Practical versus moderate or people compromising

 

At first I almost wrote compromised policy, yet doesn’t make the presentation I wanted. This is about public policy and this obsession with people that if Democrats and Republicans get together and either compromise their positions or find a middle ground (moderate) we have better public policy.

I am not saying you cannot achieve strong policy goals through compromise or with a “moderate” bent. I do state that if you look at public policy practically you might create much better public policy.

So many people are trying to find a solution to getting things done in Congress that I think they confuse what you can accomplish by trying too hard to say Congress passes better legislation when the two parties compromise. This can be a fallacy. The nature of compromise in and of itself does not necessarily make something better. It can complete a task or finish a project, yet are you really achieving the best result? I think people have seen so much failure as of late that they are trying to find a route to success without defining what success may look like first.

To me success is what is best for the country as a whole without taking away the freedoms and interests of a minority or groups that do not directly benefit. Yet if you put the general populace first the policy will eventually be beneficial to most if not all. The benefits may not be dispersed equally, however if the results reach the vast majority then you probably have a better policy.

A quick example might be where you lower the taxes on the middle class where they can save more, have money to spend, or able to pay down their personal debt. The wealthy may say what do we receive if the middle class has a tax break and we do not. I use this example because I want to say the phrase trickle up. Instead of relying on big business to pass their tax savings down with all their trumped up logic, the tax break to the general population spreads out and up. Note the word rely on in the above sentence. The whole point of the trickle down theory was that it required the upper echelons to take actions that would filter down to everyone else, such as lower prices or invest in better products to create new jobs, but yet it had to be relied upon by the general populace for the wealthy to share this gain to them. With shifting the tax relief to the general populace they naturally will do one of the three facets listed above. Savings and investments by the general populace creates stability in the economic system, banks benefit because they now have more resources to make loans, the general populace has more confidence in the system and there is a possible reduction in the wealth gap. Less taxes also mean the general populace has more money to spend so businesses benefit by increased revenues. And finally if the general population pays down debt it lessens stress on the economy. Banks and lenders such as mortgages are writing off less bad debt. There cash flow increases and they can loan more money as needed into the economy and can offer more competitive rates to a larger audience.

This example is not perfect, but hopefully can give a snapshot of the difference one policy change can make. The policy though is not based on Democrats and Republicans compromising on tax policy, or some moderate idea, but trying to find the most practical tax policy for the whole country. It is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination and some groups will try to shoot down the logic. Their arguments though are based on where they fall into the economic spectrum. Large corporations see the smallest immediate gain, yet if the whole economy is strong they benefit whether they will publicly admit it or not. Wall Street may not like it because the investment money is coming to them in slow waves as the general populace makes slow incremental increases to their savings, 401ks other investments etc. Wall Street has less of their own money to double down on their own wealth, hence increasing the wealth gap. Yet in the long run, a more practical policy is not based on either a conservative or liberal bias, but more towards the larger beneficial aspect.

And some may say since you are lowering taxes this is a conservative policy. I ask are you sure.

One difference to highlight is offering a practical policy can be compromised a bit to take into account factors not originally considered versus a policy that is compromised by one side trying to accommodate another side. Or they change the goal or initiative and the policy becomes watered down to appease groups trying to achieve a political win. It is the latter that I see many of today’s advocators of compromise trying to achieve. They may think compromise will get us better policy because of the extremes hijacking policy, however are they doing a litmus test of who actually benefits once they make a compromise. Or maybe in today’s world they think of a compromise they wish happened. I do have to admit not much is being done right now.

And many liberals will say the far right are the ones hijacking public policy right now and they are correct, however if you look closely though there are groups on the far left trying to create their own goals that will not benefit the general populace. They are just quieter in their public discourse so if you dig deep enough into what each side is saying a person may find the distinction. I just hope I made it clear. Neither side wants to admit that their ideas lack in merit, yet you have to step back and again do a litmus test to determine exactly who benefits.

And in researching what is needed versus being preoccupied that it needs to have a liberal or conservative bias, you can write, produce and evaluate better policy from the beginning. And of course as an independent conservative, even my public policy I discuss in my posts starts with a conservative frame, yet that does not mean it can be adjusted through analysis and evaluation to be changed to a more suitable practical end result. Policy can be liberal or conservative, it shouldn’t be driven by it has to be liberal or conservative to appease the majority of the moment. I have always said sometimes we need liberal policies and sometimes we need conservative policies. The moment should be a more important driver of the policy needed, not the politics.

And so the next step is how do we step away from the need to rationalize our compromises and step into policy writing to achieve what is truly needed.

And the irony of this post is I am trying to reach out to a moderate audience. Ha ha ha. Okay not really a moderate audience, but to the vast majority of the country who by nature are generally moderate in their views.

Something even I forget, and Happy Thanksgiving

 

So the better half and I had to go out of town to take care of some family business and on the way back we decided to take the scenic route. We had a wonderful 2/3 of a trip. The last third it began to drizzle so it took some of the luster off the whole trip, however the first part was all sunshine and blue sky.

You forget how beautiful this country is when you take the interstates all the time. I was thinking as we were driving that everyone in D.C. needs to get off their back ends and go see America. It might remind them of the people they should be representing. I know it is too late for road trips back home for Thanksgiving for all our Representatives and their staffs, but sometime soon they need to make it a priority.

They might see parts of the country that make up our agriculture, the solar power plants, the wind farms the oil pumps, and even the road work on the two lane highways. Yes we drove mostly through Texas and all of the above was almost side by side as we drove. You pass a field of cotton, then cattle grazing, a solar field, some oil pumps still going and it was quite an eye opening experience. And all of it with the horizon stretching forever. And this was especially nice with the sun shining.

You pass through many small towns and see the old businesses boarded up and the new chains taking over and wonder what could be done to revitalize local economies. Towns where main street is thriving, but the periphery is old boarded up hotels and restaurants, yet the fast food chains and chain hotels thrive. You see buildings of unknown businesses falling apart. At one time each of the towns had their own economy, yet either through various recessions or changes in the local economy it has slowly disappeared to be replaced by the various corporate entities that populate suburbia. These towns are losing their character. These are the descendants of the people that made this country great and yet they are the visible signs of the wealth gap in this country. People that use to own local businesses have children that make minimum wage in the corporate world.

And you know their educational opportunities are slowly disintegrating as the town loses its economic base. Those corporations are not reinvesting in local infrastructure. All those profits are going back to Wall Street. Schools in these towns are ignored in state capitals and then you read about the school voucher system in Texas and wonder what it all means for the children of farmers and the energy laborers. Will they be able to have the wherewithal to rebuild their towns? If the family is struggling, if the opportunities are working for out of state profiteers, if the schools are rotting, what does this mean for the future of what use to be the backbone of this country. Yes I am being somewhat idyllic, however we need the caregivers of our open spaces and producers of what we eat given the opportunity to thrive. If we let the corporations run everything, they will run everything into the ground then move on. If profit is our country’s only goal then when the well run dries what happens next? Death, depletion, desertion, despair for large portions of our country do not make for greatness.

And if you stop and do grab a bite to eat, or get gas you find they are the same wonderful people you might want them to be. They are friendly, cheerful on the outside, but when it is slow in the convenience store you can see in their eyes the fatality of having no future. The children still behave as children, laughing, talking running in and out, yet you worry what happens when they turn 18. What do they do next? I think it was fortunate that not too many Wal marts dotted the landscape, yet they were there slowly sapping the money out of the town to make billionaires even richer while the worker bees struggle to pay for housing and food. A few do well, especially the people who owned land and were able to hold onto it. They had the oil boom, now it is windfarms, but they are the minority. They lease the land and take in their royalties, but their money is spent either at the chain restaurant or they go out of town to buy what they need such as brand new trucks or other luxuries that they alone can afford. The car dealerships are scarce, the repair shops are non existent, an occasional real estate company has a sign, there are no farmer markets, no grocery stores, just the Dollar General, where the market isn’t big enough for a Wal Mart, which is an overpriced substitute for basic necessities.

Yes, it is Texas but the price of gas in these towns is much higher than the truck stops on the interstate. And honestly some of this is because the markets are not big enough to support large businesses, but that same small market at one point had an economy and people thrived, hair was cut or styled by local people, furniture was bought or was available in one town for a few, sundries existed so people could do their sewing or craft work that was actually needed and wasn’t just some hobby for people at church.

So what can be done to bring back strong local economies, give people an opportunity to thrive again, and why does Washington ignore so many of our own?

The drive is beautiful, the scenery breathtaking, the rounding of a bend to see more and more, the cattle eating lazily near the fences by the side of the road, a horse galloping by, the field full of cotton or other deep green crop, (couldn’t tell what it was, but there were quite a few fields of this really deep green, and it wasn’t too tall either) fills the land between the towns. And yet the towns are losing their luster, their hometown feel, their people so what becomes of not a nostalgic era, but of the livelihoods of so many who choose not to live in a big city. Does Washington think they do not matter?

Yes it would be a fantasy to believe that all of a sudden thousands of pretentious lawmakers take it upon themselves to do a bit of fact finding on the future of large swaths of our country. Unfortunately it is necessary. Instead though they take the lobbyists money and campaign donations to stay in power. Their stench stays in Washington to appease Wall Street and a few others, but what would make the country great again rots away with a different kind of stench. The stench of economic decay. And at some point it will be too late and the greed of the uber wealthy will not be able to sustain any economy as it sucks dry the people it has built its wealth upon.

These small towns are the first to go. They have survived hard times before, yet as corporate greed takes over their economies the well will run dry and many beautiful locales will be like the withering structures of a bygone era that now appear on the roads in and out of town. Main street still has some continuity going, but if you actually drive the speed limit through town it is way too easy to see the dye cast for their lack of future.

So as you enjoy your Thanksgiving dinner and even though this is bleak I do hope I haven’t ruined it. I just want to remind you that we still can be a thankful nation, but it takes action and understanding. Why give up on something that was so integral to our country’s growth? We should be thankful for what we have, have had and what we can have, and not lose sight of the whole of our country and what everyone brings to the table.

Cheers

A lay person’s discussion of the difference between agnostic and atheist; and further thoughts

 

I by no means am a theologian, apologist, or even moderately educated in religion, however I do have some thoughts on this subject that have consumed by brain on occasion. And tonight is one of those occasions so for my benefit I am attempting to write them down. I do this because it consumed by thoughts for a bit this evening and I want to see if I can expound on them to see if I can make sense of this madness permeating my thoughts. Also I do feel that general comparison do not get to the heart of the problem and also really address that if you believe which is worse.

So to start some basic definitions or explanations, an agnostic according to one source (Oxford definition)  is a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

And I stress it is important to note the last sentence. I will come back to this point.

Atheism or atheists is in some cases broken down into various distinctions. Generally most people will define atheism has the belief there is no God. One resource not identified in my internet search says there is implicit atheism and explicit atheism and goes on to identify positive and negative atheism. This might be much for my thoughts tonight, yet I did want to mention that some identify more to atheism than I want to travel through.

And the definition of agnostic mentioned above is generally how I view it and so my off and on internal ramblings and arguments have stuck with this approach. Atheism though I have always viewed as more of an active approach to the belief in God and that their active approach I treat differently than the viewpoint that discusses the various distinctions mentioned above.

To me an atheist believes in God, that person is fighting that belief. Now at what level is where it gets murky. Or may I should phrase it an atheist is the active disbelief in God, however to disbelieve are you not denying existence and if you are denying existence then the act of denial is fighting against acceptance. Now even to me this argument does appear somewhat circular, however bear with me as an amateur writer to get to my point. I truly believe this thought and I cannot think of a better way to phrase it at the moment. Yet to fight against something means you are fighting it. So if you say no God exists, why does it matter to you to vocally denounce it. Unless there is something that is driving you to deny the existence.

I think people forget the fallen angel, Lucifer, the evil one or however you want to identify this entity not only believes in God, but is on a campaign to destroy God. Yet this is not the same as an atheist, but this entity may play a factor in why an atheist is an atheist or at least for some. Some atheists just may not want to own up to the fact that if you believe in God you must follow God. And most people that believe in God or the Judeo Christian world knows how hard it is to follow God. No small feat to live according to the teachings of God. Throw in the concept of faith and mysteries and your brain is mush in no time.

Let me get back on topic. An atheist can be what is described above as an implicit atheist or “the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it” (again there is a reference here, but I don’t have it and it is referencing another work. My apologies for the lack of thoroughness here). I do not believe though based on this reference that there is an implicit atheist. To me an atheist may be a person, but that person is a verb also. Their atheism is an action. They are creating action or wanting to create an action within someone else. This exact same argument can be made for a Christian, which tends to put an atheist as a person trying to convince someone there is no God. And here we are again. They are denying something, yet you have to believe it to exist to convince others not to believe in it.

A really bad example is saying that wonderful t bone steak you want to eat does not exist. I take the plate away and you no longer see it so why would you think you are going to eat it. And the way I phrased this sentence is important. To me atheists are wanting you to not believe in God because you cannot see, feel, touch, smell etc… God. There is no truth to a physical presence of God or none that can be identified or ascertained.

I work backwards here and as a teenager and long before I knew of St. Augustine I had a internal working knowledge of something St. Augustine said: “what you understand can’t possibly be God” As a teenager I struggled with religion, yet I believed in God. I didn’t articulate this as St. Augustine did, however I felt there was more to God than what I saw on TV from the tele evangelists or some of the churches I had attended. Church to me kept trying to define something that couldn’t be held essentially as if it could be held. And they worked hard at it. Now honestly I wasn’t catching onto the faith based arguments, and or maybe I couldn’t comprehend them. Which goes back to what you understand can’t possibly be God because God is beyond our comprehension. You hear God’s word, but until you realize where it derives or who is God is beyond our imagination. Some people try to manipulate your imagination and in doing so fail God.

And again back to topic. So why the big to do about the difference between agnostic and atheists tonight. For some reason I started thinking about which is worse, being an agnostic or being an atheist and surprisingly to me at the moment, yet the more I thought about it the more I felt I am correct. An atheist on the surface appears to be the worse of the two if you are a believer, however, remember I said they believe in God, they are trying to convince themselves and you not to believe. Hence their belief is misguided and can be addressed. I am not saying it will be easy because atheists can be true believers or in the case true non believers, so they tend to be entrenched into their believes. Yet, the argument is already in their brain so once past the entrenchment, another argument can be presented.

An agnostic has no belief. There is no argument, there is no denial, there is no existence or no reason to even contemplate the existence. The thought comes, the thought goes. Outside of curiosity or moving towards atheism an agnostic doesn’t care. And the not caring is the more dangerous aspect. Can you change a true (non) believer, possibly? Can you motivate someone who doesn’t care? Much harder. If the entity above is lazy then an agnostic is a best friend. An atheist for this entity takes constant work to keep them in line.

Just what this madness is about sometimes unsnaps a few synopsis.

And let’s move onto another topic that drives me mad. God is not liberal or conservative. These are man made constructs. So it irks the heck out of me when we get into the discussion of liberalism and conservatism in the Church. Does the Pope teach the faith, the magisterium, the sacraments, or is the Pope saying Jesus is not divine, not the Trinity, there is no apostolic tradition or any other tradition of the Church? That is how you tell if you the Pope is teaching and living the faith. If you do not agree with the Pope about certain people he is trying to reach out to and it pushes your acceptance of others, yes the Pope might be moving socially liberal points, but the Church does not become liberal because the Pope pushes buttons. If the Pope now says a marriage in the Church between two people of the same sex is now a sacrament then this Pope has strayed from the belief and should no longer be Pope. Adam and Eve defined marriage and is now a sacrament to further your communion with God. The Pope can say certain people need to be heard as people since it is our role as a Christian to reach out to those that need God in their lives. It is not our role to define whether a bishop or Pope is liberal or conservative as teachings of the Faith. Remember as Christians we are to love, even those that insult us, step on our toes, live a lifestyle not of our faith, and yes the proverbial enemy. We are not to judge. One of my favorite points in the Bible is after the people are told those that have not sinned throw the first stone the next moment is the people leave and the oldest are the first to leave. Yeah I ain’t young anymore so I can certainly understand where that is coming from. More importantly we are not God, we cannot judge. We can hold fast to our believes, our faith, our teaching, yet being liberal or conservative is not part of the Church. We pray for each other, not label each other. And if you ask me, if you are labeling either way, maybe it is time you spent some time with God, not man.

Finally to Bishop Barron. I have all the respect in the world for you and have enjoyed what you have done to further my knowledge of our faith. However this certified yellow check idea is horrible. How can we know the saints if we assume only certain people know the word of God? Hope you think about it. Goes back to the argument above, if the Pope loses it, who are we to trust unless we can identify the Pope or a Bishop has lost their way. And I am not talking about me, this post is definitely one man’s opinion, yet who is to say one person may come along that knows more or more specifically taught more than all of us. Would Moses get a yellow check?

 

Happy birthday Mom

Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) is failing Dallas

 

First of all I do have to admit I do not have much experience riding mass transit, however the ones I have rode are significantly much better than what Dallas is giving us right now. Second I have always felt one reason for rapid transit is to help get cars off the road. And if there is ever a city that needs to get cars off the road it is Dallas. Two other cities that could use reduced traffic that I know of are Los Angeles and Houston. I have spent some time in both of those cities and all day long traffic just doesn’t benefit anyone, however I live in the Dallas area so I will want to talk about where we stand.

I am going to speak most specifically about the train system, yet I have traveled by bus in Dallas and Austin long before the DART train system was ever built. Basically at various times in my life I have tried to do what is right for our environment and use mass transportation. And if you live in Texas you already know that is actually a bit of a chore.

My experiences using train or metro systems previously include Washington DC, London and Madrid. I first used the metro in DC when I was a teenager and outside of getting the hang of it so to speak I managed to get around quite well. It was not a large system at that time, yet it got me to where I wanted to go. I have used it since including recently with my youngest daughter who lives there now. My family once visited DC in the early 2000’s and rode it from a hotel outside of DC into downtown and it was rather nice generally speaking. By no means I am saying it is perfect, but it is definitely functional and has only minimal of the problems that Dallas has.

I spent a week or so in London while I was in college and rode their system extensively. We did not rent a car so to go anywhere we had to use their metro system. And it got us around the entire London area including riding out to the equivalent of suburbs in the United States. I was able to find some pretty unique things to do and had no trouble getting there. The trains ran regularly and same as DC has little of the same problems that plaques Dallas.

We also spent a week in Madrid and pretty much the same. We had to use the system to get around and outside of the forced marches our daughter took us on (family joke) it was very beneficial. The phrase it is just over there means something completely different to a college student than an older couple.

Another aspect of these other systems is that you can connect to trains that go to places less than a hundred miles away so there are day trip options you just don’t have from Dallas even though there are places you could go that would be entertaining for tourists visiting Dallas.

The problem is getting people to ride DART that normally drive. And I hate saying this, but DART does not manage its riders well. It is almost like DART is taking a Christian approach and letting the homeless and mentally unstable have carte blanche on their system. I saw an occasional problem in the above mentioned systems, but nothing like what goes on in Dallas. Even the regular riders that use mass transportation because they need it are frustrated.

I reread my first sentence and I guess I should clarify. I do ride DART in Dallas to get around for many reasons from going to work, to going to my doctor and for other various destinations. My wife and my oldest daughter do not want me to ride. My wife has been on DART trains and buses and she is just not comfortable with some of the clientele. And I understand why, there are people on the system that take away from feeling safe, secure, even healthy in fact way too many. Yes some people should be able to ride, but when the system is bogged down so much that regular riders are uncomfortable there is a general problem that needs to be addressed. No one wants to say it out loud because we all want to be considerate, yet for a system to work people have to see a benefit to riding it. That is not happening in Dallas and it is the people who need mass transportation to get to work, shopping or other necessities that provide the bulk of the revenue are hindered and uncomfortable and if they could they would not ride. This would of course doom DART.

I think most of the problem is a logistics problem with how DART is set up. I do not manage nor understand the management of mass transportation so I do not feel confident in making a complete overhaul recommendation, but it feels that is what is needed.

To be successful DART needs paying riders and to help make DART beneficial to Dallas many of those paying riders need to be people that would normally drive to work at the very least. And that will not happen until DART decides to address the problem with the people who are not just impoverished, but significantly marginalized. It sounds cruel, but they cannot continue to allow these people to be such a problem that other people do not want to use the system.

And I know we need to do more as a society to help the marginalized people, but if we also want to increase ridership and help those who need mass transportation to go about their daily lives, DART cannot be a surrogate answer to homelessness. I have seen fights between people who could barely understand who they are and for many average Americans they just aren’t going to accept this while riding. It is a harsh reality, but true that most Americans do not want these types of problems interfering with their lives or worse subject them to conditions that make them uncomfortable to downright scared.

I would love to continue to ride DART, but am under orders from family members not to even think about it. (I have though). It is rough when you have seen other cities do very well with their systems and outside of an occasional individual most riders are going about their general day and you feel little concern.

Management of DART may need to make some hard decisions or they will continue to struggle with limited ridership in a city that desperately needs them to fill up those trains.

And again I know we need to do more for the marginalized, yet those answers are even more difficult.

No Labels, exactly what are they and for me this is more of the same nonsense that isn’t going to produce anything and is a big waste of time,,,,but don’t you want new parties you ask?

Yes I do want new parties, but from the little bit I have read they really aren’t a new party even though they are trying to get on ballots in states as if they are a political party. You cannot make any headway or productive change if you just try to upset the apple cart in one election. As of this morning they are on the ballot in 14 states and do not have a ticket yet. Not having named candidates right now though isn’t an issue. Shoot the Dems and Reps haven’t had one primary vote yet so No Labels does not need to be in a hurry.

And what really irks me about all the No Labels talk is that this is a broken record. Does anyone remember American Elect? And yes the exact same Democrats who were against them are against No Labels because they are afraid that they will siphon votes from the Democratic Candidate which is presumable Joe Biden, but not guaranteed yet. Essentially the Democrats fear any moderate candidate outside of them is not good for them. Yet if they had done what is right for the working and middle class all along these attempts at independent candidates would gain no head way. So first they should not be allowed to prevent No Labels from being on the ballot anywhere because second their failure here is their own fault. And going back to first point, it is un-American to deny people the right to be on a ballot unless they try to shoot themselves onto it.

And going back to American Elect moment in time I wrote a post on this blog on December 30, 2011 and a follow up on January 01, 2012. You can go back and check me, however basically I was against the run back then for the same reasons now. You cannot make significant change in the body politic of our country just by electing an independent candidate to the Presidency. Why, well you need a political party in Congress to help support your legislative agenda. Much as the two major parties are failing with new initiatives right now, to get legislation passed you need to have someone bring a bill to the floor of the House and Senate.  Here is one paragraph from the previous post”

            Now back to the comments about the America Elect process. I am not going to get into the splitting of the vote, CNN and others are pretty ramped up about that. And yes it could be a concern, but lets take a look at the America Elect group actually winning. The problem is that they have no other support. Legislation gets passed when you have support in Congress and most of the time that comes from your own party. American Elect is not trying to create a third party so they run into a huge wall when dealing with Congress if they win the Presidency.  This would create a gigantic stalemate or even something more interesting where Republicans and Democrats agree on some issues and pass what they want and override Presidential vetos left and right (pun intended). So the goal of America Elect is thwarted by the very group they are trying to by pass to run this country. Basically we get more of the current situation which is partisan arguing and no real and new policy development. And if you are a libertarian you might be able to claim victory this way if the government cannot do anything for four years.

I just copied and pasted and even left the misspelled word from the original post. Here we are almost 12 years later and no one has figured out that to overcome the current morass in Congress you need to bring in full scale change. Well maybe some people have figured that out, but no one is doing anything about it. Go back to my blurb about this blog” an editor is worth their weight in gold, too bad I have neither.” If I had the gold I would at least try to pull something together because I obviously need the editor to make sense of my thoughts to get people to make changes, yet again almost 12 years ago I saw the same attempt as No Labels, explained why it would fail if they won and yet here we go again with no change that would be successful. Anyone wonder why I walk the thin line of madness?

Also if you do go back and read the full two parts of the post it also contains a small history of third parties in the United States. And if you are reading this on Tumblr or Wordpress, you will have to go to blogger or blogspot or whatever to read the original. I basically do the same blog on three platforms, but did not start the other two until sometime later.

No Labels is a waste of time and money, no matter how sincere they may be. If we want real change, we need to do real work. Where is the gold?

No cheers, this is maddening. 

Signs of a possible recession from someone not even an amateur economist and other thoughts

 

There is a company that started in Texas called Bucee’s. It has grown pretty significantly in Texas and lately is branching out to other states. It is not a truck stop, yet it is a place where you can stop get gas, food, an enormous variety of souvenirs, trinkets, road trip supplies, t-shirts with their logo, they tout their bathrooms being the cleanest and more. It isn’t a store that sells primarily necessities. It is quite an impressive size store that derives most of its business from people traveling. Or you might think that based on locations, however quite a few people go to one that is close to their house.

I use them as sort of a tongue in cheek marker for road trips. They are positioned near large cities in Texas, but mostly about 30-40 miles away so I say if you pass one on the highway going out of town you are now officially on a road trip according to my logic.  Their target audience is basically working and middle class families on the go.

So what has this got to do with a recession. There are now billboards where they are advertising 5% off the whole store. So this says to me sales may be slumping a bit. Most retailers have sales, however when the whole store goes on sale even a small amount something is usually amiss with total sales. The billboards lean into the idea that they are inflation fighting, but I am not buying it. I am not saying they are struggling, however, signs like these might mean leaner times are coming for the consumer economy. This is a very popular store where they are located and can be overwhelmed by crowds. I have made that stop on occasion over the last few years and it can be busy. There is always a line at the register which is a good sign for the company. I haven’t been in a few months so seeing this billboard makes me wonder. I am not about to make a special trip just to find out, yet if you are reading the tea leaves this billboard isn’t screaming optimism.

 

And as you know someone drove the House of Representatives off a large cliff. There are many culprits and suspects, yet generally there is a problem. I know some will say that the Democrats aren’t the problem, yet they are part of the disease as a whole. There is an article in from Time by Lee Drutman titled: “The only way to fix Congress”. First of all that is a bit presumptuous. Second Mr. Drutman mainly addresses the well known problem of the two party system is marching further and further to the right and left based House districts being safe for the respective partly. And as you know means the real election is in the primary for most House seats. Mr. Drutman works through this premise for the first half of his piece and discussing a bit of the current situation and history.

He then suggests that we should adopt a proportional representation system to elect House members. I have seen this discussed before and I certainly understand how it works. I am just curious about it. I think Mr. Drutman is also in favor of expanding the number of political parties which you know I am very in favor. The question is how do we break up the monopoly of the two party system. Do we sue them via the Federal Trade Commission? Probably won’t work, but at this point anything is worth a try. Going back to his proposal I am not sure how it would get implemented. You could still have just the two party system and maybe obtain better representation. I do not know, yet he tends to think so.

I think in some ways what he is proposing or the concept is somewhat done in the primary elections or at least it use to be. The primary candidates for President would receive delegates based on the percentage or some other formula used so it wasn’t winner take all. I think that might have changed, not sure. I do not vote for the two parties in an election, however I treat the primaries differently and have voted in Democrat and Republican primaries, mainly for the entertainment factor. I have been to precinct meetings and one year ended up being the person to help with the math to determine how many delegates each candidate received to go to the County or State totals. This was years ago so do not remember the exact details. I do remember it was a convoluted formula. The problem with voting in a primary is you receive inordinate amounts of campaign solicitations from various candidates from that party. It becomes way too much of a cost to opt out of it all just for one day of watching people behave like crazed baboons to sway how the results are determined and especially since it is a fixed formula. Or it was, not sure nowadays.

We do need to change processes up since the House is definitely at the bottom of a cliff right now. The idea in Mr. Durtman’s article won’t change our current disaster, yet it is a consideration for the present moving into the future.

And for me as always, we do need new major parties and maybe some different electoral maps.

Cheers

Okay this time I’m not critical and other thoughts

 

So I read a story by Jay Caruso in the Washington Examiner titled “The House Freedom Caucus Chickens have come home to roost” and it is written before the third vote for Jordan’s attempt at being Speaker. I have to say I like what he says. Here we have someone in the Examiner laying out exactly what has happened. It isn’t earth shattering reporting or opinion, just some plain facts and thoughts as to as why the Speakership is in such turmoil.

He mentions that Jordan may eventually win, but since this was written before the third vote I do not see how that is going to happen. And he asks even if he were to win, what kind of governing coalition will he have. Since it doesn’t look like he will win since he lost three more votes Friday morning, I am feeling better about what that coalition might have looked like.

Yet here we are. The Freedom Caucus members do not seem like they want to budge since they do not want to support the interim Speaker’s powers be expanded, but they have no plan. Nothing, nada, squat, diddly squat, big bag of nothing is the plan being put forth by them. They do not want to accept any compromise or work with the Democrats to do anything. It boggles the mind that they cannot just accept something to get a portion of what they want to move on some issues. And this is pretty much the point of the article I read, that they apparently have no idea what they can do.

And unfortunately the members trying to find a way forward with some attempt at conservative policy are attacked, berated, stymied, harassed, and the madness goes on. Mr. Caruso goes through these points that the House Freedom Caucus lost either the will or the ability to do the real work to get conservative policy enacted. Now to me that seems like a lost dream.

And switching gears the legal news is not going well for one Mr. Donald Trump. Will the New York Judge overseeing his business trial slap consequences on him for maintaining or not taking down something from one of his websites that was ordered two weeks ago? I haven’t seen any actual fine or jail time perpetuated on Mr. Trump yet, but keeping an eye on the news today.

Second two of his attorneys in the Georgia case have now pleaded guilty with Chesebro’s plea coming today. This could start heading further south than the Gulf of Mexico fast.

And with Jordan’s Speakership potentially fading into a footnote of history, Mr. Trump’s influence on everything but his supporters is one heck of a leaky ship out there in the aforementioned Gulf.

Cheers