First Blog

This may seem a bit cynical.. . Offered to new Congressmen by their party:   Welcome.   Our deal to you is simple. You vote as instructed.   For that we’ll give you bills to sponsor, or even initiate if needed.   You’ll get financial support for your reelection, support and testimonials from loyalists, your exclusivity to run in your district, and all the graft you can bring in. BTW, if you decline our generous offer, expect little support from your party. --------------- Memo to us: Mind those voting more than 90% along party lines.   They may have accepted the deal.

Congressional Hearings Have you watched Congressional (or Senate) hearings lately?   I have.   They're not pretty. Unlike only a few decades ago, most Congressional interrogators come armed only with talking points or staff generated questions.   The quality is usually poor; the delivery automatic; the responses are either submissive or arrogant.   Television does not help the quality of the event, diminishing the findings mostly because it gives national exposure. We offer several categories of questioners.   Most are dedicated to various forms of grandstanding, emotional displays, partisan attacks, and irrational utterances. All questioners are given only a few minutes to make points or make questions. They must be quick. Nimble? Forget that. The List. A. Pepper spray – Offering a barrage of questions giving little or no time for answers. B. Passion fruit – I feel so intense about this injustice to the American people and want to make you accountable. You bad person

There oughta be a law  that Congressmen should pass an exam on the exact contents of any legislative measure or  bill to be qualified to vote on it.  It can be basic, say just ten questions. It can be multiple choice.  Many would simply flunk it.  Talking point answers are not offered as options.  Just maybe some of our congressional representatives would actually study what they vote on.  (In fact, many studied more in college for a simple grade than on legislation that may cost millions or impact millions more.) Of course, a modified rule on majority (>50% if those passing) is needed.  Still dreaming on am I.   Also, there should be a waiting period before a scheduled vote on any measure.  I suggest a wait of one day for every twenty pages of legislation.  For example, a bill of 1000 pages would have a wait time of 50 days. (These rush it through super-sized bills often have super-sized flaws discovered only later.) 

The extensible spring.  Think of the shock absorber on your car.  You hit a bump, the spring is compressed and then releases its energy slowly to cushion the bump.  Now think of capital markets in the same way.  This time the bump is a constant barrage of regulations.  They kept coming during the Obama administration.  For good or bad, the spring kept compressing.  Under Trump, the regulations have been relaxed, and the spring with all its stored up energy seems to be releasing its energy in an explosion of expansion.  This leads us to believe the markets have expanded (30 new DOW records this year), not back to their reasonable expression, but far beyond.  It leads one to think a rebound is possible, as it returns to where it should be.  And “should be,” on the basis of growth and market, are the key words.  We are led to believe the markets will settle back to reasonable positions, and this may imply a correction is coming.  A bumpy ride may be afoot.  Analogy is a wonde

Let's honest about government and intelligence. 1. Why does the government want an intelligent population?  It doesn't. Too difficult to manage and govern. Therefore, it is acceptable to allow the schools to continue failing their mission.  It is fine for incompetent teachers to stay in place. A terrible curriculum is a strategic advantage. 2. Why does the government want an intelligent congress?  It doesn't. Too difficult to manage; to willing to compromise; to practical about human activities.  Too liable to do something of lasting value. 3. Why does the government want an ample and well trained military.  It doesn't.  This is too risky for its personal security.  The military lives mostly outside the walls of government and is clearly a threat.  The government fears it crossing the Rubicon. 4. Why does the government want efficient and fair federal agencies? It doesn't.   This increases the expectations of the population to fair and effective treat