#TrumpAdmin: Minor Grumbling Post

Once upon a time, I was a Moderate Atheist Republican. When Obama was elected, I shifted to a Pelaoconservative Christian Republican philosophy.

Now, I did not and do not align with each group perfectly. Take my current political philosophy. According to Michael Foley:

“[P]aleoconservatives press for restrictions on immigration, a rollback of multicultural programmes, the decentralization of the federal policy, the restoration of controls upon free trade, a greater emphasis upon economic nationalism and isolationism in the conduct of American foreign policy, and a generally revanchist outlook upon a social order in need of recovering old lines of distinction and in particular the assignment of roles in accordance with traditional categories of gender, ethnicity, and race.” -(Unfortunately No Link) Michael Foley (2007). American Credo: The Place of Ideas in US Politics. New York, USA: Oxford University Press Inc. p. 318

The only thing I disagree with hardline pelaoconservatism is the isolationism nonsense. I direct your attention to three great articles (all at the American Greatness) that deal with this issue. We can be non-interventionist and anti-war, but we cannot hide from the world:

Please read these at your leisure. Highly recommended.

I do have some quibbles, but they are all very minor.

First up is entitlement reform. I think we need it, President Trump does not:

Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney says President Trump removed elements of entitlement reform from a proposed budget. …Mulvaney said he presented the president with a list of budget options which included some changes to Social Security. “And he looked at one and said, ‘What is that?'” Mulvaney said. He continued, “And I said, ‘Well, that’s a change to part of Social Security.’ He said, ‘No. No.’ He said, ‘I told people I wouldn’t change that when I ran. And I’m not going to change that. Take that off the list.'”

But, like the guy said, he campaign on those issues and I voted for him knowing full well what that meant. At least President Trump went over his own budget before signing off on it.

But as the good Lord gives, he takes. President Trump came out in support of Ex-Im Bank:

Mr. Trump also made a full reversal from the campaign by stating his support for the U.S. Export-Import Bank. The president said he planned to fill two vacancies on the bank’s board, which has been effectively paralyzed with three open seats on its five-member board…

“Instinctively, you would say, ‘Isn’t that a ridiculous thing,'” Mr. Trump said of the Ex-Im Bank. “But actually, it’s a very good thing. And it actually makes money, it could make a lot of money.”

I’m not going to go fully into why the Ex-Im Bank is a bad, crony-capitalism boondoggle. Many on both the left and right want to see this monster brought down.

As much as I want to be mad at President Trump over these things*, I cannot. I knew I disagreed with Trump on some things that he was going to keep his promise on. I also knew that Trump would do an about face on some things that he promised to do.

You have to roll with reality. I’m not saying sell-out your values or compromise for the shake of compromise. I will still fight for entitlement reform and the end of the Ex-Im Bank in the now and future. If President Trump can accomplish 75%-80% of what he wants to do and I agree with, then I’m happy.

Justice Neil Gorsuch bought a lot of brownie points for me. President Trump is still strong on the illegal immigration front and reforming the government (like the EPA!). I do roll my eyes at him and grumble at Trump sometimes, but I see no reason to be MAD at this moment.

Well, see ya’ later!


#Harvard And #Dartmouth Sound The #SocialSecurity Alarm

Better late than never. Welcome to the party pal* (via Hot Air):

New studies from Harvard and Dartmouth researchers find that the SSA’s actuarial forecasts have been consistently overstating the financial health of the program’s trust funds since 2000.

“These biases are getting bigger and they are substantial,” said Gary King, co-author of the studies and director of Harvard’s Institute for Quantitative Social Science. “[Social Security] is going to be insolvent before everyone thinks.” …

Researchers examined forecasts published in the annual trustees’ reports from 1978, when the reports began to consistently disclose projected financial indicators, until 2013. Then, they compared the forecasts the agency made on such variables as mortality and labor force participation rates to the actual observed data. Forecasts from trustees reports from 1978 to 2000 were roughly unbiased, researchers found. In that time, the administration made overestimates and underestimates, but the forecast errors appeared to be random in their direction.

“After 2000, forecast errors became increasingly biased, and in the same direction. Trustees Reports after 2000 all overestimated the assets in the program and overestimated solvency of the Trust Funds,” wrote the researchers, who include Dartmouth professor Samir Soneji and Harvard doctoral candidate Konstantin Kashin.

There are two schools of thought here on Social Security reform: “Means Testing” and “Partial Privatization”

“Means Testing” will just turn Social Security into a welfare program. Politicians on both sides will pander to the poor and turn out more populism. They will claim to want to raise the ‘Social Security Tax’ on the rich and businesses so that you can get a bigger piece of the Social Security, because it will be “fair” or something.

Privatization or “Partial Privatization” would keep politician’s dirty hands off your money. Right now, that money is being used a slush fund and some don’t want lose it. Putting YOUR money in private accounts will put you in control. Some think you shouldn’t have any control over your lives, but I disagree. It has also worked so well in Chile, why can’t it work well here?

I am sure the left-wing pundit class is already writing up how Harvard and Dartmouth are a bunch of “right-wing hacks” or something. “Hacks” is a maybe, a good case can be made on that point. However Harvard and Dartmouth are not “Right-Wing” of any sort. If both these schools say that there is a problem with Social Security, we all need to sit up and listen. The progressive “reality-based community” needs to wake up to the facts of the present and future, instead of living completely in the past.

Well, see ya’ later!

Theme: TheBuckmaker.com WordPress Webdesign
(Note: Website No Longer Works. Removing Link.)