The Trade War Heats Up Again

President Trump provoked a stock market selloff yesterday when he told reporters that a China trade deal might not be completed until after next year’s election. There are also possible new tariffs on France as well as renewed import taxes on Brazilian and Argentinian steel. The combined announcements of disappointing trade news on multiple fronts show that the trade war is still going strong.

The president sent stocks tumbling yesterday when he told reporters at the NATO conference in London, “A China trade deal is dependent on one thing — do I want to make it.”

Mr. Trump added, “In some ways, I like the idea of waiting until after the election for the China deal, but they want to make a deal now and we will see whether or not the deal is going to be right.”

Back in October, President Trump announced the deal with China, but a firm agreement has so far failed to materialize. Last spring, a near-agreement with China on trade fell apart when Mr. Trump, the self-proclaimed “tariff man,” balked at removing the taxes on Chinese imports.

Now negotiators are racing a Dec. 15 deadline imposed by the President last summer. At the end of next week, $300 billion in Chinese products are scheduled for a 15 percent import tax increase. The December 15 tax increase includes consumer goods not previously subjected to tariffs. These include technology products such as cellphones and computers that will be in high demand in the weeks before Christmas.

Today, Trump Administration officials are working to undo the damage of what they call an “off the cuff” remark. Officials cited by Bloomberg downplayed the notion that trade talks were at an impasse and were hopeful for a resolution before the scheduled tax increase next week.

Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue told CNBC, “ Trump wants to conclude a deal that can be enforceable, that can be reliable and be consistent with what the deal says.”

“We in agriculture are optimistically hopeful we can conclude this,” Perdue said, adding, “Every farmer in America would rather have trade than aid.”

The prospect of increased tariffs on Chinese imports comes days after the president announced that he is restoring steel and aluminum tariffs on Brazil and Argentina. In a tweet on Monday, President Trump accused the two countries of devaluing their currencies, which he said was “not good for our farmers.” Mr. Trump’s response was to restore the steel and aluminum tariffs that were originally imposed in May 2018.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1201455858636472320?s=20

However, a devalued currency is a byproduct of a tariff war. In an undated article on American Express, Frances Coppola explained that, when the US places a tariff on imports, companies in the targeted country receive fewer US dollars. Those dollars would often be traded on monetary exchanges for the local currency. Since fewer dollars are being traded for Brazilian reals or Argentinian pesos, the demand for those currencies drops and their value goes down.

In reality, America’s farmers are suffering because China retaliated to President Trump’s tariffs with retaliatory taxes on American exports. These taxes hit American agriculture hard, but they benefitted countries like Brazil. Where American farmers used to export to China, the trade war has shifted Chinese agricultural purchases to countries that compete with the US. Brazilian farm products have helped to replace American products in China.

Finally, there is also the prospect of new tariffs on France. Also on Monday, President Trump threatened 100 percent tariffs on a long list of French products that includes wine, cheese, beauty products, and handbags in retaliation for a French tax on digital services that impacts American social media companies such as Facebook and Google. The new US tariffs would be in addition to tariffs on $7.5 billion in European goods that the Administration imposed in October.

“If anyone is going to take advantage of the American companies, it's going to be us, it's not going to be France,” Trump told CNN.

France has pledged to “retaliate strongly” if the proposed tariffs go into effect. So far, the Trump Administration has not released an implementation date for the new tariffs.

With an impeachment already in process and presidential approval underwater, the economy has been one of the few bright spots in President Trump’s reelection campaign. Despite the risks of meddling with the economy, Mr. Trump cannot help himself when it comes to tariffs.

For months, there have been signs that the economy is slowing even though the stock market has continued to climb and unemployment remains low. US manufacturing has contracted for four straight months and the farm economy is being propped up by government handouts. Businesses are hesitant to make plans and investments when the president might tweet a drastic regulatory change at any moment. Many of these warning signs can be traced to Mr. Trump’s arbitrary trade policies. If he chooses to ignore them and is damaged in the 2020 elections by a weak economy, he will have only himself to blame.   

Originally published on The Resurgent

Which Is The True Workers’ Party?

Labor Day is typically considered to be the end-of-summer holiday by many Americans, but the holiday originated in the late 1800s as a day to celebrate America’s labor movement. As such, it was closely identified with labor unions for much of its history. On this Labor Day, with elections more than a year away already heating up, it’s appropriate to consider the relationship of both parties to workers.

Democrats have traditionally tried to coopt Labor Day due to their close association with the unions. Today’s Democratic Party, with its newly popular contingent of democratic-socialists, is no different. The Democrats pay lip service to workers, but many of their policies are proven job-killers and ultimately hurt the very people that they try to help. Higher taxes, business-strangling regulations, and mandates that add to the cost of doing business all serve to slow the economy and prevent job creation.

That the Democrats have alienated their blue-collar base is apparent from the fact that Donald Trump is sitting in the White House instead of Hillary Clinton. Trump’s victory was clinched in the Rust Belt states that were traditionally assumed to be safely tucked behind a Blue Wall.

Many of the proposals from the 2020 Democrats aren’t much better – or different - than what Hillary tried in 2016. There are proposals for rolling back the 2017 tax reform, raising the minimum wage, and nationalizing healthcare. None of this bodes well for the economy or for workers.

But if Democrats have disregarded their blue-collar base so have Republicans. Although the Trump Administration got off to a good economic start with tax reform and deregulation, it went off the rails in 2018 with the trade war. Although the tariff war was pitched as strategy to help workers and strengthen US industry, the opposite has turned out to be true.

The trade war was originally launched to help the US steel and aluminum industries, but American steel companies are shutting down mills and laying off workers. Why? Because overproduction paired with declining demand from other industries led to a sharp decline in steel prices despite Trump’s attempt at protectionism.

It isn’t only steelworkers who are suffering from the trade war. The agricultural and manufacturing sectors have both been hard hit as well. Despite the president’s farm subsidies, US farm income has fallen precipitously, leading to higher rates of farm bankruptcies and suicides by frustrated farmers. A boom in manufacturing jobs in Trump’s first two years has already turned flat as manufacturing declined for two straight quarters in the first half of 2019, putting the industry in a recession even before the most recent rounds of tariff increases.

The month of September ushered in one of those rounds of tax increases. President Trump’s new 15 percent tax on 40 percent of consumer products imported from China will be borne heavily by blue-collar workers and their families. JP Morgan Chase notes that the new tax will cost the typical American household more than $1,000 annually. Previous rounds of tariffs had almost totally erased the benefits of tax reform per Accounting Today so the September tariffs will put taxpayers firmly in the red. And there is yet another round of US tariffs scheduled to go into effect just in time for Christmas.

The new tariffs on Chinese goods will have an outsize effect on lower and middle-class consumers because lower-income Americans are more dependent on cheap imports from China. The poor are also least able to afford the 15 percent tax on everyday items such as clothes, shoes, electronics, plastic items, computers, and furniture.

At this point, it probably seems to most voters that both parties are bad for workers. The Democrats are intent on milking businesses for every cent that they can get while Republicans are oblivious to the collateral damage of their Quixotic trade war. Both are too focused on their own priorities to pay attention to the fact that neither party is popular with average Americans.

Rather than telling workers what is best for them and informing taxpayers that they should be grateful for the chance to “invest” more of their hard-earned money in the priorities of the party base, maybe politicians of both parties should listen to the concerns of the workers they are supposed to serve.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Battle Over Trump Tax Returns May Go To Supreme Court

House Democrats announced yesterday that they plan to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress. The announcement apparently prompted Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to think, “I need to get me some of that action,” because he promptly set up his own confrontation with congressional Democrats by refusing to turn over Donald Trump’s tax returns.

For those who came in late, the House Ways and Means Committee formally requested copies of Trump’s tax returns way back on April 3. Trump’s tax returns have become an elusive prize akin to Barack Obama’s birth certificate and college transcripts since then-candidate Trump promised to release them while on the campaign trail back in 2016. Since the initial request was made in April, the IRS and Treasury Department have repeatedly refused to hand over the president’s tax information.

The rub is that the law seems to be on the side of the Democrats. Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, cited IRS Code section 6103(f) in his request:

“Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.”

Per the AP, Mnuchin said that the request “lacks a legitimate legislative purpose” and added that the Justice Department would provide a more complete legal justification as soon as it can think of one. Seriously, the DOJ is expected to cite Supreme Court precedent that holds that congressional requests must relate to “legitimate task of the Congress” and does not include seeking to uncover or expose crimes.

“As you have recognized, the committee’s request is unprecedented, and it presents serious constitutional questions, the resolution of which may have lasting consequences for all taxpayers,” Mnuchin wrote to Neal.

“What’s unprecedented is this Secretary refusing to comply with our lawful, Article I request,” Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.), a senior Ways and Means member, told the Wall Street Journal. “What’s unprecedented is an entire federal government working in concert to protect a corrupt president from legal accountability. If these guys think they can outlast us with these tactics, they’re dead wrong.”

In a statement accompanying the original request for information, Neal addressed the question of a legitimate purpose, saying that the president’s tax returns were needed to conduct congressional oversight of the IRS “policy of auditing the tax returns of all sitting presidents and vice-presidents.” While Republicans will argue that Neal’s request constitutes a fishing expedition, the chairman seems to have met the letter of the law.

After having been audited numerous times, there is little chance that President Trump’s tax returns contain a smoking gun for illegal activity such as tax fraud. More likely, they contain embarrassing information such as a smaller net worth than what Trump has claimed or miniscule charitable donations (excluding those made to the Trump Foundation). Nevertheless, the statute does not contain an exception that allows the IRS to protect information that would embarrass the president.

After Mnuchin’s latest denial, the next likely step is for House Democrats to ask the courts to force the release of the tax returns although there is a possibility that they will also decide to hold Mnuchin in contempt. The question may ultimately make its way to the Supreme Court.

Ironically, by delaying the release of the tax returns Republicans may be hurting the president’s reelection chances. By the time the case winds its way through the judicial system, the Supreme Court could mandate a release shortly before the election. Trump’s private financial information may suddenly become a very public issue at the worst possible time. The president might be better off to rip off the Band-Aid while the election is still a year and a half away.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Bernie Is A One-Percenter Who Is Stingy With Charitable Giving

In a move that will increase pressure on President Trump to comply with the congressional request for his tax returns, Democrat-in-name-only presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders has released 10 years of tax returns. The Vermont senator’s tax documents show that the democratic socialist is among the nation’s “one-percenters” and has become a capitalist at least in practice.

CNN reported that Sanders’ taxable income jumped from $240,622 in 2015 to $1,073,333 in 2016 after his unsuccessful challenge to Hillary Clinton’s coronation as the Democratic nominee. Since the 2016 campaign, Sanders and his wife, Jane, have raked in $2.79 million, largely from book deals. Sanders has written a total of five books, three of them since 2016. “Our Revolution” (2016) and “Where We Go from Here” (2018) were best-sellers. Jane Sanders also has an upcoming book for which she was paid $106,000.

“These tax returns show that our family has been fortunate," Sanders said in a statement. "I am very grateful for that, as I grew up in a family that lived paycheck to paycheck and I know the stress of economic insecurity. That is why I strive every day to ensure every American has the basic necessities of life, including a livable wage, decent housing, health care, and retirement security. I consider paying more in taxes as my income rose to be both an obligation and an investment in our country.”

Sanders may have come from humble origins but his concern for the poor did not extend far beyond the taxes that he paid. Buzzfeed notes that the Sanders family paid an effective 26 percent tax rate on the   $561,293 that they earned in 2018 but only donated 3.4 percent of their earnings to charity. After earning more than $1 million in 2016, Sanders gave only $10,600 to charity, less than one percent of his income. The charities that Sanders did donate to included senior centers, low-income groups, educational organizations, and political groups that advocate for housing and environmental causes.

Sanders denies that his millionaire status conflicts with his democratic socialist message, telling a reporter last week, “I didn't know that it was a crime to write a good book. My view has always been that we need a progressive tax system, which demands that the wealthiest people in this country finally start sharing their fair share in taxes. If I make a lot of money, you make a lot of money.”

Sanders’ attitude is symptomatic of the view of the Democratic Party that it is okay to make money but that taxes need to be increased to take the money from those who earn it. Sanders doesn’t seem to realize that he could voluntarily transfer an unlimited amount of his wealth to the needy without government compulsion. As the Bible says, “Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” Apparently, less than five percent of Sander’s heart is with the downtrodden.

But that’s okay. In a free country, people should have the right to give as much – or as little – to charity as they want. People should be free to spend the fruits of their labor in any way that they choose as long as it isn’t illegal.

Americans have a right to give Bernie millions for his books if they want. They also have the right to pay him for his 1987 folk album, "We Shall Overcome,” for which he reportedly earned $110 in royalties last year, indicating that the market has decided that the senator is a better writer than a singer.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Democrats Are Their Own Worst Enemy

Democrats assumed that taking on Donald Trump would be easy. That has not turned out to be true. Once it seemed that the Democratic opposition was assured of at least taking control of the House in this year's midterm elections, but the result now seems increasingly like a tossup. There are several reasons for this, but looming large among them is the Democrats' own tendency to overreach and make unforced errors.

The Democrats' first miscalculation was on DACA. Democrats forced a shutdown over DACA in January even though President Trump offered them a sweetheart deal. In the end, Democrats rejected the deal and eventually caved, allowing the shutdown to end with nothing to show for it. It was an ignominious defeat similar to the 2013 Republican shutdown over Obamacare.

In their surrender, the Democrats lost a chance to please their base and split the GOP at the same time. Instead, Democratic leaders angered both progressives and Dreamers. In a stunning turn of events, some DACA recipients have even protested against the Democratic National Committee.

Of course, the risk in accepting the deal would have been to hand Trump a victory on immigration and the possibility of losing their grip on the Hispanic vote. The best course for Democrats would have been not to force a shutdown in the first place while continuing to press for a DACA deal.

The second Democrat error of 2018 was their overreach on gun control. When President Trump extended an offer to help Democrats with their gun control effort, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) literally jumped for joy and the party jumped at the chance.

What emerged from behind the closed doors of the Democrat caucus was a bill that included a laundry list of gun control measures that will likely mobilize gun owners to get out the vote in November. Chuck Schumer's (D-N.Y.) bill includes an “assault weapons” ban, expanded background checks and gun violence restraining orders which would allow family members to get a court order to prevent dangerous individuals from getting a gun. A second bill, introduced by Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), would ban the “sale, transfer, production, and importation” of 205 semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns that can hold more than 10 rounds.

While President Trump might have embraced a more modest gun control bill, these Democratic bills have almost no chance of becoming law. With Republicans in control of Congress, Democrats would need 11 Senate Republicans to defect in order to get cloture. That won't happen without significant arm-twisting from President Trump, which is unlikely.

The third Democrat error was unveiling a new plan to raise taxes if they win control of Congress. The Democrat plan is a multi-faceted approach with an increase in the top marginal income tax rate, increasing the corporate tax rate to 25 percent (tax reform cut this rate to 21 percent from 35 percent), bringing back the alternative minimum tax (AMT) and restoring the standard deduction for the estate tax (i.e. the “death tax”) to its pre-reform level.

The Democrats' gamble here is two-fold. First, they assume that tax reform has remained as unpopular as it was before passage. In reality, as companies announce expansion plans and employee bonuses in the wake of tax reform, the new tax law is increasingly popular. The New York Times found that a majority of Americans currently approve of the Republican law.

The second gamble is that voters will favor the Democrat plan if it is cloaked in the guise of “soaking the rich.” The proposal seems specifically designed to not directly affect the average voter, but to target “other people's money.” Few voters are in the top income tax bracket or have estates worth more than $5.5 million.

A platform of tax increases and gun control may please progressives, but it is unlikely to inspire the moderate and independent voters needed to sway an election. In fact, the Democrat agenda seems more likely to send Republican voters to the polls with an attitude of “at least they're better than the Democrats” than to win new converts. Paired with the disillusionment of immigration voters in the Democrat base, the results could be disastrous for the opposition party.

A better strategy for Democrats would be to appear nonthreatening and positive, a sane and rational alternative to President Trump. Instead, the current plan seems to be to convince voters that Democrats are coming for their guns and money. That may play well with the Democrat base in deep blue districts, but it will be less effective in the purple heartland areas that Democrats need to win in order to take control of Congress.

To be fair, Republicans, led by President Trump, also seem to be actively trying to avoid becoming too popular with voters. The new tariffs and potential trade war may undermine pent-up economic growth that is already starting to result from tax reform.

With both parties making errors and advocating for unwise policies on a daily basis, a reliable forecast for the midterm elections is impossible. In the end, the outcome of the elections may depend on the news cycle when voters go to the polls.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Mass mooning targets Trump Tower

Over the weekend a “rowdy and enthusiastic” crowd gathered in front of Chicago’s Trump Tower and engaged in a coordinated mooning of the building bearing the brand of the president. Chicago’s Fox 32 recorded the event for posterity.

The video shows a small crowd of 100-200 people gathered at the River Walk across from the imposing edifice. As the crowd counts down from twenty, they simultaneously drop their trousers and flash their posteriors at the architectural stand-in for the president. Video of the event does not require parental discretion due to the camera angle.

An obvious question is why? The Facebook page “Chicago Moons the Trump Tower” gives the official name for the event as “Operation ‘Kiss Our Asses, Release Your Taxes!’” and notes that it was presented by “S#!TSHOW,” a satirical Youtube show.

A second Facebook page for the show contains a more graphic video of the mass mooning, which we watched so that you don’t have to. Accompanied by a tuba and drums, the protesters chanted “This is what democracy looks like” and “We don’t want your tiny hands anywhere near our underpants.”

What did the protesters hope to accomplish? The statement on the Facebook page says, “Donald Trump doesn't think the American people want to see his tax returns, so let's show him that we do in the classiest way possible! Meet at 3:30 PM at Trump Tower, right in front by the riverside. At the crack of 4:00 PM (pun intended), we'll pull down our pants for a whole 10 seconds and send a powerful message to the Washington elites.”

Precisely what the message was is unclear other than that the protesters do not like Donald Trump and think that mooning the Trump Tower will somehow influence him to release his tax returns. This logic is reminiscent of the Underpants Gnomes from “South Park.” Phase one: Moon the Trump Tower. Phase two: ? Phase three: Trump releases tax returns.

At the time of the protest, President Trump was 1,300 miles away at his Mar-a-Lago resort in West Palm Beach. The president was not injured, emotionally or otherwise, by the mooning. The White House had no comment and Mr. Trump’s taxes have still not been released.

No protesters were apparently injured either. It is unknown whether any were injured or murdered as they returned home after the event. The Chicago Tribune reports that 14 people have already been murdered this month in the city.

The protest was a microcosm of the leftist resistance to Trump. The plan was to engage in an utterly pointless and offensive action that accomplished nothing other than make the participants feel better about themselves and allow them to vent their anger.

It did do one other thing as well. It showed the world what the left thinks democracy looks like: A bunch of asses.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Trump Train derailment is argument against outsider candidates

Donald Trump had a bad week last week. When we look back after the election, it may be that the last week of September will be the week that decided the campaign. What can be said for certain is that last week was a case study in why candidates without political experience are not a good bet for an important race.

The disastrous week began on Monday with the first presidential debate. Trump started strong and then veered off course. During the debate, he invited China to invade North Korea and suggested that Iran could help rein in the Kim Jong Un, said that not paying taxes made him “smart,” and was rattled by Hillary Clinton’s ambush with the story of Alicia Machado, a former Miss Universe, now famous for being called “Miss Piggy” and Miss Housekeeping” by Donald Trump. At one point, the NRA-endorsed Trump even agreed with Hillary Clinton on gun control.

On Tuesday, the blowback from the debate began. Trump and his surrogates began attacking moderator Lester Holt even though Trump had complimented Holt immediately after the debate. The Alicia Machado story, previously unseen, gained ground in the wake of Trump’s extremely defensive reaction. Trump did not deny the accusations.

On Wednesday, the Daily Dot reported that the snap polls after the debate that Trump had touted as showing him the winner were manipulated by Trump supporters. Pro-Trump groups on Reddit and 4Chan spammed about 70 online polls. Trump supporters were given instructions on how to cast multiple votes in order to skew polls. A more experienced candidate would have known that online polling is not scientific or reliable.

On Thursday, Newsweek broke the story that Donald Trump’s company had violated the US embargo on Cuba. In 1998, Trump Hotels illegally spent $68,000 on a business trip to Cuba. At the time, doing business with Cuba was illegal for Americans with very few exceptions. Building hotels was not one of them.

A few months later, as Trump was considering a run for president on the Reform Party ticket, he told voters, “As you know—and the people in this room know better than anyone—putting money and investing money in Cuba right now doesn’t go to the people of Cuba. It goes to Fidel Castro. He’s a murderer. He’s a killer. He’s a bad guy in every respect, and, frankly, the embargo must stand if for no other reason than, if it does stand, he will come down.”

The same day, the Washington Post broke the story that the Trump Foundation had never obtained the proper legal certification in New York to solicit money as a charity. Trump has reportedly contributed very little money to his own charity, instead relying on outside donations. The Trump Foundation may have to return third party funds since it was not legally able to request donations.

Early Friday morning, while most Americans were sleeping, Donald Trump was awake and tweeting about Alicia Machado. The series of tweets posted between 2:20 and 4:30 a.m. included one alleging that Machado appeared in a sex tape, apparently a reference to a scene from a reality TV show.

Several hours after Trump’s tweets, the news that Donald Trump himself had appeared in a Playboy softcore porno set the internet on fire. “Before you go ‘eewwwww’ at the notion of Trump and porn in the same sentence,” said the New York Daily News, “he poured [champagne] over a Playboy logo during a benign segment of a 2000 video of a national Playboy Playmate tour that featured a stop in New York.” Trump remained fully clothed.

On Saturday, the New York Times published Trump’s 1995 tax returns which showed a $916 million loss from the mismanagement of his Atlantic City casinos and his purchases of the Eastern shuttle airline and the Plaza Hotel in New York. Tax experts said that the loss could have been used to avoid paying taxes for 18 years. Trump had previously refused to release his tax returns.

On Sunday, apparently deciding that his campaign had suffered enough for one week, Trump rested.

The lesson for Republicans in Trump’s rough week is that it all could have been avoided. Donald Trump was the only candidate who had never mounted a campaign. For the most part, the other candidates had all mounted and won successful campaigns for office. They knew how to debate. They knew how to answer policy questions and not be baited. Their backgrounds were thoroughly vetted by both Republicans and opposition researchers.

Trump was the only candidate whose past had never been vetted for skeletons in the closet. In spite of his obviously checkered past and shaky conservative credentials, the extent of his corruption and incompetence were not known throughout the primary. Since he accepted the Republican nomination, one scandal after another has broken, all damaging his campaign further.

Trump is undoubtedly the only candidate whose ego and temperament would not let him follow the directions of his advisors. No other candidate would have refused to practice for the debate and ignored the tips offered by his strategists. Trump is the only candidate who would be posting angry tweets in the wee hours of the morning.

Trump is probably the only Republican who could lose to Hillary Clinton.

In 2016, Republican voters considered political experience to be a negative. This outlook begat Donald Trump. After this years’ experience with Trump, it seems likely that a dependable, experienced nominee would be a better choice.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Is Trump really better than Hillary?

imgflip.com

As we wind down to the final weeks before the election, a large percentage of voters remain undecided on whether to vote for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton or someone else. Unlike previous elections, many undecided voters are educated, savvy conservatives who have not committed to Donald Trump, a Wall Street Journal analysis reported. Like me, many of these voters are repelled by both candidates.

Donald Trump may not be perfect, the argument goes, he may say silly and offensive things, but he’s still better than Hillary Clinton. It’s true that the one thing that Donald Trump has going for him is that he isn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t mean that he is necessarily better than Hillary. As we learned from Barack Obama in 2008, “change” doesn’t always mean “better.” Let’s look closer at Mr. Trump to find out whether he truly is the lesser evil.

My problems with Trump can be boiled down to three areas: character, policy and judgment. It isn’t just that Trump says silly and insulting things. He seems to be a genuinely bad and untrustworthy person.  On many levels, his character flaws are astonishingly similar to those of Hillary Clinton. His ideas are as flawed and half-formed as his character, often seemingly thrown out on a whim, only to be retracted or disavowed later. Likewise, Trump’s judgment is quick, brash and often wrong.

Uncharacteristically bad

The most obvious character flaw of both candidates is their propensity for lying. Their relationships with the truth are so nebulous that they both lie about small, stupid, easily disprovable things. They lie even when they don’t have to. The Daily Wire compiled a list of 101 of Trump’s lies, hardly all inclusive, and, after analyzing his speeches, found that, on average, he lied every five minutes. In 2015, after half a year in politics, Politifact gave Trump the “Lie of the Year” award, not for one specific fib as it did for President Obama, but for lifetime achievement. The sheer volume of Trump falsehoods floods the zone of anyone trying to keep him honest.

Trump’s fundamental untrustworthiness is underscored by corruption that also rivals that of the Clintons. The most famous instance of Trump’s corruption is the Trump University case where Trump stands accused of being a literal con man who bilked novice real estate investors out of tens of thousands of dollars of their hard-earned money. That is not the full extent of his corruption, however.

Trump has a long history of using eminent domain, the government seizure of private property, to take homes from the poor to build or expand his luxury properties. In one famous case, Trump tried to use eminent domain to bulldoze the home of Vera Coking, an elderly widow, in order to build a parking lot for his Trump Plaza hotel and casino in Atlantic City. Trump lost that case in court.

The Trump Plaza was one of several Trump casinos that went bankrupt in the early 1990s, leaving investors and creditors on the hook for most of the losses. Trump’s casinos were funded with debt that left them unprofitable when most casinos were thriving. Trump also left a trail of unpaid bills from contractors and employees in his wake, according to an investigation by USA Today. Among the people he allegedly stiffed were bartenders, waiters and other hourly employees who sued Trump – and won –  for unpaid wages.

In 1973, Trump and his father were named as defendants in a suit by the federal government for violations of the Fair Housing Act. The charge was segregating the company’s rental buildings by refusing to rent to minorities like Maxine Brown, a 33-year-old black nurse. A New York Times investigation found a long list of racial complaints against Trump Management on file at the New York Commission on Human Rights. The Trumps settled and agreed to desegregate their buildings in 1973.

In spite of having illegal immigration as a signature issue, Trump also has a long record of violating immigration law at his companies. In the 1980s, Trump used illegal Polish immigrants on construction projects. Several former models have also accused Trump of exploiting them and hiring them to work without U.S. work visas. The women say that Trump Model Management taught them how to circumvent U.S. immigration and labor laws. As recently as last year, many Hispanic workers on at least one Trump construction project were reported to be illegal aliens.

Trump also has a corrupt foundation to compete with the corrupt Clinton Foundation. In a serious scandal that is just emerging, the Donald J. Trump Foundation made an illegal payment of $25,000 to Florida attorney general Pam Bondi a few days before she decided not to pursue a case against Trump University. Shortly after the decision, Trump held another fundraiser for Bondi at his Mar-a-Lago mansion. The Trump Foundation also gave $100,000 to a group that sued the New York attorney general who sued Trump over Trump University.

Numerous reports indicate that Trump has invested little in his charity foundation yet has profited handsomely from it. The Washington Post found that Trump used the Trump Foundation’s charitable funds as his own piggybank. Trump used charity funds to settle a legal dispute with the city of Palm Beach, Florida. The agreement had stipulated that Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club would pay for the settlement. Trump also used charity funds, which were almost entirely donated by others, to buy portraits of himself and advertise his hotels.

If that were not enough, Trump is accused of having ties to the mafia resulting from his use of mob-owned firms in construction projects and his days as an Atlantic City casino operator. Trump also took $150,000 from a September 11 fund earmarked to help small businesses recover from the attack. Trump said that the payment was for helping victims of the attack, but the New York Daily News found that the funds were issued for “rent loss,” “cleanup” and “repair.”

Trump and Hillary both share a lack of character that is disturbing to see in a possible president. Further, the scale of corruption is not an indication of who is more corrupt. As Jesus said, “Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much” (Luke 16:10). One bit of corruption makes a person completely corrupt.

Left of center

Even if Trump’s character is just as bad as Hillary’s, who has no shortage of corruption and incompetence charges herself, it might still be tempting to vote for Trump if he could be trusted, under close supervision, to enact a broad agenda of conservative reform. What does Trump stand for?

Several issues stand out where most reluctant Trump supporters say he is preferable to Hillary Clinton. Unlike Hillary, they say, Trump won’t threaten the Second Amendment or raise taxes. He’s better on religious liberty and abortion, they argue. Is he?

On many issues Trump is incoherent and the Second Amendment is no exception. CNN chronicles his “evolution” on gun control. Prior to running for president, Trump supported assault weapons bans and waiting periods. Even today, Trump takes the Democrat position that people on TSA watch lists should be banned from buying guns. In contrast, Hillary supports expanding background checks and reinstating the same assault weapons ban that Trump supported before he ran for president.

On taxes, the Trump campaign has advanced a plan that would cut income taxes, but at the same time he has left open the possibility of another tax increase, saying last May,” “I am willing to pay more, and you know what, the wealthy are willing to pay more.” Trump has refused to reveal exactly how much he does pay in taxes. In August, he revised his tax plan with higher rates than he had proposed in the primary. Clinton has proposed a bevy of tax hikes that would fall primarily on wealthy Americans and businesses.

Often not discussed as taxes are Trump’s tariffs, huge tax increases on trade. Trump bragged that his views on trade were “very similar” to those of Bernie Sanders. Trump’s massive tariffs on trade with Mexico, China and Japan and the possible destruction of NAFTA, one of the most successful trade agreements in history, would be devastating. Trump’s trade policy would make items more expensive for American consumers and businesses. One study found that Trump’s tariffs would cost Americans more than $11,000 per year. This is much more than they would save from income tax rate cuts. The Wall Street Journal, the most conservative paper in the country, found that Trump’s trade policy would likely start a trade war and fuel a recession that could cost 5 million jobs.

On religious liberty, Trump was the sole Republican of the final four not to pledge to sign the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) to protect gay marriage dissidents from federal action. Trump was critical of Kentucky county clerk, Kim Davis, for her faith-based refusal to issue same-sex marriage licenses. When asked about protections for Christian businesses in a meeting with evangelical leaders, Donald Wildman said, “Either he doesn’t understand it or he doesn’t agree with us and he doesn’t want to tell us that.” Trump’s main focus in the battle for religious liberty seems to be allowing churches to endorse candidates without losing their tax-exempt status.

On the subject of abortion, Trump is particularly incoherent. As late as March, Trump was praising abortion provider Planned Parenthood and was the sole Republican to resist cutting funding for the group. Trump may have set a personal best for flip-flops when he took five different positions on abortion in three days. Most recently, two months before Election Day Trump reinvented himself as a staunch abortion opponent.

The flip-flops and liberal positions don’t stop there. Trump said that he wants to repeal Obamacare. The hitch is that he has said he wants to replace it with government-funded, universal healthcare.

On spending and the debt, Trump said just last month that “this is a time to borrow.” Trump would use those borrowed funds on an infrastructure stimulus spending package that is twice as big as the one that Hillary proposes. Entitlements are the largest driver of deficit spending, yet Trump refuses to consider entitlement reform.

For those who would like to see pro-business regulatory reform, Trump does not look promising. He has advocated more banking regulation by reviving the New Deal-era Glass-Steagall Act, which prohibited banks from diversifying into insurance. He also unveiled a plan to require businesses to offer paid maternity leave, a tax-and-spend plan to be paid for through state unemployment taxes.

On the economy, Trump did a full flip-flop with a half twist when he suddenly decided to back another progressive position and call for an increase to the minimum wage. Trump advocates an increase in the federal minimum wage to $10 per hour. In the past, he has advocated a minimum wage as high as $15 per hour while also arguing that “wages are too high.”

Trump dislikes other treaties in addition to NAFTA. He has threatened to reconsider American defense alliances with both NATO countries and South Korea. In spite of Trump’s criticism of Obama’s not-a-treaty with Iran, he has no plans to scrap the nuclear deal. When it comes to fighting ISIS, Trump’s call for attacks with aircraft and drones and the establishment of a coalition are essentially the same strategy that President Obama has employed.

What makes Trump especially dangerous…

Trump is a liar and a man of poor character. He also does not exhibit core principles and tends to default to leftist positions. So does Hillary. But wait, as they might say in a Trump University infomercial, there’s more! Donald Trump displays several difficulties that are so uniquely bad that they should disqualify him from the presidency, even if the only other alternative is Hillary Clinton. Many of these problems stem from Trump’s poor judgment.

When most people think of Trump’s lack of judgment, they think of things like how he mocked a disabled reporter or set about with the character assassination of the parents of a fallen American soldier. In reality, his errors in judgment go far beyond such trivialities to attacks on civil liberties and statements that would be matters of war and peace if he were president.

In statements reminiscent of Barack Obama, Trump threatened Washington Post and Amazon owner Jeff Bezos with an antitrust investigation after the Post assigned 20 reporters to investigate The Donald. Trump also has said that he wants to “open up” libel laws to make it easier to sue the press.

Those who dislike President Obama’s abuse of his executive authority to bypass Congress, should expect more of the same from Donald Trump. Trump has said that Obama “led the way” on Executive Orders and that he is “going to do a lot of things” with executive actions.

Trump’s embrace of conspiracy theories also sets him apart from other politicians. Trump has advocated theories ranging from birtherism to 9/11 trutherism to the bizarre claim that Ted Cruz’s father was involved in the Kennedy assassination. Trump is either very gullible or cynically exploits believers in conspiracy theories for publicity. Perhaps both.

It may be Trump’s poor judgment that garnered his endorsement from ISIS. Yes, the terrorist group ISIS has expressed support for Trump according to multiple sources cited in “Time.” One ISIS supporter said, “The ‘facilitation’ of Trump’s arrival in the White House must be a priority for jihadists at any cost!!!” [emphasis his]. “I ask Allah to deliver America to Trump,” wrote another.

From the Middle East to Mexico, where Trump refused to rule out the possibility of going to war over payment for his wall, Trump’s errors of judgment are the product of willful ignorance and a bully mentality. Interestingly, the bully backed down when he actually met Mexican President Nieto face-to-face, only to launch a salvo of bombast when he was safely back across the border in Arizona.

The final two problems between Trump ‘s judgment are egregious. Either one should disqualify a candidate even without the consideration of any other issue.

First, Trump’s affinity for Vladimir Putin is naïve and dangerous. Trump’s admiration for Putin is seen in his campaign staffing and may have impacted his proposed foreign policy on Ukraine. Trump has surrounded himself with pro-Putin advisors such as Paul Manafort, Carter Page and Michael Flynn. There is strong evidence that the Russians are trying to influence the election on behalf of Trump. Donald Trump has an obvious blind spot when dealing with Vladimir Putin and Russia that could be dangerous. In fact, Trump’s affinity for Putin is already making the precarious situation in the Ukraine worse.

In the first presidential debate, Trump became the first person to ever seriously suggest that Iran could be used to rein in North Korea. Trump was apparently not aware that the two rogue nations have long cooperated on their missile and nuclear programs.

Finally, there is the fact that Trump has openly advocated political violence on numerous occasions. In my near-half century, I cannot remember a single candidate who has encouraged his supporters to “rough up” political opponents as Trump did. Trump also made a veiled threat that there would be “riots” if Republicans contested his nomination at the convention. Violence has been mostly absent from American politics since the 1968 riots at the Democratic convention in Chicago. Until Trump. For that reason alone, he cannot be trusted with power.

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are both poor choices. They are both progressive. They are both liars. They are both corrupt. The both have poor judgment. They would both be destructive for America.

Originally published on The Resurgent

How I changed my mind about Donald Trump

  

Gage Skidmore/Wikimedia

Changing your mind is often viewed as a bad thing. People who change their minds are derided as flip-floppers or unprincipled. On the other hand, it isn’t always a good thing to dig in your heels and stick to your guns when you receive new information or the situation changes. As Winston Churchill said, “I’d rather be right than consistent.” Along these lines, I have recently changed my mind on Donald Trump.

I still don’t like Trump and have no intention of voting for him. Trump’s record and demeanor are both disturbing. As a conservative, it would be hard to vote for someone who supports higher taxes, universal government healthcare and is inconsistent on social issues like abortion and religious freedom. To an economic conservative and free trader, his desire for high tariffs is problematic. It was high tariffs like the ones proposed by Trump that turned a recession in 1929 into the Great Depression. As a lover of liberty, the threat of violence if Trump does not win should disqualify him from consideration for leadership of a country that prides itself on peaceful transfers of power.

On foreign policy, Trump’s much-touted erratic behavior and inconsistency could literally cause a war. On at least two occasions in US history, in Korea and Kuwait, failure to establish clear US policy led to shooting wars. Trump’s off-the-cuff foreign policy pronouncements could easily do the same in a world where Russia and China are already expanding their spheres of influence.

My change of mind regarding Trump involves his ability to win. For months, I have joined many others saying that “Trump can’t win.” I didn’t believe that Trump could win primaries. I didn’t believe that he could go above 50 percent. I didn’t believe that a liberal New Yorker could sweep the conservative Christian South and vanquish many more experienced and better candidates. I was wrong on those counts.

While I still believe that Trump would almost certainly lose to Hillary Clinton, I now feel compelled to add the qualifier, “almost.” It is not inconceivable that Donald Trump could beat Hillary Clinton.

The possibility of a Trump victory over Hillary is not a reflection of Donald Trump’s magnetic personality, his policy acumen or any positive quality that a prospective president might possess. It hinges entirely on two factors. The first is Hillary Clinton’s weakness as a candidate and the overwhelming aroma of scandal and corruption that permeates her campaign. The second is Donald Trump’s ability to destroy opponents.

Neither Trump nor Hillary is a likeable candidate. Hillary’s negatives are exceeded only those of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. Likewise, neither candidate is trusted and both are believed to be corrupt. Even though Trump shares many of the same negative traits possessed by Hillary, he will still attack her in the same hypocritical manner in which he criticizes “Lying Ted” Cruz for his lack of honesty while at the same time Trump himself was recipient of the Lie of the Year award for his numerous truth-challenged pronouncements.

Furthermore, both parties are divided. The Never Trump movement makes up a large part of the Republican Party, but Bernie Sanders voters are also swearing off voting for Hillary. A recent Rasmussen poll found that almost a quarter of likely voters would not vote for either Trump or Hillary in a head to matchup. The race would likely have historically low turnout and historically high interest in third parties. This is where Trump’s long shot opportunity lies.

A Trump-Hillary campaign would be the dirtiest campaign that most of us have ever seen. Both candidates would viciously attack the other’s long list of weaknesses and character flaws. This is the kind of campaign where Donald Trump, the insult comic, excels.

While Trump stands little chance of winning voters with a positive vision for the future that, almost a year into his candidacy, he has yet to articulate, he does have a chance of destroying Hillary’s image to the point where many voters will just stay home and not vote for either of them. In an election with depressed turnout, the question becomes which fractured party can drive more of its remaining base to the polls. Donald Trump stands a much better chance in this sort of election than in a high turnout election where he has to compete for moderate and independent voters.

Trump would almost certainly still lose, but he has beaten the odds so far. Political betting sites now give him about a 30 percent chance of becoming president. It is possible, but far from likely.

In spite of his recent victories and his likely victory in Indiana tomorrow, Trump is not assured of winning the nomination. If Trump is the Republican nominee, he might conceivably win, but it is far from certain that President Trump would be good for the country.

Read it on Conservative Firing Line or Freedom Daily

Fiscal cliff poll has good news for both sides

A new poll released on December 10 by Battleground is being touted to show President Obama’s edge in the fiscal cliff negotiations. While it is true that the poll shows that 60 percent of voters favor the president’s plan to raise taxes on Americans who earn more than $250,000, other items in the poll are not as favorable for Obama. Sixty-five percent of respondents also favor increasing taxes on large corporations even though the U.S. corporate tax rate is already the highest in the world.

In the same poll, 69 percent opposed raising taxes on small businesses that earn more than $250,000. The problem is that many small businesses are privately held by individuals who earn more than $250,000.

Seventy-six percent favor cutting government spending across the board, a position that President Obama is at odds with as he tries to negotiate for the ability to unilaterally increase the debt limit to avoid spending cuts. Sixty-nine percent of respondents opposed making significant cuts to the debt limit.

Respondents were evenly split on several issues. There was slight approval (51 percent) for reducing Medicare benefits for wealthy seniors. Fifty percent approve of reducing Social Security benefits for the wealthy. Forty-eight percent want to end foreign aid while 46 percent disapprove.

Obama gets bad marks for his job performance on several issues as well. Fifty-nine percent disapprove of his handling of the deficit and 53 percent disapprove of his handling of the economy. He gets marginal approval (50 percent) for working with Congress, taxes (49 percent) and Medicare (48 percent).

For Republicans, the current battle is largely lost on tax increases even though the wealthy already pay the vast majority of taxes. The challenge is to use their mandate to cut spending and reduce the deficit to force President Obama and the Democrats to compromise on real spending cuts.

 

Originally published on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/article/fiscal-cliff-poll-has-good-news-for-both-sides?cid=db_articles

Election exit polls hold silver lining for GOP

The 2012 presidential election was definitely a disappointment for Republicans. In spite of a poor economy and questions about his leadership, Barack Obama won a narrow victory in the popular vote by a margin of 51 to 48 percent over Mitt Romney. The electoral vote margin was 332-206 in favor of Obama. A comparison of 2012 and 2008 exit polls by CNN shows that there are some silver linings for the Republicans.

In 2008, John McCain lost virtually every demographic except for white men and women. Mitt Romney improved on McCain’s performance among white voters by winning 59 percent to McCain’s 55 percent. From 2008 to 2012 the percentage of the electorate represented by white voters declined from 74 to 72 percent, which meant that Romney’s improved performance counted for less.

A major problem for Romney was that Obama retained the lock on black voters and Romney actually lost ground among Hispanics and Asians. Obama won 95 percent of black voters in 2008 and 93 percent in 2012. The percentage of Hispanics voting for the GOP candidate declined from 31 to 27 percent and the percentage of Asians voting for Romney was 26 percent to McCain’s 35 percent.

When gender and race are considered, black and Hispanic men supported Obama with much less enthusiasm than did minority women. Only 87 percent of black men voted for Obama versus 96 percent of black women. Sixty-five percent of Hispanic men and 76 percent of Hispanic women supported the president. White women favored Romney, but Obama’s support was greater among white women (42 percent) than among white men (35 percent).

By gender, Mitt Romney won 52 percent of the male vote to Barack Obama’s 45 percent. The female vote remained almost the same in the two elections. Obama won 56 percent in 2008 and 55 percent in 2012. John McCain lost the male vote by one point.

In 2008, John McCain won only voters who were older than 65. In 2012, Mitt Romney won voters age 40 and above. Both Republicans also won married voters, McCain by 52 percent and Romney by 56 percent. Obama won unmarried voters in both years by more than 60 percent.

With respect to ideology, in 2008 22 percent of voters identified as liberal, 34 percent conservative and 44 percent moderate. In 2012, there were 25 percent liberal, 35 percent conservative, and 41 percent moderate. In 2008, 60 percent of moderates voted for Obama. In 2012, the president again won the moderate vote, this time by 56 percent.

Party affiliation in 2008 was 39 percent Democrat, 32 percent Republican, and 29 percent independent. This was almost exactly the same as 2012. All three candidates won approximately 90 percent of their party in both elections. In 2008, Barack Obama won the independent vote by 52-44 percent. However in 2012 Mitt Romney won independents by 50-45 percent.

Romney also won the middle class and upper income voters handily. Romney won the middle class by a margin of 52-46 percent. Voters who earn more than $100,000 voted for Romney by 54-44 percent. In 2008, John McCain tied Barack Obama in these two groups at 49 percent each. In both years, Obama won lower income voters (less than $50,000) by 60 percent.

The problem for Romney was that there weren’t as many middle class voters in 2012 as there were in 2008. Voters earning from $50-100,000 declined from 36 to 31 percent of the electorate. The percentage of voters earning less than $50,000 increased from 38 to 41 percent.

Seventy-four percent said that the economy or the deficit was the most important issue facing the country. Romney scored higher on both those issues as well as on taxes. Obama scored higher on housing and unemployment. The two candidates tied on who would better handle rising prices.

Eighteen percent said that healthcare was the most important issue facing the country. Of those voters, 75 percent chose Obama. Voters favored repeal of all or part of Obamacare by a margin of 49-44 percent.

A majority of voters did believe that taxes should be increased. Forty-seven percent said that taxes should be increased on Americans who earn more than $250,000 while 13 percent said that they should be increased on everyone. At the same time, 63 percent said taxes should not be raised to cut the deficit.

Seventy-seven percent of voters agreed that the economy was poor. Thirty-nine percent believed it was improving. Romney won a majority of the 59 percent who said the economy was getting worse or staying the same. Voters rejected the idea that government should do more by 43-51 percent.

Abortion was not the disastrous issue for the GOP that some have presented it to be. While most voters (59 percent) said it should be all or mostly legal, 40 percent of the 30 percent who said that it should be mostly legal voted for Romney. Abortion did not rank as one of the most important issues.

The issue that seemed to hurt Republicans most was immigration. With most other issues were tied or nearly so, the Republican position on immigration was rejected in a landslide. By more than a two-to-one margin (65-28 percent), voters believed that illegal immigrants working in the U.S. should be offered legal status. The hard line on immigration taken by many Republican candidates obviously cost the party many votes in the Hispanic and Asian communities.

Several other factors helped to save the day for Obama. The first was that although more than three quarters of voters thought that the economy was poor, only 38 percent blamed Obama. Fifty-three percent still blame George W. Bush.

More voters had a favorable view of Obama than Romney. Obama’s favorable rating was 53 percent while Romney’s was 47 percent. Ironically, the president’s approval rating was stronger in exit polls than both Rasmussen and Gallup polling showed at the time (50 and 49 percent respectively). This may suggest that some voters who did not approve of Obama stayed away from the polls.

Negative ads may have influenced some Romney voters to stay home. Obama outspent Romney on political ads according to the Wesleyan Media Project and a larger percentage of Obama’s ads were negative according to Politico. In 2008, Obama ran a largely positive campaign in contrast to 2012 when he began attacking Mitt Romney long before the Republican nomination was decided.

The final factor was Hurricane Sandy. Sixty-four percent of voters said that the president’s response to the hurricane was a factor in their vote and 62 percent of these voters chose Obama. Both Rasmussen and Gallup polling showed an uptick in Obama’s approval in the days after Hurricane Sandy struck New York.

There were bright spots for Republicans. Voters sent a decidedly mixed message on Election Day. They oppose the growth of government and still dislike Obamacare. The middle class and the wealthy solidly supported Romney, as did independent voters. Most voters do not trust Obama to handle the economy. The election was not a wholesale rejection of Republican principles with the exception of one issue: immigration.

The worst news for the country was the decline in voter turnout as a whole. In 2012, there were 121 million voters. This was down from 125 million voters in 2008. President Obama won the election, but with more than 4 million fewer votes than in his first election. These numbers reflect a very divided country and a loss of faith in government.

Originally published on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/article/postmortem-of-the-2012-election-with-some-good-news-for-republicans?cid=db_articles

America past the tipping point

Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.

Americans have chosen by a narrow margin not to change horses in midstream. They have given Barack Obama a second chance. Hopefully, Mr. Obama will prove himself worthy of their trust.

It seems that America has reached the proverbial tipping point where there are more takers than people to take from. Under President Obama, 75 people went on food stamps for every single person who got a job according to the Weekly Standard. The growth in the welfare state has been so great and so fast that it can no longer be contained. If the tipping point has not yet been reached, it certainly will have been by 2016.

Having won fewer states and a smaller percentage of the vote than in 2008, the president can hardly claim that the voters have given him a clear mandate to stay the course. Instead they have given him a chance to fulfill the promises of bipartisanship that he made in his first presidential campaign.

Obama’s victory may well say less about the promise of his second term than about the failings of Mitt Romney. Even though he did well in the debates, Romney frittered away much of the summer as the Obama campaign launched endless negative ads against him. Romney had little to say as he was portrayed as an out-of-touch rich guy who strapped his dog to the roof of the car. In the end, it wasn’t enough for Romney to promise a repeal of Obamacare, still hated by a majority of Americans according to Rasmussen, and hope that Obama’s incompetence would speak for itself. Romney was right about the 47 percent. It just turned out to be slightly more than 50 percent.

Perhaps the best thing that can be said about Obama’s victory is that he will be left in office to take the full blame for his failures. The upcoming economic recession or stagnation will not fall upon the shoulders of Mitt Romney, the Republicans, or George Bush. That will be cold comfort for the unemployed and for those who see their incomes lag or wealth deteriorate.

Even though Obama will stay on as president for another four years, he will not have the free reign that he did for the first two years of his first term. He will face a hostile congress where even Democratic senators and representatives distanced themselves from him in the election.

In his first term, President Obama resisted compromise with the Republicans even after the Democrats “took a shellacking” in the 2010 midterm elections. He must change if he wants to move the country forward.

Much of the time, a stalemate in the federal government is a good thing. This year it is not.

The first test of Obama’s second term comes on January 1 when the country reaches the fiscal cliff. President Obama must work with the lame duck congress to fix this problem as soon as possible or the fragile recovery will end abruptly and another, even worse recession will strike the country. President Obama must work with Republicans to avert this fiscal disaster for the good of the country.

In the campaign, President Obama paid lip service to fixing the problem of the federal deficit. We cannot tax our way out of debt. One hundred percent taxes on the wealthy would not fund Obama’s past budgets. If the president is serious about the debt, which is now more than 100 percent of GDP for the first time since WWII, he must agree to cuts in the federal budget as his own deficit commission recommended.

Finally, the most pressing international problem that we face is Iran. Over the next few weeks, President Obama will decide whether to renew sanctions on Iran. If he is serious about preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, weapons that threaten the U.S. homeland as well as Israel, he should do so. He should also commit to a military option if sanctions do not work and voice support for Israel if they decide to strike. Ambivalence and mixed messages to the Iranian government will almost certainly lead to war.

My concern is that none of this will happen. My concern is that Dinesh D’Souza may be right, that Obama is, at heart, an anti-colonialist who wants to bring the United States down to a third world level. He will continue to mount up federal debt until the economy breaks. He will stand aside as Iran arms itself and turn on Israel when they try to defend themselves.

My belief is that under President Obama, unless Republicans in congress are joined by enough Democrats to stop him, will continue on the same wrongheaded course that he has followed for the first four years of his presidency. If the United States manages to avoid lapsing into another recession or depression, the best we can hope for is to muddle through a Lost Decade of high unemployment, rising energy costs and anemic growth. American influence abroad will wan and with it we will see the rise of dictators and the decline of freedom around the world. At home we will lose more freedom as well, from the freedom to follow our religious beliefs to the freedom to own a gun.

If America has reached the tipping point. This election was our last, best hope to return to prosperity. My children will be left with less freedom, few opportunities, and less hope than I had. I and many others will continue to fight the good fight, but with every election lost, every additional entitlement recipient, every activist judge appointed, the tide is harder to turn back. The Republican Party may never win another major national election. If they do, it will still be impossible to roll back all the damage of the Obama years.

Perhaps Atlas is about to shrug.

Originally published on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/article/america-past-the-tipping-point?cid=db_articles