obama

Obama’s Legacy – Economics Part 2

by Dave

I only listened to part of Obama’s farewell address, then Sean Hannity came on, and started attacking Obama on economic policy.   It was way over the top.  In Part 1,  three graphs,  showing the Dow Jones Industrial Average, housing starts and unemployment show a very solid economic recovery trend from mid 2009 to 2016.

But, the US economy has been changing.  Workers with  an assembly line  job for a car manufacturer,  could count on steady employment so long as the cars sold.  Now, the big two challenges are whether the company wants to continue to manufacture the  cars in the US and whether the job can be replaced by computer controlled robots.

new-jobs

The above graph is from http://www.fivethirtyeight.com.  Job growth in manufacturing has increased beginning in mid 2009, but there has been a down trend in manufacturing since about year 2000. So,  Obama should be praised not blamed for help change the direction of the trend.    The profits of manufacturers have not declined, except during the last year of the Bush term and manufacturing output has increased.  So we make more with less workers.   The culprit is automation.

The housing ownership percentage was the highest around 2004 to 2006, during the housing bubble that finally burst in 2008.   Does anybody still remember how people the ninjas (no income, no jobs) could get high interest loans and then these toxic assets were bundled with other debts to somehow qualify as safe investments?

homeownership

Finally, and least important is the labor participation graph.  This shows over 24 year period, the percentage of the population working was increasing 5%, until it reach a maximum in 1997, and started to decline.

laborpat

This was a surprise to me.   It certainly does not correlate with recessions or other common measures of the economy, as shown below:

labpat-1

The shaded bars represent recessions. During recessions, generally unemployment goes up, so why is labor participation going up during all recessions except the two?    This downward trend is due in large part to the baby boomers retiring.   Overall employment during Obama’s term increased steadily.

https://qz.com/286213/the-chart-obama-haters-love-most-and-the-truth-behind-it/

I’ve seen a lot of booms and busts.    You can see a bust in the shopping centers.  New  car lots are going out of business. Foreclosures everywhere.  It didn’t happen on Obama’s watch.

I’ve shown three common measures of the economy:  stock market, unemployment and housing starts – all solid trends.

I’ve shown manufacturing employment is down from levels 25 years ago.  Profits are not.   The last two statistic, home ownership and labor participation have to do with demographics which I don’t think Trump will change.  Well, unless he wants to get the over 65 year old’s back on the assembly lines.

More later.

Stay tuned,

Dave

Obama Legacy – Economics, Part 1

by Dave

Worst economic conditions since 1973.  Labor participation has never been this low.  Percent of home ownership now at a 10 year low.  Deficits are sky rocketing.  Thank God we got rid of Obama and his screwed up economic plan.

Ok- this is from Fox news,  Sean Hannity, right after Obama’s farewell address.  I’ve embellished on a bit.  This kind of bashing of the economy used to come from financial advisors with doomsday prediction, and then either “Buy my book … ” or “Call me now at 800- ….”  so you will be protected.   Now, it’s all about ratings.

When things are bleak for large companies, the stock market crashes.  The stock market crashed in 2008 at the end of Bush’s term as the banking/financial crisis got red hot.

djia

Now, the first big infusion of government money came during Bush’s term.  Conservative Republicans hated this, and stated it was like throwing gasoline on a fire.  But no recovery goes straight up. I count 9 dips in the Dow.

As the economy recovered,  unemployment dropped from 10% to 4.6%.

unemployment

 

And the housing market recovered as well beginning in late 2009.

housing

Unemployment and housing starts are two of the most closely watched barometers of the US economy.

Average home prices have also increased, and bank requirements for new loans are more difficult than in the period of 2000 to 2008.   This is why, the percentage of home ownership  declined  during Obama’s administration.    Also labor participation declined as baby boomers retired.  Increase enrollment in colleges may also be a factor.

Has the election of Trump made a difference in the economy?  Certainly, the stock market has rallied since November, but it is far too early to tell.

I haven’t mentions the US debt and other important aspects of the economy. To be continued.

Stay tuned,

Dave

 

 

 

 

Imperial Presidents

by Dave

Every  US president would like more authority.   When John Kennedy was asked if there were any surprises when he became president, he said he was surprised at how little authority he really had.  We are no longer in the age of Roosevelt, Truman and Eisenhower, where there was a sense of the president had to, at times, act unilaterally, for the welfare of the country.

Fox News often brings commentators in, to make the accusation that Obama is operating outside the law.  One of the most amazing accusations was that it would be unlawful to strike against Syria, after they used chemical weapons, because only Congress can declare war.  These same Republicans seems to constantly criticize Obama for not bombing Syria, again without Congressional authority.

“Damn if you do, damn if you don’t”  as the old saying goes.  If Obama waits for Congress to act,  nothing will get done.  If he acts through executive orders, he is called an imperial president.   But most of the really famous presidents, where ones that acted outside of congress at times.  The famous Emancipation Proclamation of  President Lincoln, was an executive order.  Pretty incredible.

Both the Senate and the House of Representatives are controlled by Republicans and seem to be in lockstep against almost every initiative put forward by President.

Historians will quickly remind Americans that the conflicts between the legislature and executive branches have happened with every recent president.   But,  as former Senator Barney Frank pointed out,   a Democratic controlled Senate has a better relation to a Republican president than visa versa.  But, Frank is a Democrat, so beware of the bias.

Congress can be obstructive to the normal business of government in the name of congressional oversight.    Both parties have done this.   The Republicans, including Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio  refused to approve raising the debt ceiling, and had that measure  been defeated, the US would have been known as the only country which destroyed its credit rating, as an malicious act of partisan politics. This is a case where obstructive tactics went to destructive ones.

But, unfortunately,  there is great incentive for Democrats or Republicans to fight against each other.  No Republican is going to get on Fox News,  and accuse his fellow Republicans of being obstructionists.  Same with Democrats on MSNBC.

President Obama can’t get positions filled in the Department of State, according to Senator Kerry.   Republicans are demanding a nebulous “pound of flesh.”   Expect things to really boil when the next president nominates a Supreme Court justice.

When time is short as in the media, you load up both barrels of the gun and start blasting at the opposition.   But when the smoke clears,  it just seems everyone is a loser, as this is the surest way to make government less effective.

I just wish we had more moderates in both parties and less bias in the media.  I tire  of commentators on Fox, OANN and MSNBC.    Perhaps I yearn for yesterday.

Stay tuned,

Dave

Republican Trent Lott and Democrat Tom Daschle, have recently published a book, entitled Crisis Point, which highlights the way our government is becoming increasingly dysfunctional.   I have not had a chance to read it.

Crisis Point

 

 

 

Supreme Court to hear immigration case

by Dave

Our immigration system is broken, and I know how to fix it.  Boy, if that isn’t the most worn out political cliche heard every election.

President Obama attempted to make one fix, called deferred deportation,  through the use of an executive order.  The lower courts in Texas said he had exceeded his authority.  Since President Obama and the Justice Department did not agree with the ruling, they appealed to the Supreme Court.  They have agreed to hear the case.

The Supreme Court could have declined to hear the case, in which case, the program would be dead.  So, it is a victory in a way, because they may rule in favor of the deferred deportation program.  Oral arguments will likely be in April, with a decision in late June, according to the Wall Street Journal.

The president can  not change a person’s status from illegal to legal.  The immigration laws are set by Congress.  And this is where the mess begins, because Republicans and Democrats have voiced very different agendas in regards to immigration.  But Obama and the Department of Justice felt that as long as the executive order made temporary changes to the way the law was being implemented, then the order was legal.  The next president can end the program for sure, but it will be extremely unpopular,  after granting deferred deportation to millions of people.  It will be like they came out of hiding, just to get caught again.

There are a number of legal issues before the court.  The authority to deport someone is with the INS, hence the executive branch has discretion to a certain extent.  But the lawsuits against the program argue that this should be done on a case by case basis, rather than a blanket deferment of a select group of illegals.  Another issue is whether the executive order is really a INS rule, in which case there is a lengthy process of hearings required as part of the rule making procedures.  An argument in favor of the executive order is that Congress did not budget enough money for the deportation of approximately 11 million illegals, so it forces the INS into selective enforcement.

The internet is filled with articles on deferred deportation.  For this reason, I have not included any links in this blog.

Supreme Court observers expect a close decision.   Liberals on the Court may see the executive order as a workable solution to a conflicting mess (lots of laws requiring deportation, little money to do it) made by Congress, while conservatives may see Obama as doing an end run around Congress.

The case belongs in the Supreme Court.  Exactly how much authority the executive branch of our government has, is a constitutional question, not to be answered by Congress, nor political candidates,   nor the media,  but in our highest court.

Stay tuned,

Dave

 

 

 

The American who did not return

by Dave

Robert Levinson did not come home with the rest of the released  prisoners from Iran.  His family has been on a number of stations, including CNN and Fox.  People are suddenly interested in those Obama didn’t get released from Iran.

His case is quite different from the other Americans. In Mr. Levinson’s case, the leaders in  Iran say they don’t know where Mr. Levinson is.  They deny having any involvement with his disappearance.  Hence, it is difficult to negotiate for the release of a missing person.

I’ve combed the internet looking at what could have happen to Mr. Levinson.  Is there proof that Mr. Levinson is alive?   Honestly, I really hate to say this but the evidence is weak.  But, the family believes strongly that he is in fact, still alive and imprisoned in Iran.  They believe the Iranian officials are lying when they deny any knowledge of his whereabouts.  Their hope increased as the Iran deal was negotiated, and hope Mr. Levinson would be”found” and returned to the US as part of the negotiations.

There have been two photographs of Mr. Levinson, received by his family.  It is possible that these are fakes.  It is terrible that anyone could intentionally inflict more pain on the family by creating fake photos. But there are all sorts of very weird people in this country.

The proof that Mr. Levinson went to Iran in year 2007 is rock solid.  He was staying on Kirk Island which is part of Iran.  His signature on a check out bill, dated March 9, 2007 from a hotel in Kirk Island.  It was reported in the Iranian state  run PressTV  on April 4, 2007 that he had been take into custody on March 9, 2007 and would be released shortly.  His family has confirmed that his name does not appear on any flight manifests leaving Kirk Island.   This is where the trail goes cold.   And it’s been cold for nearly 9 years.

Unlike the other prisoners,  Iran has never accused Mr. Levinson of doing anything wrong.  In fact, when members of his family went to Kirk Island in December 2007,  they say the Iranian officials treated them well.

There are a lot more details on Mr. Levinson’s trip,  which had been summarize in Wikipedia:

Wikipedia- Robert Levinson

His family has created a website,  with many links to news media stories:

Help Bob Levinson Website

It is just possible that  Iranians just might be telling the truth.  Anyone who has knowledge of Mr. Levinson’s whereabouts, can make a quick 5 million dollars, courtesy of the FBI.

Of course, the news media has jumped all over the prisoner release and Mr. Levinson’s case.   Republican candidates like Marco Rubio has widely condemned the prisoner swap, as putting American’s imperil.  I guess the idea is that a president of any country can just scoop up a few Americans, and negotiate with the White House to get their countrymen released as part of an exchange.  It is pretty silly, as most of the foreigners in our prisons are people their own governments want to be released.

Travel always carries some risk, and in general, more care has to be taken in a number of countries.  I happen to have some experience with this, having visited a number of countries in South America, Africa and the Middle East, including Syria, Libya, Colombia  and Angola.  There is always a risk of kidnapping and robbery.   Interestingly, kidnapping of foreigners is rare in the Middle East countries, but theft occurs in all major cities.  Miami has a lot of theft too.   Take my word for it!

But Americans were safe from the possibility of kidnapping in Iran, because money could not be wired into the country.  But, with the lifting of sanctions, this has changed.   However, I do not expect kidnapping to be a major problem, as most tourists will travel in organized groups.   Any money wired into the country for ransom will be quickly tracked down, and the kidnappers will be arrested.

Countries like Egypt,  Algeria and  Libya can pose risks for foreign journalists, but not for tourists.  A journalist who is relocated to Iran from Nigeria may actually feel more secure.  It is all relative.  Tourists must behave themselves.  This is probably rule number 1 in travel: Respect,  courtesy  and patience are absolute requisites- it’s not your country.

A lot of good tips are available on the internet for the intrepid traveler.  The cell phone is your friend and constant companion.  Learn speed dialing!  If you enjoy wandering around strange places, as I do, learn to keep a low profile.   Learn from nature- it is always better to travel in a group.  Local contacts can be essential.

But, I seem to be digressing here.   Bob Levinson’s  disappearance is a tragedy.  The information on his disappearance is very sparse. The disappearance should not become political.   There is no evidence Iran is hiding him, and it is not particularly useful for the US to demand release of a missing person or to accuse Iran of lying.    The 5 million dollars reward by the FBI for information was a good idea.  Americans traveling abroad to Iran in general should not be worried about being detained by the Iranian government, but also follow safe traveling tips.

Stay tuned,

Dave

 

 

 

 

Solutions to terrorism

by Dave

No short term solutions.   There is no single action the US can do to defeat ISIL.   Eliminating ISIL or similar groups with the jihadist philosophy is likely impossible, in that it only takes a couple of fanatics to pull off an act of terrorism.   What Obama and the rest are focused on, is helping Iraq and Syria take back their control of cities and cutting off access to resources.  This is what I concluded after listening to President Obama on Sunday, December 6 and Susan Rice on CNN, which aired on the same day.  What began, at least for the US, under George Bush, and continued under Obama, will continue to be a problem for the next president as well.

Susan Rice is President Obama’s National Security Advisor.   The recent terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernadino, CA made this interview very timely.  She was interviewed by Fareed Zacharia, as part of his normal weekly program, CNN-GPS.

The lack of US troops in Syria is being construed as a) a lack of leadership, lacking in resolve,    b) not being in touch with reality, delusional  (Lou Dobbs prefers the latter) or  c)  ignorant of the facts.   The strategy is actually a result of being very informed of the facts, on a daily basis.   McCain has blasted Obama for not sending in large numbers of troops into Syria, saying the US has not plan.  Truth is we don’t have his plan.

Susan  Rice was asked if the Obama administration underestimated the force of ISIL.   She sidestepped the question by responding that  since mid-2014, the Obama administration has been considered ISIL a major threat to both Iraq and Syria, and  steps have been taken to destroy their organization.   But, it’s clear, Obama underestimated the threat.  The infamous “Junior Varsity  comment” occurred in January 2014, shortly after Fallujah fell in Iraq.     This year, ISIL has  shown to be incredibly resourceful and organized  in establishing new bases in other countries.

ISIL 

Rice did not want the interview to focus on  prior mistakes.  The list of mistakes is long and goes back George Bush’s administration.  But, it is not likely in late 2013 and early 2014, there was much the Obama administration could have done.

The question of whether we are winning or losing the war against terrorism, is another one that Susan Rice chose not to directly answer.  There are a number of scorecards.  Since San Bernadino, there is a real gut feel that we’re losing to terrorism.   It particularly hit home, when they were showing the stockpiles of arms and bullets these two terrorists had accumulated.  But, this is not my scorecard.  I see it more as the cities under their control and the growth of the organization world wide.  A major defeat occurred when Boko Haram pledge allegiance to ISIL.

I agree with President Obama, that putting troops in Syria, beyond the small special op’s group, would be counter-productive.   It would be seen as an invasion force by both the Syrian  government and ISIL, and recast the fight against terrorism as a fight against the Muslim world, which we must avoid at all costs.  There are 1.6 billion Muslims in this world,  obviously outnumbering us 5 to 1.   We have far more latitude in Iraq, and may be able to increase are presence there- but it must be a multinational presence.

Susan Rice in her interview, was asked if the world is becoming less stable place to live.  This clearly open the discussion to go beyond ISIL.  She responded to the many initiatives taken by the Obama administration to lower tensions and help solve world problems.  The Ebola epidemic is one success.   The Iran deal is another one- yet it is way to early to know if this succeeds in the end.   The end of a policy of containment of Cuba, is another initiative to lower tensions- and hopefully create a more durable relationship with our neighbor.   A lot of crises which are hardly resolved, including Libya were not discussed.   Conflicts with Russia are a colossal regional  destabilizing threat, and Rice simply stated that the US is looking for common ground.

I was thinking how much opposition the Obama administration has gotten with each of these initiatives.  I remember how much flack Obama got when he sent 3,000 troops to Africa to help with the Ebola crisis in the transport of supplies.   Fox News commentators acted like Obama was insane- saying there will be 3,000 infected troops coming back to the US,  and pretty soon the numbers will be be 3 million or 30 million Americans with Ebola.   Ebola is a case where international cooperation produced incredible success.

Most of the really important efforts will take enormous  international cooperation.  This includes the international climate change accords, likely to come from the Paris summit.   It’s a tough road ahead, to find unity abroad, while there is so much division in the US.

Stay tuned,

Dave

 

 

 

Who not to vote for, Again!

by Dave

I just apply 3 simple rules:

  1. Don’t vote for anyone who has zero government experience
  2. Don’t vote for anyone who  has rigid conservative and religious views
  3. Don’t vote for anyone who voted against the debt ceiling increase.

Few people understand rule #3.  Voting against an increase in the debt ceiling increase  would not have changed the US debt by one cent, but it would have created havoc in financial markets (including the stock market where I have my 401K).  We would have defaulted on our debt obligations.   McCain and Graham voted for the increase in the limit.

Zero government experience eliminates Trump, Carson and Fiorina.  Rule #3 eliminates Cruz, Paul and Rubio.  Rule #2 eliminated definitely Cruz,  Huckabee and Paul.

So Jeb Bush is sinking in the polls, but my set of rules don’t exclude him.  Lindsey Graham is way down on the polls, but would get high marks for his government service.

So, where have all the moderate Republicans gone, long time passing, as the song goes.  I guess compromise and moderation just doesn’t make good TV.

Stay tuned,

Dave

 

Changing the balance in the Supreme Court

by Dave

Three justices will be over 80 years old, when the next president is elected: Ginsberg, Kennedy and Scalia.  Also, Breyer will be 78 years old.

Both Ginsberg and Breyer are liberals and  Scalia is a conservative.

Kennedy has sided with both liberals and conservatives in a number of narrow decisions.  He was nominated to the SC by Reagan.  Wikipedia states that in his earlier decisions, he sided most of the time with the conservative faction.  Often, he is referred to as the most important justice because of his role as a swing voter.  Each side has to convince him to vote their way if their side is to get a majority.

Kennedy

If all are replaced by conservatives,  this leaves a court divided 7-2 in favor of conservatives.  Remaining liberals would be Sotomayor and  Kagan. If all are replaced by liberals, this leaves a court divided   6-3 in favor of liberals.  Remaining conservatives would be Roberts, Alito, and Thomas.

None of the elderly justices appear to have any health problems.   In fact, they are all incredibly alert, active and brilliant.  I was very surprised to learn the age of both Justice Scalia and Breyer.

Now, if the court majority becomes conservative, could they overturn a number of decisions?  Could the same happen if liberals are the majority? Maybe, but it will be done  sparingly and really dependent on the cases before the court.    This is because the court can’t do a re-vote on a particular decision, but must have a case in front of them, which relies on a prior ruling.   Then, in deciding the new case, the SC can overturn prior decisions.

Once a case has been decided, a legal precedent has been set.  The case becomes part of case law, and all courts in the country must respect the decision.   The principle of setting precedents is called “stare decisis”  as explained below:

 Precedents

So, how many decisions have been overturned?  Wikipedia provides a list, noting there are likely other cases it missed:

Overturned SC  Cases

The “Obergefell v. Hodges”  in 2015, is of course, the gay marriage decision, which overturned Baker v. Nelson (1972).  The court had previously ruled that state  laws prohibiting gay marriages was legal.  Thus, the ruling was overturned 43 years later.  A second recently overturned case was again a gay rights case, “Lawrence v. Texas” where the majority struck down state anti-sodomy laws.  It was decided by liberal faction, with dissents from four conservative justices.

Lawrence v. Texas

These are just two examples of liberal justices overturning conservative decisions.  If the conservatives become the solid majority, then will they overturn liberal decisions?   Certainly,  if the right cases come before the court, there could be a number of overturned decisions.

Stay tuned,

Dave

 

Don’t Vote

by Dave

You have the right to vote.  Nobody says you have to vote.  Yes, I know both Republicans and Democrats are saying all Americans should vote.  I’m suggesting just the opposite- this country would be a lot better off if some people just sat home and didn’t vote.

If you haven’t bought a read a newspaper in two years-  don’t vote.   If you can’t remember if Obama is a Republican or Democrat – don’t vote.  If you can’t name one of the justices on the Supreme Court – don’t vote.  If you can’t name two branches of government (I mean any 2 of the 3 branches) don’t vote.   Hint: the US Post Office is not a branch.  If you think Syria is next to Kuwait or Malaysia- don’t vote.

If you think of electing a president because you are mad at some decision made by the Supreme Court- forget it.  It isn’t going to happen.  Not the Obamacare, abortion or the right of gays to marry on the liberal side, or ruling unconstitutional gun control and campaign finance on the conservative side.  Not going to be heard again and decided differently.

If you don’t care about politics, you have every right (see: Pursuit of Happiness clause) not to vote.  If you do vote, and the person you voted for wins,  it is partially your fault.  I mean a very small fraction, but do you want this responsibility?

Stay tuned,

Dave Lord

 

 

Debt ceiling again – and the white knight republicans

by Dave

Yes, the government spends too much, it borrows too much, it spends money on stupid things.  But just stop right there. PLEASE.

Nov 5, 2015 is when the debt ceiling has to be raised.  At least, it is now the best estimate of Sec’y Lew.

Debt ceiling has nothing to do with how much the government can spend or borrow.  It is not like your credit card limit. It is called a debt ceiling, but it should be called “Permission to pay what the US Government has already spent.” It is like permission to pay your credit card bill when it arrives.  But it’s worse, because if the US Government fails to pay, they have now defaulted on their obligations.

The US has never, ever defaulted.  Companies who fail to pay their obligations find their credit ratings cut very quickly, and soon they are facing bankruptcy.

A temporary debt ceiling “patch”  was passed in 2014, which temporarily suspended the debt ceiling  to March 15, 2015.

So,  the alarms at the Treasury have been sounding since March 6, 2015 that Congress has to take action.   Eight times, Lew sent letters to Congress.  Obama has stated the same thing countless times.  This is the economic nuclear bomb.

If a debt ceiling bill is passed with demands that Obamacare or Planned Parenthood are to be defunded (which has nothing to do with the debt ceiling)  you basically destroy the power of the President to execute those laws passed by Congress.  Obamacare is in effect because was passed into law by Congress.  Now Congress can defund Obamacare, they can defund Planned Parenthood, but not as a condition to prevent an economic crisis.

Secretary Jack Lew sent letters on March 6, 13, 16 and 17 warning that he was forced to take emergency step (extraordinary measures) to avoid default.  He then sent letters on 7/29, 7/30, 9/10 and two days ago (Oct 1, 2015) with the Treasury’s best estimate of when the funds used during this period would be exhausted.  Each letter stated the exact date could not be predicted, because it would depend on the money coming in and out of the Treasury every day.

There was a nice way to deal with this.  Congress used to pass budgets,  and when the budget passed, automatically the debt ceiling was raised.  This is why during the Bush administration, nobody was concerned with debt ceilings.  But, this was done away and the rest is an awful mess.

Republicans have the chance to make a major and permanent change in our economy, by pushing our country into default for refusing to pass a simple clean debt ceiling increase.  Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Rand Paul may lead the charge. Why not, they are behind in the polls.

Republicans will try to put the blame on Obama, as crisis hits, and they will get plenty of air time on Fox news, by emphasizing that we are trillions in debt and they are some kind of white knights to save the day.  All they really do, is slay the princess and let the dragon loose.

Is it worth it?

Stay tuned,

David Lord

 

Debt Ceiling

by Dave

Sec’y Lew letter, moving up the date to likely default to November 5, just 5 days after Boehner leaves.  What a mess!

Countries usually fall into sovereign default after a number of disastrous economic decisions.  We’re doing if so the Republicans can get more air time on Fox news.  It is scary, and the Republicans are crazy to play a game of Russian roulette with the economy.  The problem with Russian roulette is sometimes the gun does go off.

http://www.treasury.gov/Documents/Treasury%20Letter%20to%20Congress%20100115.pdf

Could be one screaming stupid mess.  I know Marco Rubio voted against raising the debt ceiling last time.  Tom Cruz and Rand Paul likely voted against it too.

Stay tuned,

Dave Lord

 

Winning again

by Dave

“Make America Great”

Trump’s theme.   Listen closely, it is more getting what we want as a country and the hell with everyone else.  You don’t tell a football team, to cut deals with the other team.

But, getting things done, whether passing bills in Congress or negotiating with other countries overseas,  it is a slow process to search for common ground and compromise.   Republicans, if they are going to solve problems,  they’ve got to work out solutions with Democrats.

It’s the big problems that require long term collaboration.    If Obama wants to get get North Korea to stop its aggressive nuclear weapons program,  then he’s got to get help from China and Russia.

Similarly with global warming.  It does exist and will require intense negotiations with hundreds of countries  to reduce carbon emissions.

Trump thought it was crazy that it took 18 months to work out a deal with Iran.   He’s not used to working with 5 other countries, with all the  complexities and the UN involvement.  He’s a one-on-one guy,  with here’s the deal, do you want it or not?   If it’s a hotel or golf course, he can walk away from a deal, with a “come back when you’re ready”  attitude.

Problem is no Republican can get on Fox News, and talk about compromising with Democrats, without looking like traitors to conservatism.  Even worse if they talk about collaborating with China and Russia on issues such as global warming and terrorism.    The big problems will not be solved by Republicans or Democrats, it will be solved by governments working around the world on common objectives.

Make America great by understanding the need for: compromise,  collaboration and diplomacy.   It is not just America will benefit because Iran is blocked from gaining nuclear weapons.  It will be the world that is great.

Stay tuned,

David Lord