Russian Hackers?

The media has been making reference to alleged Russian hacking efforts as if advanced cyber weapons were used that only a State actor could possibly possess, thereby elevating this whole affair into something akin to an act of war. The truth, as far as I can tell, is something quite different.

Instead of cracking the encryption algorithm or deploying specialized malware bots, the hackers used a much more low-tech approach: they tricked the holders of the email accounts that were hacked into giving up their passwords. It really was that simple.

The technique, called phishing, involves sending out spoof emails that look, for all intents and purposes, like they are coming from a legitimate source. Typically, they warn you that your personal information is in danger and that you should log in immediately and change your password. However, the link that they provide is actually to a webpage that is owned by the hacker, not the host you think you are accessing. As soon as you provide a new password the hacker then logs in to the actual account with your old password, updates your password to the new string you selected, and begins to download your email archives in bulk. You, on the other hand, walk away feeling smug, thinking you have defeated a nefarious attempt to gain access to your email account.

We know that this is the way that John Podesta's email was hacked because the Clinton campaign has admitted as much, and I suspect that the other accounts were compromised in a similar fashion.

I know what you are thinking. "Wait, I get those fake emails all the time! I know better than to click on those!" And, yes, these sorts of exploits are all too common. Fortunately, they are very easy to detect and block using common security software and two-step verification procedures.

So, is this really a matter that deserves a court of inquiry and a global cyberwar? If this needs a court of inquiry it should be an inquiry into how Hillary Clinton, the State Department, and the Clinton Campaign could have all been so stupid as to let this happen.

Sorry, Hill.

She seems to be saying, "Sorry, Hillary!"

I find profound irony in Jill Stein's efforts to force a recount in key battleground states that went red in the last presidential election, particularly if you realize that votes that went to her were more than the margin of victory in both Wisconsin and Michigan.

If Jill Stein had simply made the announcement prior to the election that she was concerned about the possibility of a Trump presidency and that she was removing herself from consideration, and for her supporters to PLEASE hold their nose and vote for Clinton, Hillary would have won!

What was the point of her campaign? Did she intend to be a spoiler from the beginning? She wasn't even on the ballot in all 50 states. She certainly knew she had zero chance of winning the election.

Bernie Sanders could have easily done the same thing and run as a third party candidate, which would have tilted the outcome even further in favor of Trump, but he did not. He used the primary campaign as the vehicle for his platform, realizing that a third party run would split the Democratic vote.

Could Jill Stein really be so stupid to have not seen the possibility of this outcome? I find that hard to believe, which makes her disruptive actions all the more ironic.

Wait, I Won!

Some Predictions for Trump's First Term

Economy

Expect interest rates to rise and the dollar to fall, with inflation ticking up significantly by the mid-point of the first term. The U.S. will pressure China to stop selling the Yuan and allow it to float, which will mean that the Chinese will have to start selling the Treasury Notes that they have accumulated. Between a lower dollar and higher tariffs, prices for entire baskets of goods will increase. The stimulative effects of the lower dollar and higher import costs will not be instantaneous, and it will be rough sledding while U.S. manufacturing tries to gear back up. Meanwhile, the U.S. debt will explode, which will undermine confidence in the greenback, further pressuring the value of the dollar and driving interest rates even higher. The march back to a booming U.S. manufacturing sector could become quite a slog.

Geopolitics

Apart from some sort of grandiose show of force to crush ISIS (probably in cooperation with the Assad regime and the Russian military), I expect U.S. military spending to decline, not increase. U.S. support will tend to gravitate toward strong-arm leaders who can maintain regional order. The notion of the U.S. as 'global cop' is over with. Our allies should be ready to defend themselves, and we will gladly sell them the arms they need to do so. In other words, it will be a good time to be an authoritarian dictator, and concerns about violations of human rights will be largely ignored.

Infrastructure

Think bridges, bridges and more bridges. Plus, airports. Pretty much everything Trump said he would do infrastructure-wise he will attempt to do, and he'll find little resistance in Congress to his appropriation bills.

Education

Say goodbye to the Dept. of Education and to Common Core. Say hello to taxpayer-funded school vouchers for private and parochial school students. Charter schools will also see a rise, but I expect the expansion of the voucher program to be the biggest change.

Obamacare

I don't expect that we will go back to a situation where we have as many Americans without health insurance as we did under George W. Bush, but I do expect rates to start to reflect risk, which will mean higher rates and higher deductibles for those who are obese or with preexisting conditions. At the same time, I don't expect the federal subsidy to keep pace with these higher rates, so many families will be adversely affected and, ultimately, driven off the insurance rolls. Or, fixing Obamacare could prove too messy and we could simply go back to what we had before.

The Environment

In a word: toast. I expect huge swathes of U.S. coastal real estate to be under water regularly before the end of Trump's second term. Who is going to pay for all that damage? I don't anticipate any major federally-funded civil engineering projects to ward off the inevitable sea rise, even though the social and economics impacts will be huge. Or, you could just move to higher ground.

Immigration

Apart from efforts to better secure the border with Mexico, a major effort will be undertaken to identify and vet all undocumented aliens residing in the U.S., and those who do not pass muster will be deported along with their families, including minor children who may have been born in this country. Those who can be shown to have no criminal history and who are gainfully employed will be given a path to legal residency. Simultaneously, I expect the Trump Administration to dramatically increase the number of H1B visas, subject to extensive background checks, to provide labor to those industries (particularly agriculture) where labor is scarce. How successful these efforts will be overall is questionable, as their implementation will be fraught with hazards and legal challenges. On one hand, I would expect many families to voluntarily return to their countries as they have been doing in large numbers since 2008. On the other hand, the deportations will be expensive, heart-wrenching and disruptive to families and communities.

Doctor Death

Almost half a million dead --
Assad and Putin have much to celebrate.

The Syrian Civil War is on its way to half a million war dead, nearly twice the death rate of the rebellion put down by Assad's father 35 years ago. I always thought of Bashar al-Assad as a mild-manner, pro-western gentleman. At least, that was the image that he projected. It is clear to me now that he is a psychopathic sadist who has little regard for the people of his country. I'm sorry, but if my beloved country was in the throes of one of the worst humanitarian crises in modern times I would NOT be caught smiling for a photo op.

How did the world allow Syria to get to this point? Was there anything anyone could have done to prevent this level of bloodshed? I believe that there is, and I believe that Syria could be peaceful today if certain things had been done years ago.

Quite early in the conflict the Obama Administration drew a red line in the sand: if Assad were to use chemical weapons against its citizens he would face consequences. On the 21st of August of 2013 that line was crossed, when rockets with sarin gas landed on the rebel-occupied city of Ghouta, Syria to devastating effect.

Some of the almost 1,500 victim of the nerve gas attack.

Unfortunately, neither the U.S. nor NATO acted, which left a gap into which Russia has stepped, thereby insuring that the Assad regime will retain control of Syria and that the conflict will continue with no end in sight.

So, what could have changed this outcome? What needed to happen as early on as possible was for Assad to feel enough pressure to force a negotiated outcome, and there were a few things the U.S. and NATO could have easily done in response to the gas attack to put strong pressure on Assad:

• Bomb the airstrips to prevent aircraft from taking off and landing.
• Create a naval blockade to control the flow of weapons into Syria.
• Use drones to target and destroy missile batteries whenever they are used to launch missiles.
• Use superior U.S. air power to keep Syrian aircraft grounded.

These actions would have leveled the playing field and would, in my opinion, have quickly forced brokered negotiations that would have led to a transition government with international support.

Unfortunately, President Obama, while making it clear he did not need Congress in order to take military action and acknowledging that failing to act in response to the chemical weapons attack would make a mockery of Western resolve, deferred to Congress who debated a 60 day war authorization but ultimately failed to pass anything.

Now, instead of a peaceful outcome, the Syrians are faced with a war that could easily go on for 10 years or more, costing over a million lives, displacing over 15 million people, creating regional instability and providing opportunities for Islamist groups to gain strength, all the time promising little hope that the despotic authoritarian regime whose abuses led to the rebellion will ever be deposed.

Nice work, World.

Post 9/11 Lessons We Can Learn

Fifteen years after the 9/11 attacks there definitely are some lessons we can learn.

The 9/11 attacks were decidedly low tech and inexpensive to execute. Our response, on the other hand, was anything but, and in this fact lies the crux of the problem.

Groups like Al-Qaeda can never hope to conquer us directly, but like a bee sting or virus, our reaction can have the desired effect. Like the immune response to the influenza virus, or the allergic response to a bee sting, it is the organism's own defenses that are its undoing.

The best that Al-Qaeda ever hoped to achieve was to send a powerful message and hope that the injury and economic dislocation would create enough upheaval to force us to alter our routines, lose productivity, and sacrifice the personal freedoms that make our Republic great.

On those counts, the 9/11 attacks probably exceeded Al-Qaeda's expectations. A small band of radicals with box cutter knives triggered over $4 trillion in war spending (and counting), all of which was financed by issuing debt instruments. The Patriot Act, as well as a series of additional pieces of legislation and executive orders, have resulted in massive domestic surveillance by our own government, and the economic measures implemented to help stimulate the economy (such as a relaxing the bank reserve requirements) led directly to the mortgage crisis and the economic crash of 2008.

Once the shock had resided, we should have acknowledged that we left ourselves vulnerable by not anticipating that a hijacker might use a plane as a weapon. And, it's not like that possibility wasn't discussed, it just wasn't something that we took seriously. By comparison, Israel has had reinforced cockpit doors and a no-negotiation policy for hijackers for decades ... we simply should have known better. So, one logical response would be to tighten up airline security.

Additionally, we should have used the massive goodwill and sympathy felt for the U.S. around the globe to increase world peace and form coalitions of sympathetic nations to act to interdict Al-Qaeda and their supporters/financiers wherever they may be. Similar to President George H. Bush's successful organization of a coalition that enabled us to push the Iraqi Army out of Kuwait and back to Baghdad and have all our expenses covered along the way, we could have formed a similar coalition to move against Al-Qaeda in an effective way that helped distribute the costs. Finally, our decision to use the nation's predisposition for war to invade Iraq was the biggest mistake of all. The deposed Iraqi Army leadership is now the secret to ISIS's success.

Also, there was no reason to believe at the time that a massive domestic surveillance machine, including a data warehouse that stores virtually all emails, texts and voice communications that ALL of us send and receive, would have interfered with the planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks. Perhaps if the FBI had paid attention to calls from instructors in Florida who reported having foreign students in their classes who only had interest in learning how to fly an airliner, but not how to take off or land. Instead, our legislators have granted the government powers that can easily be used in the future to intimidate and silence dissent.

Bottom line -- just take it easy. Never let anger, hatred or a desire for revenge distort your thinking. The higher the stress level, the more methodical and deliberate your decision-making must be. And, never, ever overreact.

The Martian Has Gone Insane

How do we intend to colonize another planet if we can't even transition
away from fossil fuels here at home?

Frankly, it is time to take a good, long, hard look at NASA and the future of space exploration.

The most common argument I've heard as to the reason we are pushing for a Mars colony is to preserve the human race in the event that life becomes impossible here on Earth. Are you kidding me? Is that even a remote possibility? And, if that possibility exists, WHY AREN'T WE PUTTING EVERY POSSIBLE EFFORT INTO PREVENTING IT FROM OCCURRING?

From my way of looking at it, as goes the Earth, so goes the human race. We are inextricably linked to our home planet, as we should be. I consider notions of moving the human race to another planet to be fundamentally heretical and insulting to a world that has provided us so with much.

There are still parts of the NASA program that are valuable and necessary, in particular the program to track objects in Space that might be on a collision course with us, and the program to monitor the Sun. The programs to sent orbiters to other planets to explore their composition are clearly fascinating, but of limited utility to us at home. The programs that have enabled us to look back billions of years and time and see some of the first clouds of gas condensing and forming stars is amazing stuff that helps us better comprehend our place in the Universe, but is, in practical terms, of limited use to us at home.

Casting a shadow over all of this is one difficult to refute fact: we are altering our climate in ways that could cause global temperature and weather to spin out of control. It's like we are standing in the middle of the road, peering upwards into the stars, while a tractor trailer is bearing down on us.

I would like to see the vast majority of NASA's budget repurposed to focus on climate change and renewable energy source development. We need to train those powerful telescopes back on Earth and work to get us weaned off of fossil fuels. Let's make that the new "moon shot".

Pharmaceutical Price Regulation

The 2-pack EpiPen has gone from $100 to over $600 since 2008

Mylan Laboratories, sensing that Teva Pharmaceuticals will soon get their generic version of the EpiPen approved, have been steadily hiking the price for the dosing pen in order to extract as much benefit as possible before increased competition drives down prices.

In 2008, the 2-pen pack carried a suggested retail price of $100. Today, the retail price is $608, although production costs have barely changed.

"So what?", you might ask. "Mylan operates in a free market environment where they have the freedom to set whatever price they may want."

In order to understand the "so what", we need to understand what the EpiPen does. The EpiPen is an easy-to-use dosing mechanism for injectable epinephrine, which is used to reverse anaphylactic shock in patients with certain life-threatening allergies. For people with those allergies the EpiPen can literally be the difference between life and a swift death.

Therefore, an exorbitant 6x increase in price will inevitably lead to reduced accessibility to the product and increased risk to those with certain allergies, and to difficult choices since dollars spent on the EpiPen compete with dollars spent on other health care priorities.

If you hear Mylan talk about it, the increase is altruistic in nature: by increasing the price to those with a pharmaceutical benefit to their health coverage they can fund programs to subsidize the pens to those who cannot afford them. So is Mylan Robin Hood, or simply robbin' da 'hood?

I would say the latter. Mylan is looking after its shareholders by seeking to extract as much benefit as possible from their monopoly position in the market for a necessary product before they lose that power.

That is why I believe that price lists for patent and off-patent drugs should be subject to FDA review and approval in order to prevent predatory pricing practices which inevitably emerge where the supplier has complete pricing power.

The FDA, in working with the pharmaceutical companies to set pricing, should take into account development costs, raw material costs, production costs, distribution costs and the extent to which public research played a role in drug development.

Additionally, the FDA should strictly regulate drug marketing. It is my opinion that prescription drugs should not be marketed directly to consumers by any media outlet.  Additionally, pharmaceutical companies should not be permitted to provide free samples to doctors, nor should they be permitted to engage in any other quid pro quo with physicians and hospitals that might be expected to result in more prescriptions being written for their products.

The pharmaceutical companies spend billions on samples and mass marketing, money that will flow to their bottom line under the new regime of FDA regulation. And, consumers and benefits companies will be able to better budget knowing that pricing for drugs is regulated and relatively stable.

In exchange, the U.S. Congress should cap pharmaceutical company liability for unexpected reactions or side effects that the developers of the drug and the FDA's own scientists did not anticipate.

These proposals will yield lower prices for brand-name drugs and robust profits for the pharmaceutical companies tasked with innovating and bringing to market life-saving remedies, slightly higher prices for most generics (which will attract more companies to this important market segment and help insure adequate drug supplies), and faster time to market for new medications and generics alike.

Slow Pulse Response

When you are bleeding from a gunshot wound, every second counts.

After analyzing the timeline of the Orlando Pulse nightclub shooting, one thing seems painfully clear: the authorities who responded were timid and ineffectual.

The assault began at 1:58 a.m. Somehow, the shooter made it past security and onto the dance floor where he opened fire. Hearing the shots, an armed off-duty police officer working security at the club engaged the shooter briefly, but quickly felt that he was "outgunned" and retreated to the street outside the club.

By 2:05 a.m. more officers had entered the club and exchanged fire with the shooter, including members of a SWAT team who just happened to be riding shotgun in a patrol car that was nearby. They, too, felt like their lives were being placed at risk by engaging the attacker, and retreated to await back up.

At 2:22 a.m. the shooter felt safe enough to start making phone calls to 911 to announce that this was, in fact, a terror attack and that he was an agent of ISIS. At 2:45 a.m. he called an Orlando television station and speaks to a producer. He starts scanning Facebook looking for comments about the attack. He even has time to post to his timeline.

By 2:51 a.m. the shooter is still actively shooting people. One victim, Eddie Jamoldroy Justice, is texting with his mother during the ordeal. His texts start at 2:09 a.m. and end at 2:51 a.m. when he is fatally shot.

Orlando Police tries to negotiate unsuccessfully with the shooter for the next two hours before deciding around 5 a.m. to detonate explosives and breach a wall with an armored vehicle. The shooter, apparently tired of the ordeal, emerges through the hole created by the breach of his own volition, engages with officers outside, and is fatally wounded.

The timidity demonstrated by the Orlando Police is shocking. This assault should have been over by 2:15 a.m. at the latest. From the time that the first officers engaged the shooter they should have applied constant pressure, at risk to their own well-being, until the shooter was neutralized. If the shooter retreated deeper into the building, the officers should have followed. If he barricaded himself in a bathroom, they should have stormed it. When there is an active shooter every second counts. Any hostages trapped with the shooter are effectively already dead, or will soon be dead, if the shooter is not neutralized. Therefore, extreme measures, including measures that put innocents at risk, must be used to prevent wider casualties.

Finally, we need officers who are willing and able to lay down their life in the line of duty, just as we have soldiers on the front line called on to do the same thing. That the initial responding officers would have felt that they were "outgunned" and retreated is unacceptable. They should have kept pressure on the shooter until one of them got close enough to take him out.

The way our authorities handled this angers me. It makes us look weak and ineffectual in the eyes of the world and increases the risk of similar attacks. I hope that local police forces across the country use this incident as a case study of how NOT to deal with a terrorist attack and act with much greater decisiveness, courage and lethality when this happens again.

Is a Kasich Knockout Even Feasible?

The John Kasich campaign is bargaining on winning the hearts of minds of delegates committed to vote, in the first round, for Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, in spite of the fact that he currently has fewer delegates to his name than Marco Rubio, who dropped out weeks ago after losing his home state of Florida to Donald Trump.

In defense of their strategy, they cite other contested Republican conventions in which the candidate with a plurality of the delegates going into the convention did not emerge the winner.

In particular, the Kasich campaign cites two: the 1860 nomination of Abraham Lincoln and the 1952 nomination of Dwight Eisenhower.

However, in both cases the ultimate winner went into the convention in second place in the delegate count.

For example here were the results from 1860:

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860_Republican_National_Convention

As you can see, Abraham Lincoln went in with a high number of delegates, well ahead of the third place contender.

Similarly, in 1952 Eisenhower went into the convention nearly neck-and-neck with his rival, Ohio Senator Robert A. Taft.

Therefore, I have a hard time envisioning a scenario where the nomination does not go to Donald Trump or Ted Cruz and I am not sure, as much as I hate to admit it, what John Kasich is still doing in the race.

Brexit a No-Brainer

Never having merged currencies with the EU means Britain can sneak
away relatively unscathed and be potentially stronger for it.

Unity is such a strong word. Isn't unity want we want? If you ask people if they view "unity" favorably or unfavorably, chances are they will view it favorably without even knowing what sort of unity we are talking about. That is because most of us really just want to get along.

However, the European Union honeymoon is long over, and I believe that it is in Great Britain's best interest to go it alone from here.

Here are some reasons why:

• They already have their own currency and central bank.
• Their economy is strong, with unemployment at 5.4% and headed lower.
• Their debt to GPD is 90%, which is lower than France, higher than Germany, but not out of control (yet).
• There is huge migrant pressure at their doorstep.
• The Greece/Spain/Portugal debt crisis is not over yet.
• A lower pound in a relatively low-inflation environment would make their exports into the EU more competitive.
• Scotland rejected secession in a definitive manner, which means that Great Britain is stronger going forward and does not need the EU as much as it would otherwise. 

So far, the EU has dodged a few bullets, not the least of which is the looming potential default of Greece, Spain and Portugal. If and when that happens, the impact on the larger EU partners will be huge. If Britain leaves now they can avoid having to foot the bill for southern european profligacy.

Since Great Britain never gave up the pound sterling (and, rightly so), they could be in a unique position if they decouple from the EU and take steps to gradually weaken their currency relative to the euro and dollar. Such a move would bolster their industrial output by making their exports less expensive.

Finally, while Great Britain faces a tight labor market and is in need of more skilled laborers, it is better for them to control that flow and be selective as far as who they let in and who they do not.

Basically, I don't see the clear advantage to Great Britain of staying in the EU other than a love of a word, "unity".

Follow-up 8-4-18

With UK-EU negotiations stalling, the world press is ratching up the fear quotient, warning that Britain will suffer, amongst other things:

• Massive food shortages
• Loss of manufacturing facilities employing tens of thousands of people
• The failure of their nuclear power plants
• The loss of countless jobs in the financial sector

However, these fears are solely based on the theory that Brussels decides to impose self-destructive trade barriers with the UK after they leave the common market.

Britain is not seeking any trade barriers whatsoever, and wants completely free trade with the bloc. EU negotiators are presenting the possibility of vindictive retributory actions 

Instead, leaving the common market will permit the UK to free itself from cumbersome EU regulations that will make it more competitive. I predict, for example:

• Greater money flows into UK investment banks as financial regulations are relaxed.
• An increase in jobs in the UK as Britains loosen strict EU work rules.
• No net effect on food trade.

Brussels realizes that the UK will be at a competitive advantage to the bloc countries, which is why they are going to use every trick in the book to scare the Brits out of leaving.

Are the Contents of my iPhone Protected by the Fifth Amendment?

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The question is: if I lock my iPhone with the intent of keeping its contents a secret, can I be compelled to unlock it? Or, before or after my death, can the government legally hack into my iPhone in order to reveal its contents?

In most cases, I believe the answer to be "no". I believe that hacking into someone's personal cell phone is tantamount to forcing him to testify against himself. And, the simple act of putting a password and encrypting the contents of a cell phone is a statement that should be interpreted to mean, "I wish to invoke the rights afforded me by the Fifth Amendment and not allow my phone to bear witness against me."

Our personal cell phones are almost like extensions of our brains in the extent to which we use them to think, muse, comment, plan and remember things about our lives. That is a big part of the reason why the password and encryption that we place on them should be protected by our 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination, in spite of the difficulties that this might cause for law enforcement.

Ironically, in the case of the San Bernardino shooter's iPhone 5c (which is the reason that this issue is currently in the news), I believe that the government has every right to compel Apple Computer to unlock the phone if Apple has it in their ability to do so, BECAUSE THE SHOOTER WAS USING HIS WORK PHONE WHICH WAS, AND IS, PROPERTY OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND ON WHICH HE COULD HAVE NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY.

So, I expect Apple to lose this case and ultimately unlock the shooter's phone for the FBI. I also believe that the contents will not reveal anything new because the shooter had set up the phone to sync to iCloud (the FBI only wants the data since the last web sync) and knew that the phone was legally not even his. Therefore, I find it difficult to imagine that he could have been using it for any nefarious purpose.

When considering points of law such as this, I like to transport myself back in time and try to find useful analogies to 18th century jurisprudence. The closest analogy to a locked iPhone is a padlocked personal diary. It is my opinion that the contents of one's personal diary should be inadmissible in court unless the defendant has made prior reference to the diary, or used certain entries in support of his defense, in which case the entire diary would be in play. Since it can be reasonably imagined that one's personal cell phone could contain private thoughts and musings, a simple statement to that effect by the defense should render its contents safe from prying eyes on 5th Amendment grounds.

While this clearly represents a serious setback to law enforcement and the prosecution in certain cases (and, in fact, does so on a regular basis), we must remember that it is the communication that occurs between the cell phone and other phones or through the Web that are of most interest, and these communications are NOT shielded by the 5th Amendment. While the government may not be able to legally force a defendant to turn over the password to his private phone, they can certainly get a warrant to monitor and log all his data and voice communications, which could help them build a case. And, IF THOSE COMMUNICATIONS SHOW THAT THE DEVICE (iPHONE, CELL PHONE, ETC.) WAS USED IN THE COMMISSION OF A FELONY, THEN THE DEVICE ITSELF, INCLUDING ALL CONTENTS THEREIN, ARE FAIR GAME.

So, while one's personal diary, or personal cell phone, in most cases should be shielded from prying eyes by the Fifth Amendment, there are circumstances in which these protections would not apply.

Too Big to Fail = Too Big to Exist

The Milwaukee Fed's Mr. Clean wants to tidy up systemic risk

The fact that Neel Kashkari was on the front lines during the 2008 financial crisis adds special urgency to his calls to dismantle the major banks, a position that I support.

When the Federal Reserve and U.S. Congress chose to keep the major banks alive and intact, they created huge systemic problems that are adversely affecting the financial markets to this day.

The main problem, as I see it, is in terms of price and competition. Currently, the market for financial services is dominated by a handful of big players who offer relatively few product options and limited price competition. The majors must be broken apart into regional banks that can compete with one another, and compete with other local and regional banks. These smaller banks, being closer to their customers and local businesses, are generally more willing to take a chance and underwrite loans that the majors would not touch. Additionally, more competition will help to improve customer service and lower fees for the retail customers.

Secondly, "too big to fail" carries moral hazard and an implicit guarantee that can distort risk evaluation and decision-making by investors and the banks themselves, exacerbating the "too big to fail" problem.

Finally, we need to restore the firewall that previously existed between depository institutions and investment banks. We cannot allow investments in derivatives to put FDIC insured deposits at risk.

Therefore, on the depository side, the major banks should be broken down into distinct regional banks with new names and a new organizational structures. The original parent bank can retain the investment banking activities, but can no longer accept federally-insured deposits.

This will serve to streamline and invigorate the financial industry, for the benefit of the nation.

It Takes Chutzpah

I wonder if proof that his mother had sworn allegiance to Canada would wipe
that smug look off his face... (Source: Newsweek)

Leave it to Ted Cruz to believe that he is actually eligible to serve as President of the United States, in spite of having a Canadian birth certificate and dual citizenship:

Ted Cruz has never renounced his Canadian citizenship, so if things don't go well for him
here, he's always got a place to stay north of the border.Source: mrconservative.com

By his logic, since his mother was born in Delaware, that makes him a "natural born" citizen of the United States. EXCEPT, for some reason, his mother applied for and received Canadian citizenship during the time she was living in Canada, along with her Cuban-born husband.

Source: Newsweek

Clearly, the "natural born citizen" clause must be clarified by the courts, as it has wide-ranging implications. Are the children born to a foreign mother in the United States temporarily (or illegally), automatically U.S. citizens upon birth? The answer is not at all clear. It would seem to me that the child is whatever the parents are, independent of the geography of the live birth. The courts have already held that the children of diplomatic attaches on assignment in the States are NOT eligible for U.S. citizenship because the parents have a sworn allegiance to another nation and not to the United States. For me, the same logic applies to foreign nationals who come to the U.S. to give birth in order to imbue their offspring with U.S. citizenship.

So, it seems that Ted Cruz was born in Canada to two parents who had both sworn allegiance to Canada at the time of his birth, which seems to me to be WHOLLY AND COMPLETELY INADEQUATE to justify eligibility to hold the highest elected office in the land.

Democrats for John Kasich

Checking the location of CIA safehouses on your personal Blackberry, are you?

Many Democrats may be relishing the prospect of a Hillary v. Donald matchup. His insanity and propensity for grandiose and irresponsible comments would turn off mainstream voters on both sides of the aisle, making Hillary look moderate and even-headed by comparison.

However, what these voters must realize is that she is facing the real risk of being forced into a plea agreement over her use of a personal email server, leading to her disqualification from the race.

From my point of view, her decision to install a personal email server with which to conduct official State Department business indicates that she is unfit to serve as President.

In the time I worked as a middle school teacher I wanted to use a Gmail account and set up Google Drive folders for my students to facilitate the distribution and collection of work. However, I quickly realized my potential liability in the event of allegations of inappropriate communications, and nixed the idea. How is it that I, as a classroom teacher, understood this, but not Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State,? Not someone I want as Commander in Chief.

Which gets to my main point -- if any of the current crop of Republican candidates, other than John Kasich, wins the nomination, we could be in for some serious trouble.

So, I encourage Democrats to contribute to the Kasich campaign, just in case federal charges are leveled against Clinton.

To get started, please click here: www.johnkasich.com/donate

Heil Donald

We must be careful with Donald Trump, now that he has gained real traction in the primary race. Based on the overall tenor of his campaign, I view him more as a force for evil than as a force for good. If America is great, it is great because of the values of freedom and equality enshrined in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. His hostile, xenophobic and verbally demeaning approach is threatening to lead us down a road that will prove corrosive to the moral fiber of this country.

Ironically, I don't believe that he really expected to be the frontrunner in the Republican primary this late into the race. His primary objective in this race was to be a spoiler to Jeb Bush, who, as Governor of Florida, had blocked his efforts to set up a casino in Miami. In fact, Trump had overwhelming support for his casino projects in Florida, and Bush was just about the only one standing in his way with the power of the executive veto.

It seems to me that he is actually surprised, in a kind of ironically funny way, that Republican voters have taken to his clownish antics, hyperbole, and use of the same campaign tricks that launched Hitler from obscurity and led to the Third Reich. I think that he is privately laughing at those that support him for being idiots and fools.

At the time Hitler entered the race, the German people were demoralized by years of economic hardship. Hitler's demonization of Jews, Gypsies and other "lesser races" fed the need of a frustrated and angry populace for someone to blame.

And, it does not seem to be by accident that Donald Trump is following in Hitler's footsteps: in fact, one of his ex wives has stated that he often read Hitler's speeches, apparently in preparation for a future campaign run.

No matter how serious the problems our nation faces we must not take even one step down a road in which we begin to place blame at the feet of vulnerable minority groups who do not have a voice. If we begin to unleash those evil forces we may not be able to control them. For this reason, Trump must be stopped. He has summoned the Devil by launching his campaign in a tirade against illegal immigrants from Mexico, and then later by suggesting that we should be afraid of all Muslim immigrants.

In 1932 the Germans could have saved the world great pain if more of them had taken the time to think about what Hitler was saying, instead of focusing on how what he was saying made them feel.

Let's hope that the American voter can have the common sense to see through Trump and his manipulative game.

Get the NSA to Church

The NSA Needs to get some Religion in the Form of Congressional Oversight

The executive branch is conducting expansive domestic and global surveillance operations, unprecedented in scope and means, to collect and analyze information and communications of millions of people. These operations have raised serious questions about whether these activities are necessary, proportionate, and legal.

Given that neither Members of Congress nor the public were not — and still are not — adequately informed about these programs, Congress should form a special joint investigatory committee to conduct a full investigation and issue recommendations. Americans have confronted these issues before. Today’s Congress should learn from historical examples and form a new investigatory committee modeled after notable and relevant past successes.

In the early 1970s, the public and Congress learned that the CIA was collecting millions of Americans’ communications. In response, Congress created the Church Committee as a special investigatory committee and adopted a bipartisan approach to independently investigate activities conducted by both Democratic and Republican administrations. The Church Committee also formed a cooperative relationship with the intelligence community to access relevant information, while undertaking rigorous scrutiny of intelligence programs and maintaining the objectivity and credibility to assess them.

The investigation is still considered one of the most successful in U.S. history. It provided a significant accounting of the executive’s activities, led to meaningful reforms that governed surveillance law for more than three decades, and restored public confidence that Congress was conducting its constitutional oversight role. The Church Committee demonstrated that a special investigatory committee can, with political will and good leadership, effectively investigate executive surveillance and intelligence activities—and their abuses.

Source: https://www.eff.org/files/2015/12/14/a_new_church_committee_final.pdf

Common Sense Gun Reforms

Stymied for 7 years -- it is enough to make a man cry!

Obama and the Democratic leadership are perplexed beyond words over their inability to leverage mass murders in support of gun control. No matter how horrific the crime, they seem to be unable to rally public opinion to the notion that increased gun control will make us safer.

Of course, that is for good reason, since keeping weapons out of the hands of law-abiding citizens will not make us safer, and the Democratic leadership has shown a predilection for legislation that directly infringes on the rights of legal gun owners, which has cost them the trust of the majority of Americans when it comes to this particular topic.

They support measures such as legislation that would permit the victims of gun violence to sue the manufacturer of the weapons used as well as a 50% levy on ammunition, two measures that would effectively put the gun industry out of business.

Which is a shame, because there are basic, common sense steps that can make us safer, and on which our representatives should be able to reach a consensus.

For example, it is clear that the mentally ill, as defined as anyone who has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution or deemed unfit by way of legal proceeding, should not be permitted to own a gun. However, as demonstrated by the mass shooting at a Lafayette movie theater, all that a shooter has to do is cross state lines in order to conceal the fact that he is mentally ill. Therefore, it is imperative that we establish a national registry of the mentally ill so that this information can be made available to the federal background check system and law enforcement, with penalties for those states that do not comply with the law. A provision must be put in place for an individual to petition a judge for removal from this list once they can be deemed fit.

Similarly, anyone who has been the subject of a protection order should be immediately added to a national database which would prevent them from owning a gun until they can convince a judge that they are no longer a threat.

Finally, it seems clear to me that all gun sales, including transfers of ownership between individual owners, should be subject to the background check provision. A system that effectively keeps guns out of the hands of convicted felons, the mentally ill and those who have been subject to protection orders must not be compromised by loopholes that facilitate straw purchases and transfers.

Such measures would do little to infringe on the rights of the vast majority of law-abiding citizens, but would go far to help keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have them.