enough, Patrick?
I say let it go. She deserves to go gently into that good night.
“President Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, said Wednesday that he “never said there was no collusion” between the Trump campaign and Russia.
“I never said there was no collusion between the campaign. Or between people in the campaign,” Giuliani said on CNN’s “Cuomo Prime Time,” after host Chris Cuomo said it was false to suggest there was no collusion between Trump’s presidential campaign and the Kremlin.”
It’s never ending is it? We’ve gone all the way from they never even heard of Russia, to this; an implicit admission that the campaign colluded with Russia to get Trump elected.
Are you guys EVER going to stop defending this traitor? At least say something Thomas. Tell us this is all just because we don’t like the way he phrases things, or that we object because he’s not politically correct.
How about this, masses of people hate this SOB because he seems intent on destroying the country and boosting our longtime foes?
Hillary’s conduct was, by most legal experts, considered to be criminal. Comey’s exoneration of her along with the Clinton/Lynch tarmac meeting to discuss golf and grandchildren hardly passes the smell test. The pay for play of $500,000 fees to Bill for a 30 minute speech to the Russians would as well as the Clinton Foundation donations smell to high heaven.
But, for now, that is water under the bridge. Remember the challenge is to show how “dangling” a pardon was done and what crime it might constitute.
I invite you to answer the questions posed to Rincon. Otherwise, (forgive me), you are peddling fake news.
Thank you, Bill, for asking the pertinent question. It appears that I overstated myself, i.e., I had my facts wrong. Please give me a moment to wipe the egg from my face.
Ah, that’s better. Trump said, when asked about a possible pardon for Manafort, I wouldn’t take it off the table.” In our language, that is the same as saying, “I might pardon you”, but not the same as saying, I will pardon you”. While not as open and shut as I had claimed, this is ethically a case of witness tampering, but may not meet the burden of proof required for a conviction. https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/28/politics/ny-post-trump-manafort-pardon-on-the-table/index.html
Trump also advocated in a tweet, a stiff sentence for Cohen for squealing. He then quickly praised Manafort for refusing to tell the truth in the Mueller investigation. A pardon was never mentioned, although because Manafort was bringing information back to Trump’s legal team and therefore was in close contact, it’s quite likely that the offer was made. Manafort should fry for his efforts, and Trump looks guilty as hell, but looking guilty isn’t up to the standard of proof. It’s likely that there will never be enough evidence to prove that there’s a fire behind all of this smoke, but it would not be surprising if, like Al Capone, proof is found for one of his more minor offenses. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/experts-giuliani-s-statements-raise-specter-witness-tampering-obstruction-n941191
Said it before, say it again:
The Donald certainly seems to know just how close he can get to the edge of the cliff and remain on top of the mountain without falling off.
But it is early, remember, it took 6 years to get Tricky Dick.