To all voting age Americans

I would like to present the main issues we face today as a nation and how each candidate is addressing these issues.  I would like to emphasize to all Americans that we should do our due diligence to research the issues and the history of the issues to have a perspective on realistic solutions and which candidate is best suited to carry out a real plan of action to help solve each of the issues.  I look forward to your comments.

Obamacare:  Everyone was in agreement that something needed to be done to control the upward spiraling costs of healthcare, but the Republicans took the stance that they weren’t going to support anything that President Obama supported, whether it was good for the American people or not.  The Republicans have said they will have a draft of their version prior to the beginning of the primaries.  If they were interested in having input, why didn’t Republicans get involved during the drafting stages?   Where is this new plan?  I don’t like everything about Obamacare, but I do know that there are people that would not have insurance under the old rules that now have insurance.  If you are not working for a company that provides insurance with an open enrollment plan, it can be difficult or impossible to get insurance, unless you are young and have no pre-existing health issues.

 

The initial objectives were to make insurance affordable (The Affordable Care Act) and available to all.  The second objective was accomplished, but so far the rates for insurance are the same or higher than before.  Since it did not meet the objectives of lower health care costs, opponents call the Affordable Care Act “Obamacare” and focus on where it fell short.  This plan could have been a better plan with the help of Republicans and, if successful, it would have been referred to as “American Care”. I believe we need to keep working on this to meet all the original objectives rather than just can the idea all together.  I was following Ted Cruz until I learned that he led a filibuster to stop the Affordable Care Act.  Perhaps we would have had a better plan, if he put his energy into helping improve the plan.

 

Health Care has little checks and balances, which is why costs keep rising much higher than inflation.  For example, if you need a faucet leak fixed, you call a plumber.  The plumber has studied to become a plumber and he knows how to fix your leak.  However, if he wants to charge you $1,000 to fix you leak, you say no and buy a new faucet for $300.  There is also sufficient competition that keeps plumbing repair charges in a reasonable range.  In addition, there is the DIY (Do it yourself) option where you buy the parts at a store and fix it yourself.  In the medical profession, you cannot practice medicine without a license, so DIY is out.  It is really a complex issue, because the way doctors are paid sometimes gives them the incentive to perform the more expensive procedures.  Some HMO’s negotiate and manage health care costs and even promote “wellness” to promote taking care of yourself, so you can prevent some serious illnesses.  Health issues are unique in that you can’t go to a store and buy a new chest if you have a bad lung.  Therefore, people tend to agree to pay almost anything (through their insurance company) if it prevents an untimely death.  Are you a “Socialist”, if you want to control these costs?  Are you anti-capitalism, if you want to control these costs?  I don’t think so.  Since the medical field is somewhat exempt from the checks and balances of general competition, then it seems that there should be a way to manage costs from getting out of hand.

 

Here is an article that discusses ideas for controlling costs: https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/health-reform-and-you/better-care-at-lower-cost

 

Gov. John Kasich is already working on a plan in Ohio to reward doctors for promoting long term good health, instead of just reacting when someone gets sick. 

 

Immigration:  I consider this a difficult issue, since the majority of Americans are immigrants or descendants of immigrants.  Our melting pot culture and the equal freedom guaranteed to all of us help make us a strong nation, because we are free to pursue our dreams and the fulfillment of the dreams to invent, create, inspire, entertain or serve combine to benefit all Americans.  It is also a difficult issue, because the solution to dealing with the number of “illegal immigrants” is compounded by the fact that we don’t do a good job of tracking people once they enter the country, even if they initially enter the country legally.  People focused on Mexico are not seeing the whole picture.  There are immigrants from most every country in the world and some have become illegal after their Visas expired, some didn’t need a Visa, like those crossing the border from Canada or those who entered with a Passport “on vacation”, but never returned.  Even the Mexican government thinks that building a wall will not solve the problem and they have stated that they will not contribute to building a wall.  I think Ronald Reagan may have had a vision that by granting a one-time amnesty, the U. S. would take that as a starting point to begin a better tracking system, but that never happened.  He must have realized that tracking down all illegal immigrants and determining what to do with them when found, was an impossible task, so amnesty was a practical starting point, but there was no follow through.  Let’s say that by some miracle, we are able to track everyone down and find a suitable home for everyone.  We are still faced with the follow through and no one is addressing exactly how that will be done and what impact it will have.  Donald Trump supports deportation, because it is a simple answer that his movement supports.  But, like other answers from Mr. Trump, the consequences are not well thought out if at all.  Others, like Gov. John Kasich have a realistic plan, recognizing the impracticality of deportation and that provide a path for immigrants to stay in this country, short of becoming citizens.

 

Gun control:  I believe in the right to own a gun and I also believe that the Democrats are not trying to take our guns away, like many published articles are stating.  The only thing I have seen Democrats supporting is keeping guns out of the hands of people who obviously should not have them.  I live in California and we already have the background checks in place that Democrats are advocating in every state.  California is OK with this and I don’t see why any other state would have a problem with background checks.

 

 

 

From Wikipedia:

“Early English settlers in America viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes (in no particular order):[48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55]

• enabling the people to organize a militia system.
• participating in law enforcement;
• deterring tyrannical government;[56]
• repelling invasion;
• suppressing insurrection, allegedly includingslave revolts;[57][58][59]
• facilitating a natural right of self-defense.

Which of these considerations were thought of as most important and ultimately found expression in the Second Amendment is disputed. “

Facilitating a natural right of self-defense does it for me.  I have a friend that lives in the country and there are rattlesnakes on his property.  I wouldn’t want to live there without some protection.  On the other hand, how do people who commit crimes get guns?  You can defend gun control on one or more of the above original intentions, but I think it is reasonable to think that we all want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.  One thing that hasn’t been mentioned is the sale from one gun owner to another individual.  Perhaps, all sales of guns should require selling them through a licensed facility that does background checks.  I’m not sure there is a clear answer here, because the bad guys always seem to know how to get around the rules.  At least we can make it harder for them, can’t we?

Donald Trump is feeding on the rumors that the Democrats are going to take our guns away.  His answer is, “That’s not gonna happen.”  However, he has no answer to how to provide better control to assure guns to not get into the wrong hands.

 

Foreign Policy/Nuclear Threat:  Extremely complex issue.  The Nuclear treaty with Iran has been a work in process since before the Obama administration.  The United Nations Security Council is charged with the responsibility and the permanent members of the Security Council are China, France, Russia, United Kingdom and the United States. Plus Germany.  Not all members have the same objectives and Iran doesn’t automatically say yes to every demand of the Security Council.  That’s why they call it negotiations.  When the Republican candidates say they will take control of this situation, they either don’t know how this works, or they do and they are just making strong statements to get votes.  The president of the Security Council changes monthly, by rotating among the permanent and non-permanent countries adding to the complexity of managing the process.

As far as fighting terrorist groups like ISIS, it seems we can do a better job than we have done so far, but keep in mind that we have been fighting terrorism for more than 100 years.  It is a difficult task to fight terrorists that do not operate with uniforms.  They are dressed the same as the ordinary person on the street.  Therefore, even if you have a strategy to wipe out a stronghold of terrorists and take out one or two of their leaders, there always seem to be more followers that could be anywhere. 

 

Foreign Trade:  Foreign trade became a bigger issue at the last Republican debate, because Mr. Trump created a position thinking on his feet, when he was told that Mexico will not pay for his wall.  Mr. Trump’s response was that he would start a trade war.  In the case of a trade war, the American people will end up paying for the wall.  Here is why:  The trade deficit with Mexico has been growing since 1993.   As American companies outsource more manufacturing to Mexico, good are exported to Mexico to build the products that are then sold back to the American citizens.  Therefore, a tariff on either side would result in higher prices paid by Americans.  In addition to not paying for the wall, the Mexican government has said that the wall would be a waste of money, because more people are staying in Mexico to work at the American manufacturing plants that continue to increase.  The current trade deficit with Mexico is about $58 billion in 2015.  We also have a trade deficit with China, which has been growing since 1985.  The current trade deficit with China is about $366 billion in 2015.  The same results will occur if tariffs are imposed.  The American people will pay higher prices.  We will still pay higher prices than what we pay for imports now, but we will have the jobs that provide the means to pay for the products.  The optimistic view is that the tariffs will encourage companies to bring jobs back to America.  We imported $481 billion of goods in 2015 from China and $295 billion of goods in 2015 from Mexico.  This ship is not going to turn around overnight.

Income Taxes:  There are many plans to make changes to how we pay taxes.  I hope that every candidate has done the math, when they propose a flat tax.  It is a valid concept, but the flat rate set needs to be enough to contribute to a balanced budget.  Mr. Trump has an aggressive plan which will create a $10 trillion deficit to add to an existing $19 trillion National Debt, including a factor for the increased business that will be generated.  He did not have an answer when asked how he was going to make up for the $10 trillion deficit.  An argument was made that Corporations are taxed higher than other countries.  According to KPMG, we are the second highest at 40%.  Let’s contrast our 40% with the U. K.’s 20%.  First of all, this argument only looks at the rate and does not take into consideration the differences in allowable expenses.  Second of all, the argument does not look at other factors.  The VAT (Value Added Tax) in the U. K., which is similar to our Sale Tax is 15%.  Therefore, one of the ways to keep the corporate tax rate low is to raise the consumption tax and shift the tax burden to those who consume more goods.  We need to know from each candidate the math behind any tax reduction in order to balance the budget.  We are either going to add another tax (like consumption), cut spending somewhere or have an immediate surge in GNP to bring more tax dollars to the budget table.  Lowering taxes is a good idea. We need to make America more business friendly (like Gov. John Kasich does in Ohio.), but the benefits are going to be long term.  We need a plan that will balance the budget in the near term, because we are at risk of defaulting on our debt, if the upward spiral continues.

Business regulations:  There are strong opinions about regulations that range from Marco Rubio and Ben Carson who want to eliminate regulations to Gov. John Kasich who wants “smart regulations”.  Regulations are one the checks and balances in a capitalistic country.  In many industries, history has shown that regulations are necessary to assure that customer’s assets are safeguarded, that customers get what they pay for and what they pay for is safe to use or consume.  Enron was the most publicly recognized business failure where creativity and greed led to very ugly results hurting employees and customers.  If you do some research, you will find that there are companies getting in trouble every year, but they do not get in the news like Enron.  Regulations help provide oversight to prevent deceptive practices, but they are not perfect and do not prevent all deceptive practices.  Without any regulation, we would have increased deceptive practices or practices that create risk for the consumer.  Reducing regulations has been tied to at least one recession.

Managing Inflation:  This is a very interesting topic and also a complex issue.  The primary means for the government to manage inflation is to manage interest rates.  When an economy is growing, there is more spending and generally prices increase (Inflation).  One theory is to raise interest rates, making money less available and spending slows, the economy slows and inflation is reduced.  In my working lifetime, I have seen three ten year cycles of inflation followed by raising interest rates, followed by recession, followed by lowering interest rates to grow the economy.  Why does anyone think this is a workable theory?  The recessions have been more dramatic in each cycle.  There are many problems with this theory.  1. When interest rates are low, people and companies borrow more money.  When interest rates rise, those people and companies that pushed their borrowing to the maximum level based on how much of a loan payment they can afford, all of a sudden exceed their maximum when the new interest rates cause the loan payments to exceed their ability to pay them.  2.  Raising interest rates actually feeds inflation until something breaks.  For example, if inflation is 5%, budgets including payroll are targeted at 5% or more to keep pace.  A worker that gets less than a 5% raise would be behind the curve, so good performance generally would generate a raise above 5%.  In order for companies to keep up with the pace of rising costs, they raise their prices by as much or more than their expenses are rising.  The Federal Reserve continues to raise the interest rates until the breaking point, where companies just can’t maintain the expense burden and successfully compete in the marketplace.  Many things happen at this point.  For example:  employees are laid off, services are outsourced to a foreign country and cheaper products are purchased overseas.  All of these consequences hurt the economy when the intention was simply to reduce spending and control inflation.

I would love to hear any candidate come up with a better solution other than managing interest rates, but I haven’t heard any better solutions. 

The National Debt/Balancing the Budget:  We owe $19 trillion dollars in debt and that figure will be increasing each year until take measures that provide a surplus to pay down the debt.  If nothing else is done, the raising of interest rates by the Federal Reserve will raise the debt with greater interest to be paid.  There are indirect references to the debt and the burden it is creating and general references that jobs will be created and therefore more taxes paid, because we are going to bring them back from China, Mexico and other outsourcing countries.  There are references to taking the fraud out of the social security system by tightening up the oversight of the payments.  There is talk of bringing corporate offices back to the United States for American companies that are avoiding taxes by setting up foreign companies.  There have also been references to a flat tax.  I really hope they are doing the math for any of these initiatives to determine the impact on each one of the revenue and expense categories of the budget. 

How do they plan to bring jobs back?  …With tariffs on imported products?  Perhaps, but this will not be easy or immediate.

How are they going to bring foreign offices of companies back to the United States?  The government has been trying to close this gap for years.

Institute a flat tax.  This may sound easy, but the math really needs to be accurate before this is put into place.  Also, the IRS will not be completely abolished as Ted Cruz insists will happen.  Someone stills needs to collect the tax.  I also wonder how all the companies that specialize in tax will feel and how much influence they will have on stopping such a plan.

Take the fat out of social security by cracking down on fraudulent claims.  This has as much chance as getting the government to track illegal aliens.  None of our leaders, Republican or Democrat have been able to enforce the necessary disciplines, so this promise also seems like a stretch.  However, it is a task that should be pursued, because greater disciplines across the board in government will lower the cost of government and reduce program costs.

Gov. John Kasich is the only candidate with a history of actually taking a deficit in Ohio and creating a surplus by creating jobs with a business friendly government and getting things done for the greater good of the people in Ohio.

 

 

 

 

FYI: The budget in terms of revenues and expenses.

Revenue:

47% Individual Income taxes

32% Payroll taxes

13% Corporate taxes

3% Excise taxes

5% Other

 

Expenses:

37% Social Security

27% Medicare and Health

15% National Defense

7% Interest

14% Other

 

Party Collaboration:  The United States has not been so divided since the Civil War.  A war where 620,000 Americans died compared to 644,000 deaths in all conflicts since the Civil War.  I am not saying we are facing another Civil War, but we are faced with a nation so divided politically that progress is being impeded while the parties are fighting each other.  The victims of this political war are the people of the United States.  A large number of our citizens have been disappointed with politicians of both parties and they have wished for a candidate that was not a politician.  This is what is giving Donald Trump such a large following and Ben Carson would probably have a stronger following with the kind of wealth that Donald Trump has to support his own campaign.  Even though we got what we wished for, we need to take a very close look at the evidence that supports each candidate’s ability to get things done in government.  Whether the winner is a business man, doctor, Democrat or Republican, we need to determine the ability of each candidate to work with the existing Democrats and Republicans in office and lead them to unite together and solve issues for the greater good of the American people.  Gov. John Kasich is the only candidate with a consistent record of collaborating with both parties to get a balanced budget both nationally and as Gov. of Ohio.

Movements:  “All mass movements generate in their adherents a readiness to die and a proclivity for united action; all of them, irrespective of the doctrine they preach and the program they project, breed fanaticism, enthusiasm, fervent hope, hatred and intolerance; all of them are capable of releasing a powerful flow of activity in certain departments of life; all of them demand blind faith and singlehearted allegiance.  All movements, however different in doctrine and aspiration, draw their early adherents from the same types of humanity; they all appeal to the same types of mind.”  This is a quote from “The True Believer”, a book written to outline the nature of mass movements and point out the good and bad aspects of mass movements.  Donald Trump and his friend Sarah Palin often referred to their campaign as a movement and seem to be capitalizing on the discontent of many Americans who have lost their jobs, are under employed or otherwise frustrated with the America they knew when jobs were plentiful.  If you are following Donald Trump, you should read the book, because you are the people described as adherents.  “For men (people) to plunge headlong into an undertaking of vast change, they must be intensely discontented and they must have the feeling that by possession of some potent doctrine (Let’s make America Great Again), infallible leader (Don’t mess with Trump) or new technique they have access to irresistible power.  They must have an extravagant conception of the prospects and potentialities of the future. Finally, they must be wholly ignorant of the difficulties involved in their vast undertaking.  Experience is a handicap.”

“One of the most potent attractions of a mass movement is its offering of a substitute for individual hope.  This attraction is particularly effective in a society imbued with the idea of progress.  For in the conception of progress, “tomorrow” looms large, and the frustration resulting from having nothing to look forward to is the more poignant.  Hermann Rauschning says of pre-Hitlerian Germany that “the feeling of having come to the end of all things was one of the worst troubles we endured after that lost war.”  Despair brought about by unemployment comes not only from the threat of destitution, but from the sudden view of a vast nothingness ahead.  The unemployed are more likely to follow the peddlers of hope than the handers-out-of relief.”

“The problem of stopping a mass movement is often a matter of substituting one movement for another.”  I think this may be why Marco Rubio if referring to his following as a movement of the Republican party as a substitute for the Trump movement.  Although this may be a viable strategy, I would contend that we should support and follow the most qualified candidate to lead America for the overall good of the American people.

 

Here is my assessment of the remaining Republican candidates:

Donald Trump bagan his campaign with a slogan to “Make America Great Again”.  His promise was to disrupt the processes of government and institute his aggressive business strategies to get this accomplished.  However, most of his presentations are about how great he is as a leader and negotiator and how weak all the other candidates are.  His only action item in the beginning was to build a wall, which appealed to his followers as a way to keep the illegal immigrants from entering our country.  Since then he has concentrated on belittling other candidates, even if his material was not researched.  When pressed for specific plans, his first response is to reiterate how poorly the current administration addresses the question or how week his opponents are about addressing the issues and often avoids bringing his own solution to the table.  When pressed for answers in the last debate, he either had no answer or he blurted out a solution off the cuff (trade wars for Mexico) that was not well thought out.  I was one of the American voters who wished, in past election years, that we did not have to choose between politicians for our vote.  As they say, be careful what you wish for.  Mr. Trump surfaced as a non-politician.  However, Mr. Trump is not one I can recommend to follow.  I have been a Chief Financial Officer for more than twenty years and have seen some companies file Chapter 11 bankruptcy.  This is a form of bankruptcy in which you reorganize your company’s asset and liabilities, but generally means that you can legally not pay your outstanding debts to your vendors.  On very rare occasions, I have seen a company file for Chapter 11 twice, but I have never seen a situation where a company was allowed to file four times as Mr. Trump has done.  He admits to giving millions of dollars to politicians to make this process easier to accomplish.  When questioned about stiffing his creditors, he responds, “These are not real people! They are disgusting people who you wouldn’t want to deal with!”  I have to wonder how the good construction worker that worked diligently to build one of Mr. Trump’s projects felt when he didn’t get paid?  Who else does he not consider real people: immigrants, Muslims?  Are you next?  Few of his positions are described or well thought out.  It is frightening to think that someone will be put in charge that has no understanding of the consequences of his actions on the National Debt, relations with other countries or the true impact on the American people.

Ted Cruz has some good experience and a list of accomplishments.  I even contributed to his campaign in the beginning.  I was disappointed to learn that he supported a filibuster to block the Affordable Care Act instead of using his knowledge and experience to work with the Democrats to come up with a better plan.  I was also disappointed to hear about his tactics in the states where caucuses or primaries were taking place.

Marco Rubio was the first to be very outspoken about his specific plans in each issue that the United States is facing.  He definitely has by attention and support.  He wasn’t getting the attention he deserved in the polls, because the leader, Donald Trump was using mud-slinging effectively even though he had no position on the issues facing the United States except for “building a wall”.  Marc has joined the mud-slinging contest and doing a good job.  I’m sorry we have lowered ourselves to these tactics, but it is almost necessary to put Mr. Trump in his place.  I think Mr. Rubio has a better chance of winning an election against the Democrats than Donald Trump.  The only issue I would be concerned about is his stance on eliminating government regulation.

Gov. John Kasich is the only candidate that has a history of working with Republicans and Democrats to get things done.  He fought for a balance budget nationally and he has achieved a surplus in Ohio.  He is in process of putting a plan together in Ohio that will reward doctors that provide better wellness care at a lower cost.  He has a workable plan for handling illegal immigrants.  He has demonstrated that he can make Ohio business friendly and create jobs.  In my opinion, Gov. John Kasich is the logical choice and the best candidate to win the overall election.

Dr. Ben Carson is a very smart man and has excellent ideas for each of the issues, except he also believes in eliminating regulations.  I love the United States of America and our freedom to pursue the American Dream, but history has proven that we need some checks and balances to make Capitalism work fairly for all Americans.  I would suggest bringing Dr. Carson on as an advisor.  Why?  Because I like his answer when asked whether he would have let Bank of America fail and have all the customers lose their deposits.  Dr. Carson’s response was that he believes there is not just and A and B answer to most issues.  He would recommend answer C. which would transfer the customer’s deposits to another bank that is in good standing and then close Bank of America.  We need people that will think out of the box.  Dr. Carson also promotes looking at his web-site, because he does not get as much speaking time.  In these debates, I agree with Dr. Carson and Gov. John Kasich, when they both have said the Republican party is being damaged by all the mud-slinging, we need to address the issues and learn the specific solutions presented by each candidate.

In summary, we did get the opportunity to have non-politicians in the mix this year, but we need to have some confidence (not blind confidence) that one of them would be able to get things done as President of the United States.  The Republican candidate who has demonstrated that he can get things done in the best interest of the American people in my book is Gov. John Kasich.

The Democratic candidates are not as complicated, since they have narrowed the field to Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. 

Hillary Clinton is further to the left than I originally thought, until I read articles (which you can Google, too) that reveal each candidates political orientation, weights their stance on the issues and ranks them as far as how far left, right or in the middle they are.  Hillary is smart, a leader and she is strong in her convictions to do the right thing for the American people.  My only question would be, is she too far left to work collaboratively with the Republicans to get things done.  The way the Republicans operated in the last eight years, intent on creating a dysfunctional government almost makes me want to never vote for another Republican.  However, I do believe that Republicans understand business better and both parties need to work together to get the right things done for the American people.  One of the slogans that the Democrats use is, “Corporations are not people!”  Corporations are run by people and the fact that we have the freedom to form our own company is part of the American Dream. Corporations provide most of the jobs in America.  Some corporations have set bad examples resulting in regulations that all corporations must follow.  We need the checks and balances for companies, but we also need to create a “friendly environment” for business, to encourage businesses to start and stay in America.

Bernie Sanders is even further to the left on Health Care and does not believe in capital punishment, but he has other ideas that are more moderate.  Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton believe the wealthy should pay more taxes.  I like the fact the Bernie Sanders is raising most of his campaign financing from individuals like you and me that send in donations.  It is interesting to note that the top recipients of donations from Wall Street are Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.

I have not addressed every issue and candidates’ positions, but I have attempted to provide enough material to cause the voters to be more curious and do some research on their own.  I welcome your comments.

Thank you for your time.