Author: webuiltitblog

Margaret Hilda Thatcher, aka “The Iron Lady,” passed away last Monday at the age of 87. Normally, when a former chief exeutive and prominent world leader passes away his or her countrymen would demonstrate an outpouring of grief, sadness and, above all, respect. Political differences and petty quarrels would be set aside, and the media and the general populace would be respectful of the person even if they had disagreed politically. Think of our own former Presidents who have passed away in the last few decades – Nixon, Ford and Reagan. For much of his life, Richard Nixon was a very divisive figure and was one of the most despised politicians in my lifetime. Yet, when he passed away there were no demonstrations, no glee from the left and no joyous songs to mark the occasion. The same can be said for other prominent politicans in other countries. Normally, the occasion is marked with respect and dignity.

In Ms. Thatcher’s case many Britons have chosen to party like it was New Years Eve, dancing in the streets, popping champagne, etc. Some people, who must really think they are clever, are even trying to repopularize the song “Ding Dong, the Witch Is Dead! This behavior is outrageous, and I submit that it greatly dimishes Britons in the eyes of the world. After all, as virtually any politician knows, regardless of the extent to which you might disagree with the other person’s political positions, you respect him or her personally. Indeed, many politicians who hold diametrically opposing views are, in fact, personal friends.

So, who was Margaret Thatcher? What exactly did she do to incur this wrath upon her death some 23 years after having left office? Incidentally, many, if not most, of the demonstrators appear to be too young to remember Ms. Thatcher’s tenure as PM, or worse, had not even been borne yet. So, what is the basis of their actions? What do they know of the lady and her life?

Ms. Thatcher, though a conservative politician, was not born into wealth and privilege. She was born on October 13, 1925 in a small hamlet approximately 100 miles north of London. Her parents owned two small grocery stores, and the family lived above the store in a “cold water flat,” i.e. no hot running water. Despite these modest beginnings, she was to get admitted to Oxford University from which she graduated in 1947 with a Masters Degree in Chemistry. Before entering politics she worked as a research chemist. She entered local politics in 1948 and was elected to Parliament in 1959. She became PM in 1979.
There were few women in politics at that time, so she had to fight prejudice and preconceptions continuously her whole career.

In 1979 the UK was in dire straits economically and socially. Many major industries had been nationalized. The country was paralized by strikes. The unions were omnipotent. The average worker paid nearly half of his income to the government in taxes. Inflation and unemployment were high. (Unemployment was the highest since the Great Depression.) Although there was a worldwide recession throughout most of the 1970s, remember the US’s long gas lines, double digit inflation and stock market freefall, the UK was even worse off. Ms. Thatcher’s economic policies, which included reducing spending and curbing inflation, though unpopular with Labour/Liberal supporters, restored economic health. Her policies spurred economic growth and the growth of the middle class. Over time, they served to reduce the power of the unions significantly, reversed the trend toward nationalization and reinstituted a capitalist, free market system for the welfare state system then in vogue. It’s understandable that she alienated a large segment of the entrenched powers and their supporters. Incidentally, you may note that some of the current economic conditions in various countries, including the US, are similar, though perhaps, not as extreme yet.

In foreign affairs she enjoyed a close working relationship with both Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev. When Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands in 1982, she acted aggressively and decisively, sending troops and ships, which recaptured the islands in just 10 weeks.

Yes, she was a tough and decisive leader. By her own admission she was a “conviction politician, not a consensus politician.” She stood up to and held her own with anyone. The Soviets so admired and respected these traits that it was they who gave her the sobriquet “Iron Lady.” During one debate she admonished a Labour MP: “You would rather make rich people poor than poor people rich.” During a strategy discussion regarding the US’s response to Iraq’s invading Kuwait she famously admonished President Bush 41: “Now, don’t get wobbly, George.” Iron Lady indeed.

CONCLUSION AND PREDICTION

Ms. Thatcher served 11 years as PM. She was the UK’s longest tenured PM in the 20th century and the only female ever. Other than Winston Churchill, she was arguably its most important and effective PM of the 20th century. She was the classic case of a strong, effective leader who came along at the right time. (The US could certainly use someone like her now!) Why, then, the reaction upon her death? I believe it’s attributable to several factors: Labour/Liberal propaganda, selective memory of some people, instigation by special interests, such as the unions and a liberal press, and most of all a general lack of respect that seems to be the trend nowadays.

Thoughtful, intelligent, fair-minded people would not react this way. They would recognize that although they didn’t agree with her politically, her office and accomplishments must be respected. Unfortunately, I do not see this as an isolated case, but, rather, a continuation of a disturbing trend in our society.

President Obama is well into his 5th year as President. Upon his re-election his constituencies rejoiced, grateful that they avoided a “cold-hearted, mean spirited” Republican administration, which would seek to undo many of his administration’s socialist-style policies . Well, they got what they wished for. But, where is the improvement in the economy? Have his policies improved the quality of your life? For most Americans, the answer is a resounding NO!

Obama supporters, in particular, poor people, African Americans, women and young people, the joke’s on you, because ironically, as I predicted, Mr. Obama’s far left liberal policies have hurt you the worst. To wit:

1. Unemployment remains stubbornly high. The current rate is 7.6%. Worse, the rates for women, young people and African Americans are 12.2%, 34% and 13.3%, respectively. These percentages do not include those who have given up looking for work because of discouragement, entitlements or other reasons. We all agree that this level of unemployment is unacceptable. No one wants to see people suffer. But, Mr. Obama’s anti-business, anti-wealth policies have not been able to redress the situation.

2. Many employed lower-end workers have had their hours reduced and/or they have been re-classified as part time employees. In some cases, they have lost their eligibility for employer-provided health insurance and other benefits.

3. The price of gas at the pump is close to $4.00 on average nationwide, but near $5 in California, a liberal stronghold.

4. In January, all working Americans saw a decrease in their paychecks due to the re-establishment of the payroll tax.

5. Medical insurance rates have increased considerably as insurance companies gear up for the full advent of Obamacare next year. It is no secret that when Obamacare hits full force, the 80% of us that already had health insurance will see a sizeable cost increase in healthcare AND a decrease in the quality of care. Somebody has to pay for it, and you can be sure it won’t be the insurance companies. An additional negative of Obamacare is that it acts as a drag on hiring. In a recent survey, 77% of small businesses reported that Obamacare has adversely affected their hiring capabilities.

6. And, the cruelist irony of all for Obama supporters, the stock market has been soaring. The Dow is at an all time high. The S & P and NASDAQ indices have also increased substantially. Of course, this benfits the wealthy the most. To a lesser extent, it also benefiits everyone who has a 401k or IRA, but many Obama supporters do not have either of those.

CONCLUSION AND PREDICTION

As one can see, the irony is that Mr. Obama’s policies have hurt the very people that he is trying to help. Yes, be careful what you wish for. Mr. Obama’s wealth re-distribution policies have not worked. To paraphrase the late Margaret Thatcher, Mr. Obama seems more interested in making rich people poorer than in making poor people rich.

As I have stated in previous blogs, these policies will not work. They have never worked anywhere else; there is no reason why they should work here. Study your history and learn from it lest you be doomed to repeat it. One might wonder if they taught economics and history at Harvard.

I predict no substantive improvement in the economic situation before the midterm elections. In that case, history shows us that Americans will make their displeasure and frustration known in the voting booth, which does not augur well for the Dems.

We are at war. No, I’m not talking about the war on terror or the war in Afghanistan. To be sure, those are real wars with real consequences for Americans. But, apparently, to some people at this time of the year the most dangerous enemy is…….THE EASTER BUNNY.

The Easter Bunny, Easter eggs and Easter egg hunts have become symbols of Easter. But, in reality, they have nothing to do with the religious aspect of the holiday, the Resurrection of Christ. The origin of the Easter Bunny can be traced to 13th century Germany. At that time Germany was pagan, not Christrian. The German people worshipped many different gods and goddesses, including a goddess of Spring and Fertility. Guess what the symbol of this goddess was? That’s right, a rabbit, because of the animal’s high reproduction rate. German immigrants brought the custom to the US where it has evolved to what we see today. In modern times, the Easter Bunny and its trappings have become symbols of festivity and fun, especially for kids, who love the Easter baskets and egg hunts. In addition, being able to consume large quantities of chocolate Easter bunnies and eggs is no small side benefit. Finally, let us not overlook the commercial value of Easter to the economy.

Enter the school district of Madison, Alabama. The school principal, Ms. Lydia Davenport, in her infinite non-wisdom has decreed that in the interest of “religious diversity” there shall be no mention of Easter in the schools and no school activity labeled an “Easter” activity. Hence, no Easter Bunny, but maybe a “Spring Bunny.” No “Easter egg roll,” but instead a “Spring Roll (with or without chopsticks?).” The parents and kids were not consulted; the school district just decided this unilaterally apparently because of one parent’s “question[ing of] some of the things we do here at school” whatever that means.

Ironically, the Easter Bunny has nothing to do with the US Constitution’s first amendment, freedom of religion. The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Tell me what that has to do with the Easter Bunny.

PREDICTION AND CONCLUSION

This is a continuation of two recent trends, (1) bending over backwards to be politically correct and (2) attacking religious symbols, first, Nativity scenes and now the Easter Bunny. I think in some cases, such as this one, we go too far. What’s next, banning Santa Claus and Menorahs? I say let kids be kids and enjoy the traditional Easter events. It has nothing to do with the religious aspect of the holiday, which is separate. Other religions can be free to ceelebrate their own holidays as well.

What do conservatives, like John McCain, and liberals, like Bob Beckel, have in common? Give up? Well, the answer is that recently they were both sharply critical of an episode of the CBS TV show, “The Amazing Race.” Apparently, the show’s organizers and producers, which include, among others, Les Moonves, a CBS executive, and Jerry Bruckheimer, a prominent TV and movie producer, are ignorant of and/or insensitive to the strong feelings that still linger from the Viet Nam War. It’s not easy to get conservatives and liberals to agree on anything these days, but these idiots at CBS have managed to do so.

For the benefit of those of you who are either too young to remember or have fading memories, this war dominated the lives of a generation of young people in the ’60s and ’70s and tore apart the nation socially, politically, economically, emotionally and morally. Oh, and by the way, nearly 60,000 Americans died and many more were wounded physically and/or emotionally.

Briefly, what the show’s producers did was send the contestants to Hanoi where they visited the wreckage of an American B-52 bomber. The wreckage was set up like an ordinary prop with markings, clues and instructions for the contestants to follow in their glorified scavenger hunt. In addition, they were required to memorize a communist propaganda song. Nice, huh.

Fox TV reports that emails and tweets to its station haven been running 10-1 against CBS. Veterans groups and other critics have demanded an apology, however, to date, CBS has been mum, no doubt hoping that some celebrity will eventually do something stupid to divert attention.

CONCLUSION AND PREDICTION

CBS can’t be that ignorant and insensitive, can they, so there is a distinct possibility that they did it on purpose to gain publicity for the show. After all, as they say, “There is no such thing as bad publicity.” Now, why won’t they apologize. Stubborness? The desire for more pubilicity? Because Fox is leading the criticism? Your guess is as good as mine. All I know is that there are hundreds of thousands of living Viet Nam veterans, including me, who are outraged and demand an apology and an explanation. One cannot underesimate the impact this war had on the nation. Even young men who escaped unscathed had their lives and careers delayed or interrupted. Many vets can’t bear to even visit the country to this day. As one critic stated, what venue is next, Normandy, Iwo Jima, a concentration camp site?

I hope that CBS does the right thing and apologizes.

Seniors, congratulations on living to a ripe old age. You worked hard all your life. Now, you are retired and enjoying your “Golden Years.” But, beware, your Golden Years may become tarnished by the “Mortality Index.”

Never heard of the MI? You will. It is another unintended consequence of Obamacare, like higher insurance premiums, fewer doctors and lower quality healthcare for the 80% of us that already had medical insurance before the advent of Obamacare.

In a nutshell, the MI is a measurement of a person’s likelihood of dying within a certain period of time based on various factors. The index ascribes points to various factors, such as age, gender, physical condition, other chronic illnesses, etc. If the resultant number is too high, some government or medical provider bureaucrat, not a medical professional, not you, may decide that treatment for what ails you is not practical. Therefore, treatment would not be covered. For most people, no insurance coverage means no treatment. In essence, they are deciding that one person’s life is worth more than another’s. That’s right. If two people need the same procedure and person A is, say, 50 years old and in good physical condition, and person B, for example, is 80, overweight and a diabetic, it could be “Syonara” for person B.

If this sounds like a plot for a Stephen King novel, you should know that the MI is already in use, although not for the above purpose. Doctors can use it to measure a patient’s health risk and advise him or her accordingly. In addition, I believe insurance companies are using a version of it to decide whether or not to issue a person a life insurance policy and, if so, to calculate the premiums.

CONCLUSION AND PREDICTION

As we all know, health care is expensive and getting more expensive every day. In addition, there is a finite amount of money and resources. The population is aging, and people are living longer. Elderly people use a disproportionate share of health care resources. Most experts predict that there will be fewer doctors as the medical profession becomes less attractive for various reasons (which merits a separate blog). A large majority of doctors will soon be employees of health care providers rather than proprietors, thus losing some of their independence. If you combine all these factors the future of healthcare, in general, and for the elderly, in particular looks bleak.

Higher premiums, fewer doctors, lower quality care, and now the death panel. Anybody still think Obamacare was a good idea? Thank you Mr. Obama and Justice Roberts.

The more I see of the Obama Presidency, the more I view it as a wasted opportunity. Regardless of what one may think of his political views, President Obama is very popular personally. All the polls have shown this consistently. He is glib, likeable, personable, a superb orator, and a great “rags to riches” success story. With all these positive attributes Mr. Obama has had and still does have a rare opportunity to unite various disparate groups of Americans and achieve greatness. Instead, he has done exactly the opposite He and his policies have been extremely divisive and have led us down the road toward economic and social disaster.

His wealth redistribution and nanny state policies and refusal or inability to compromise and forge coalitions with those who hold differing views have steadfastedly turned Democrats against Republicans, liberals against conservatives, poor against rich, minorities against whites, and women against men. To be sure, some or all of these animosities have always been present to a degree, but I do not recall another period in my lifetime when they have all been as extreme as they are now.

I could give many examples of this, but I will cite only one: the Sequestor. As I wrote yesterday, this was President Obama’s idea in the first place. Now that it has been turned around against him, rather than promulgating spending cuts in a judicious manner, he doing his best to cast blame on the GOP for it and make the sequestration as painful as possible to the American people. Want examples? (1) Last week he gave several “chicken little” speeches in which he delineated the dire consequences of sequestration, none of which has come to pass. In these speeches, he conveniently forgot to denote that sequestration was his much balleyhooed idea in the first place. (2) His Director of Homeland Security has reported, as a direct consequence of sequestration, the release of thousands of illegal aliens from ICE detention centers. These people had been detained because they are dangerous, and now if any of them commits another crime, guess who Mr. Obama will blame. (3) The D of HS also reported massive airport delays, whereas there have not been any. (4) Perhaps most outrageous of all, the White House cancelled all tours to save money. In reality, these tours are give by VOLUNTEERS, so this was also a sham. The only effect was to inconvenience thousands of Americans who were planning to tour the White House on their vacation. Reminds me of Chevy Chase and “Walley World.”

Why is Mr. Obama doing this? I believe he feels that if he can tarnish the GOP with this issue the Dems can win the House in the 2014 elections. In the meantime, the welfare of the country is secondary.

PREDICTION AND CONCLUSION

President Obama’s refusal or inability to compromise and bring people together will doom his legacy. As we know, Presidents view their legacy quite seriously. Most of them spend their entire second term building it. Typically, they move toward the middle and try to unify the people.

With the passage of time, historians, and Americans in general, often view presidencies very differently than they were viewed at the time. For example, most historians rank Presidents Lincoln and Truman in the top 5, yet they were unpopular and/or controversial during their presidencies. If Mr. O stays on the present course, which I believe he will, history will judge him quite harshly and deservedly so.

Well, you have been sequestered. How does it feel? Did you even notice it? The sky did not fall. There were no massive layoffs. Social security and welfare checks did not cease. Airplanes did not fall out of the sky. Our military capacity was not decimated. Our borders were not overrun. The truth of the matter is that President “Chicken Little” and his supporters exaggerated the potential situation considerably.

At this point, a little history of sequestration would be instructive. Originally, sequestration was Mr. Obama’s idea. In July 2011 when Congress and the White House could not agree on a tax plan and spending cuts, he proposed it and pushed it as a compromise measure to avoid the US defaulting on its debt obligations. Mr. Obama lauded the measure as a solution to the impasse. He stated that it would not impact social security payments, medicare or medicaid and other programs for low income voters. Now, all of a sudden hw has changed his tune. It is safe to say that Mr. Obama was “for sequestration before he was against it.” (If this phrase sounds familiar, it should. It has often been used to mock politicians of both parties who have “flip-flopped” their positions on an issue.)

Mr. Obama is counting on Americans having a short memory. In addition, rather than demonstrating leadership, rather than applying the spending cuts in the most effieicnt and judicious manner, he has chosen to be divisive, looking to ascribe blame to the GOP.

PREDICTION AND CONCLUSION

The amount of these spending cuts is a drop in the proverbial bucket – approximately $42 billion out of a total budget of approximately $3.5 trillion. As I said, most Americans will hardly notice. Also, we desperately need to reduce our expenses and our debt.

Mr. Obama’s vision of socialism does not work in the long run. This is not opinion; it is fact. It has not worked in any other country that has tried it (Greece, Italy, France, to name a few). They have all encountered economic and social problems as a result. Why would we think it would work here? My anticipation is that the voters will come to realize this eventually, hopefully sooner rather than later.

Depends on your point of view. Mr. Obama claims everything is just fine. The economy is improving. Jobs are being created (6,000,000 by his count since he took office, but only 1.200,000 acording to Lou Dobbs in whom I have more confidence ). Obamacare is in place and ready to go. So what if health care costs have increased considerably with further increases to come. So what if unemplyment has risen since he took office and remains stubbornly over 7.5%. So what if household income is declining. So what if gas prices at the pump have doubled since he took office. So what if the debt is approaching $17 trillion. So what if the US is viewed around the world as weak and indecisive – four diplomats slain in Libya, North Korea testing nuclear bombs with impunity, Iran racing to develop its own nuclear capability, and Israel wondering if the US will really, really be there for it in a pinch. None of that matters. Mr. Obama and the Dems say we are on the right track. Don’t worry. This is all merely a hangover from the Bush presidency. His policies just need more time to work. This reminds me of that old Groucho Marx joke: “Are you going to believe what I tell you or what you see with your eyes?”

Mr. Obama suggested some proposals that sound good, such as raising the minimum wage to $9.00/hour, providing a quality pre-school education to every child and creating more jobs. However, historically it has been demonstrated repeatedly that raising the minimum wage does not increase jobs. If anything, it reduces jobs as employers who can’t afford to pay the higher wage reduce employees’ hours or terminate some of them, or even worse, go out of business. So, the unintended consequences of this proposal would likely adversely affect the very constituency that it is intended to help. Once again, I wonder if Mr. Obama took any history or economics courses at Harvard. Free pre-school education for every child sounds good, but we have no money to pay for it. Job creation is best left to the private sector, not the government. Over the past four years, many of Mr. Obama’s policies, such as Obamacare and raising taxes on small businesses, have served to hurt job creation rather than help it.

CONCLUSION AND PREDICTION

In short, Mr. Obama’s view of the country, where it is and where it is going, fly in the face of the facts. It sounds illogical until one realizes that his primary objective is not to improve the economy per se, but, rather, to redistribute wealth and income. Take from the rich and give to the poor a la Robin Hood. He has no serious intention of reducing our massive debt. If, as a corollary consequence, the economy is aided, okay; if not, that is okay too. When one views his policies through that spectrum, they make perfect sense.

The State of the Union speech made it clear that we can expect more of the same over the next four years. Before criticizing Mr. Obama too harshly, remember, his actions have been consistent with his resume. He said what he was going to do if elected, and we, the people elected him…twice.

Recently, the States of California and Texas have been squabbling over an interesting situation. The State of Texas has been advertising in California denoting its business-friendly climate vis a vis California in an attempt to entice business enterprises to relocate to Texas. California has strongly objected to the tone of the advertisements and accused Texas of poaching. Both governors have been vociferously defending their respective states in the press.

On one level, one might find this situation to be amusing, akin to a family squabble, however, I think it has the potential to become quite serious. California and Texas have very little in common other than the fact that they are large states (numbers 1 and 2 in terms of population). Politically they are almost polar opposites. California is very liberal, has a big government philosophy and spends among the highest percentage of income of any state on government and social services. Texas is conservative, embraces small government and has no state income tax. I view the two states as an allegory for the national debate of nanny state and entitlements (Let the government do as much as possible.), versus capitalism, free enterprise, and risk-taking (Keep the government small and unobtrusive.).

Like many states, California is bankrupt, only they don’t know it and don’t act like it. The state continues to operate with its big government philosophy. For example, it imposes high taxes on businesses and wealthy individuals; it has the 4th highest cost of living, the 3rd highest income inequality gap, ranks 3rd to last in percentage of high school graduates and has a debilitating pension liability to public employees. In addition, due to Medi-Cal’s (state-sponsored health care provider) low reimbursement rate to doctors, one-half of them now refuse to treat Medi-Cal patients. This is indeed a formula for driving businesses and wealthy individuals out of the state.

On the other hand, Texas has a business-friendly climate, no state income tax, cheaper prices (so the lower salaries actually go further), lower unemployment, and a higher high school graduation rate. To be sure, California has great natural beauty, fantastic weather and the allure of the entertainment industry and celebrities. However, all this makes it a great place to visit, not necessarily to live in.

PREDICTION AND CONCLUSION

I believe it is simplistic to view this as merely a dispute between Califirnia and Texas. I view it as symbolic of the great divide in this country between two economic and social pholosophies – big government and entitlements versus small government, capitalism, free enterprise and reward for risk-taking. One can make political and philosophical arguments in favor of either, however, economically there is no contest. Texas is thriving, and California is bankrupt. Supporters of California who criticize Texas are missing the point. It is human nature to act in one’s own self-interest. If California-based businesses and wealthy individuals feel they will be better off economically in another state and they have the means to relocate, they will do so. If not to Texas, than it will be to another state with similar advantages. My prediction is that the country will experience a accelerated move of businesses and wealthy, mobile individuals from high-tax, big government states to low tax, small government states prospectively.

Virtually everyone I talk to is dissatisfied with the Federal government. Politics aside, in my opinion the primary problem is lack of leadership, including the President and the Congress. Any successful enterprise, business, sports teams or government requires strong, effective leadership to be successful. So, with apologoies, to “Peter, Paul and Mary,” “where have all the leaders gone?”

According to Real Clear Politics, President Obama’s average approval rating is 52%, not bad, but not great either. On the other hand, Congress’ approval rating stands at 14%. This is its lowest approval rating ever, and, if you want a laugh, it is lower than either Genghis Kahn or cockroaches. I believe these poor approval ratings can be traced, in large part, to a lack of leadership.

The position of Senate majority and minority leader is not mentioned in the Constitution. The respective roles developed gradually in the early 20th century and were officially promulgated in the 1920s. The House has elected majority and minority leaders since the 19th century. These individuals are elected by their peers at the beginning of each Congress. These leaders have significant power. For example, they schedule legislation, plan the daily agendas and serve as their respective parties’ primary spokespersons. They can also influence committee assignments. As a result, if another congressman wants to pass a bill or add an amendment, they are in a position to support it or block it, sometimes unilaterally.

With these extensive powers, one would think that these leaders could reign in the fringe elements of their respective parties and, therefore, enable Congress to operate effectively and efficiently. After all they could “persuade” a recalcitrant congressman by reminding him that they could bury his favorite bill in committee or re-assign him to a committee counting pencils. Some of the essential attributes of a leader, in any business, are the ability to accommodate, persuade and compromise. One has to convince everyone that they may not get everything they want in a bill, but they should be satisfied with what they do get.

These leaders have to not only control their own party, but also work with the leadership of the other party as well as the President, who may or may not be a political ally. That is the art of diplomacy. Spirited debate is healthy, even desirable. That is what democracy is all about, but, at the end of the day, the idea is to temper your political differences and accomplish something. That is your job. That is why you were elected. Lyndon Johnson once said that the greatest power of the Senate Majority Leader was “the power of persuasion.” Unfortunately, our modern-day leaders have been incapable of that.

Think of some of the great congressional leaders of the recent past – Robert Dole, Barry Goldwater, Everett Dirksen, Lyndon Johnson, Robert Byrd, Tip O’Neill, Ted Kennedy, Hubert Numprey – to name a few. Compare them to the most recent and current leadership – Tom Delay, Nancy Pelosi, Stony Hoyer, John Behner, Mitch McConnell, Harry Reid. Enough said.

CONCLUSION AND PREDICTION

The fringe elements are threatening to splinter the major political parties. Everyone is focusing on the GOP, because they lost the last Presidential election, but the Dems have their factions too. We need better leaders in the Congress. We also need better leadership from the Chief Executive. He has to realize that he is the President of ALL the people.

2013 will be a crucial year with many important issues to be decided – immigration reform, the economy, entitlements, the fiscal cliff to name a few. My sad prediction from the Federal government is more of the same. I say, surprise me. Accomplish something.