Thursday, November 17, 2011

The Argument For Not Raising Taxes - Made Well?

Yes, it is true that if we raise taxes we will pull money out of the economy and reduce our growth.  But few people seem to buy it, as they believe the rich would not be phased by paying higher taxes. 

And many of the rich are saying they would be happy to pay more taxes.

So the Republicans look rather foolish and stubborn.  And they appear to be in favor of the rich at the expense of the poor.  That is a bad public relations move for the Republicans.

I think, though, I've never heard this actually articulated, that the Republicans are holding the line on higher taxes is both because of the benefits of not taking money out of the economy but also very much to have government cut spending much more quickly than if it is continued to be fed money to support government inefficiencies and noneconomic causes.  Of course, both parties are committed to providing sufficient safety nets and safety, but the Republicans are the party standing (too?) strongly for fiscal responsibility.

If the Republicans could strongly reaffirm that, yes, they will protect the citizens no matter what, then people might accept the other argument.

The other argument, as stated above, is that we cannot feed the pig any more taxes and it will continue to be too fat.  The reason is not to protect or favor the rich, but to cut spending more quickly and to not pull money out of the economy for government spending.

The confusion by the public is understandable, if the Republicans are not clear - and given that the Democrats are obscuring the issue by accusing the Republicans of being heartless (not giving away things to the people) and of favoring the rich, implying that it is because the rich contribute to their campaigns. 

Sanity will probably not be the dominant force in politics, so we need to state clearly the reasons for something so that people can understand and thereby be empowered to make better choices. 

What do you think should be done that would be effective in increasing the sanity and the ability to make informed choices?

The Rational NonPolitician

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Income Disparity - The Real Reason

Even our President appears to blame the rich for incomes of the non-rich not rising.  I wonder if he is just not being advised of the natural economics that caused this? 

In a free market, competition and demand will determine the prices (including the price for services).

When we had a distinct advantage where we (the West) had the industrialization advantage and knew how to market and distribute goods, we prospered - because we were more productive.  We had great advantage for many years. 

But eventually other countries began to integrate the technology that had been developed, to become more organized for business and they began to compete.  Of course, their wages were relatively low.  Therefore, the business went to them - they were simply more competitive in price.  

Gradually over the last 30 years, the value of what the West could offer was less and less, as we could no longer compete.  So there was a downward influence on wages.  Actually, the wages driven down were at the lower end, where other countries could compete.  High skill manufacturing jobs dropped 17%, while low skill manufacturing jobs declined 34%.    But these other countries, so far, have not competed as much in the higher-value knowledge areas - those wages have risen, creating an even wider income disparity.

Meanwhile, quite naturally and understandably, the wealth of the rich compounded basically because they were risking and investing - and professionals and knowledge workers had their compensation increase, while all the other wages did not. 

While this is strictly economics, people have blamed the rich for it.  But clearly this is "wrong cause", where the cause is neither logically or correctly identified.

See Discussion On Income Disparities.

The solution does not lie in taking wealth away from others, but in empowering as many as possible so that there are more people contributing and are in the higher value areas - and increasing the size of the pie, rather than just splitting it differently.   And the only way to do that is to educate people in the higher skill areas and direct those resources to higher value areas, as we will not be competitive with the lower skill items that other countries can do more economically. 

Hopefully we can use rational thinking and analysis to direct our efforts - and stop the irrational and political nonsense.  What do you think?

The Rational NonPolitician

Monday, November 14, 2011

Political Expediency - Delay of pipeline til 2013?

Is this President putting an election above the country? 

1.  The route was approved after extensive studies.

2.  The jobs produced would start at 20,000 and go to 500,000, for the Americans.

3.  It allows us to become less dependent on oil from hostile source.

4.  The stand of environmentalists objecting, President Obama put the decision on whether to approve the pipeline to 2013 - after the election. 

5.  Speeding up approval/permit processes is what any country must do if it is to achieve prosperity - and this is another negative indicator on Obama.

If he is indeed doing this for political purposes this does border on being treasonous.

Follow this story and see what is more likely to be the case.  More data below.

The Rational NonPolitician


During high unemployment in the USA in a world-wide recession, the Keystone XL pipeline would start with some 20,000 jobs with another 400,000 to come on steam later down the road.

Canada, who supplies more oil to the US than any other country, also its largest trading partner is proof positive that America does not have to rely on the Middle East for its oil.


For months, the conventional wisdom had been that a presidential permit for Keystone XL was inevitable; Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in October 2010 that she was “inclined” to approve it because it was better to get oil from Canada than from less-friendly nations. The State Department then said in August stating that TransCanada’s proposed route is the preferred option.

The department had already examined routes further west and northeast of Nebraska that would have avoided the Sand Hills area and had released a final supplemental environmental review in August that said TransCanada’s proposed route was the preferred option and would have minimal effect on the environment.

“This project is too important to the U.S. economy, the Canadian economy and the national interest of the United States for it not to proceed,” Girling said a statement.


Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune had recently told reporters Obama’s decision on Keystone would “have a very big impact” on whether the nation’s largest environmental group funnels resources more toward congressional races rather than the race for the White House.


The delay would "effectively kill" the project, said Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune. "The carrying costs are too high, and there's no certainty that at the end of 18 months the pipeline would be approved at all."

Russ Girling, chief executive officer of Calgary-based TransCanada, who had said rerouting delays might kill the project, said yesterday the company remains “confident Keystone XL will ultimately be approved.”

Canada’s ambassador in Washington, Gary Doer,   told reporters in Ottawa that he expected the project to be approved if judged on “merit,” rather than ”noise.”

The deferral on Keystone XL is a blow to the government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who called U.S. approval of the pipeline a “no brainer.” Canadian officials underestimated the strength of resistance to the project by Nebraska farmers and environmentalists, political and foreign-policy experts said.

Canadian Finance Minister, Flaherty, 61, will travel later this week to Beijing, where he will discuss increasing energy exports to China and facilitating investment in Canadian natural-resource assets.

“The decision to delay it that long is actually quite a crucial decision. I’m not sure this project would survive that kind of delay,” Flaherty said yesterday in an interview at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Honolulu. “It may mean that we may have to move quickly to ensure that we can export our oil to Asia through British Columbia.”
The delay would "effectively kill" the project, said Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune. "The carrying costs are too high, and there's no certainty that at the end of 18 months the pipeline would be approved at all." TransCanada wants to build the 1,700-mile pipeline to carry oil extracted from Canadian oil sands to U.S. refineries.

Japan and China 'keen' for Alberta oil

"Basically all of our energy exports are currently going to the United States. We have one customer. So it is a major fundamental strategic objective of Canada to diversify our customer base," Oliver said.

"I was in China and Japan and I just got back yesterday. And let me tell you there’s a keen interest in our resources in both those countries. The Japanese are interested in our natural gas, the Chinese in our oil and gas."



Friday, November 11, 2011

Those Corporations Are Greedy - And They're To Blame

"The corporations are greedy.  They just want to make a billion more by shipping jobs overseas.  They should not do that.  They should hire Americans here.  It is their moral obligation." 

That is what she said to me.

However, is it right for others to tell these people what to do and then get mad at them for not doing what we want them to do?  Was there any agreement made?   Who are we to determine what someone else should do?  Do we want to get into a totalitarian nation forcing things on others and controlling them?

Do we have the right to take money away from the shareholders of the company?  Are they the ones responsible for giving other people jobs here in the US and giving up their money?   Do we want pensions for workers to have less money in them from their investments so they can't retire as well?

If this is a moral obligation, does the person who said it strictly buy American?  If we all were careful to do that, there would be millions more jobs.   But it appears that we try to buy as cheaply as we can.  But don't we have a moral obligation to give up some of our bucks so that Americans can have more jobs?

Isn't this is the culture of blame and irresponsibility.  Isn't this also irrational thinking without a sound basis, based on assumptions that we are right and have the right to tell others what to do?  Though many people are making corporations wrong or bad, does that mean they are correct in asserting that as if it were fact?

If it was a master economist who said it, is he right?  Or is he guilty of fallacious thinking, making up assumptions, and insisting with no basis that others do as he wishes.  (Krugman and Reich do that.)

Yes, global competition does drive wages down and take jobs that Americans might want to have.  But it is not "greedy" corporations who are plotting against us, depriving us of wages and jobs. We cannot expect somebody else to be responsible for our jobs.   And how much profit is too much?  Isn't that the world of judgment and blame and resentment - which is part of the world of irresponsibility?  And isn't it irresponsibility that has caused alot of our problems?

Read about the actual cause of the income and wealth inequality, but don't buy into the "therefore they're 'bad'" argument of the blamers.   I don't see any healthy thinking in taking money from others, though I do see the selfish reason for doing so.  Of course, we don't want the "fat cats" to be selfish.  (One I left off of this draft is that we allow illegal immigration, which brings in more people without educations, which in turn creates more poverty and more inequality of incomes!)

See The Actual Reason For Income And Wealth Disparity.

Note that the person quoted above is not using Rational Thinking and is also not operating from a Personal Responsibility viewpoint.     

Yours toward creating a cooperative nation based on rational thinking and decisions such that we do that which makes us powerful,

The Rational NonPolitician

Friday, November 4, 2011

Obama - Is fiscal responsibility important?

On the site (Those Who Benefit Pay), one of the key values is personal responsibility as opposed to co-dependency and entitlement, as those latter two cause not only actual "seeable" problems but also psychological problems and lack of personal development.  And these, in turn, have effects on others.  If we all were more productive and responsible, the size of the pie would be much, much greater and we all would be better off.

Part of personal responsibility, of course, is being responsible about your money and your spending.
This applies to a person, a business, and a government.

And the lack of responsibility in many small things often add up to or are at least symptoms of overall irresponsibility.


1.  more than $50 trillion of National Debt plus unfunded liabilities to its citizens for Social Security and Medicare (See Deficits/Debt summary page for overview)
2.  $2 trillion of income
3.  Over $3 trillion of spending per year

there is obvious reason for concern.  (Imagine a person being in such financial shape.)

If we have a President who submits a budget that doesn't deal with it, and it is voted down 97-0 in the Senate, do we have an adult in the White House who is taking fiscal responsibility and/or has adequate financial knowledge?

If he has to be forced by the Republicans to address the debt and deficits and does nothing otherwise is this fiscal responsibility?

If he then mentions we have to fix Social Security but never does anything concrete about it, is this fiscal responsibility? (If he gives a "tax holiday" to taxpayers but doesn't see that that makes the fund be less funded, incurring more problems down the road then does he not understand tradeoffs and costs?)

When a President, without approval of Congress, lowers interest on student loans and makes them forgivable in 20 years, does he not realize that someone else has to pay for that?  Such as taxpayers ( because the government has less money coming into its coffers).

When a President, without approval of Congress, sets up a mortgage relief program where old mortgages can be replaced with new lower interest mortgages does not see that there is an additional loss incurred by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for each cancellation and replacement, we have a problem.   And later we'll have to add to the incredible bailout (so far over $180 billion, but expected to go above $500 billion) of those two government guaranteed agencies.

This may be politically good, as everyone likes to be given benefits and not pay for them.  Or it may, which is just as harmful, be financial naivete on the President's part, where he sees only how he is being charitable without seeing the greater harm that inevitably, cumulatively, will be wrought upon this nation.

Fiscal responsibility is absolutely mandatory.  And I hope we stop demonizing those who have made proposals for being more fiscally responsible - and just accept their ideas and modify them if needed.

Objectively, we cannot continue to have this fiscally irresponsible and/or naive President in office.  That sounds political, but all facts point to this.  He should be in a different job where his brilliance and leadership fit, but not in this job.  (See Evaluation Of The Obama Presidency.)

Submittted for your consideration and feedback, respectfully,

The Rational NonPolitician

Thursday, November 3, 2011

How should Medicare be paid for and to whom?

[Below, we ask you to respectfully and conscientiously consider the following for the good of the country toward coming to better solutions for us all.]

Given the guarantee that those who can't afford it otherwise will be covered as well as they are presently under Medicare, I would choose the following:

____ Yes, ___ No.   To have the government pay to a private insurer, with rules to assure mandatory coverage equivalent to what is there now.  This is anticipated to lower costs because of competition.

____ Yes, ___ No.   To have personal responsibility and to see what the costs are so that I make more responsible choices.  This has been proven to work better than where people have no responsibility and no awareness of the costs.  (See what happened in Indiana, below, before you make your choice.)

____ Yes, ___ No.    I believe the government is a good manager of services.

____ Yes, ___ No.    I only believe the role that government can do adequately is pay out the money.

Checkmark this if you agree with it:

___ If I am guaranteed the same benefits, I do not buy the accusation that Medicare is being taken away from us. 

Express any concerns you still have:

____ I'm not sure that competition will work to lower costs.

Other comments:  

Please send your answers to your congresspersons.

The Rational NonPolitician

P. S. I recommend that a polling organization do a statistically valid poll to see what the choices are once a person is more informed.


Overall, participants in our new plan ran up only $65 in cost for every $100 incurred by their associates under the old coverage... It turns out that, when someone is spending his own money alone for routine expenses, he is far more likely to ask the questions he would ask if purchasing any other good or service:

Indiana covers the premium for the plan. The intent is that participants will become more cost-conscious and careful about overpayment or overutilization.

What we found:  individually owned and directed health-care coverage has a startlingly positive effect on costs for both employees and the state.

Most important, we are seeing significant changes in behavior, and consequently lower total costs.

They were much more likely to use generic drugs than those enrolled in the conventional plan,
resulting in an average lower cost per prescription of $18.

They were admitted to hospitals less than half as frequently as their colleagues.  Differences in health status between the groups account for part of this disparity, but consumer decision-making is, we've found, also a major factor.

Source:  WSJ article 

You, the public, make the choice on Medicare

We ask you to vote on the following, which affects only people under 55 on the future of entitlement programs you pay into.

Fact:  There are fewer dollars from taxes going into a theoretical program than are taken out, by about a 2 to 1 ratio.  One could, for instance, have a tough time justifing paying in $100,000 and drawing out $200,000.  Does that make sense?

You as a citizen can now vote on how to handle this.  Which do you vote for?

___ 1.  Pay more into the program so it will have financial integrity by having enough funds to cover costs.  Keep payouts the same with no changes.
___ 2. Reduce the payouts, so people are inadequately covered.
___ 3. Not pay in any more, nor reduce any payouts, and let future generations make up the difference for us, plus cover their own costs
___ 4. Not changing pay-ins or adequate coverage, but reallocating the benefits to the poor by giving reduced or no benefits to those who are at various levels of higher income, who can afford to pay more for their own care.

What are your choices?  Note that you could make a choice to combine some of them, such as paying in more plus also allocating benefits differently.  (There is another choice  also:  to have a later age for coverage to start.)

You choose.  Let your Congressman know what you will accept.

It is up to you, the Citizens, to responsibly understand the choices and then to actually make them.  So you are hereby asked what your choice is.

The Rational NonPolitician

The next blog is how to pay for the benefits, without reducing them at all.

(I would recommend also that a polling organization take a statistically valid poll as to the choices once one has been informed.)

Consider also reading from the site:Medicare, section called Which Of These Would You Support, If You Think It Out?

Guarantees to those over 55 - Be clear!

One of the key lies that are believed out there, even supported rather ignorantly by an ad by AARP (amazingly enough - what is going on?), is that older people's Social Security and Medicare benefits would be affected by any proposed changes.

The Republican Party should, without talking about anything else (in order to not confuse people with more than one subject), individually across the spectrum say "we guarantee that there will be no changes for people 55 or over, period.  Please let us know if there is any question about that?" 

Doubt on this is the key issue that is causing alienation of the senior citizens to the Republican Party.  Correct it, stomp it out, make it absolutely clear and completely known!

Then, see the next blog on "choices" on how people under 55 will be covered - and make this point clear. 

The Rational NonPolitician

If the "third rail" (Social Security and Medicare) is not dealt with that will be the height of irresponsibility.  I understand why the Democrats will not address the issue as it has caused Ryan immense problems, as the only responsible person to make a concrete proposal.  (In the railroad, the third rail, if touched, electrocutes one.)

Mr. Obama, will you stand up against such lies?

Scenario in a Presidential Election Debate, Romney to Obama:

"Mr. Obama, please allow me to finish this and then I request the courtesy of a reply.

Mr. Obama, do you understand that if a consulting firm is going in to save firms that layoffs may be required to save the company - and that that is what will save thousands of jobs that would have been lost otherwise if the company had gone out of business?

If you do, then will you stand still for the lie that I was a destroyer of jobs, when actually there were many jobs saved?

In the name of ethics and decency, are you willing to call off the dogs and to speak out publicly to tell your supporters to cease and desist in this lie?"

Make sense?

Yours for standing for ethics and decency,

The Rational NonPolitician

Conduct a campaign consistent with American greatness

“My campaign will be a campaign of American greatness.” 

[I recognize that we can campaign on division and attack, but, the speaker of the above continues, saying what follows.]

“I believe instead we need to draw together, that we need campaigns and leaders who will draw on the greatness of the American spirit, as opposed to people who will divide us, and look for scapegoats, and demonize fellow Americans, or find a street that’s responsible for our problems.”

Now, that's what I call an adult message.  I believe Romney when he said it, as I saw him immediately pull a negative ad re: Perry that his campaign people put out.

So, Mr. Obama, are you willing to make a pledge to do the same and to pull all lies and false negatives immediately and to discourage them?  Or will you do what is politically expedient?

The Rational NonPolitician

P. S.  Mr. Obama, I think you would be reelected for sure if you stepped up to acting as an adult, letting go of the divisive speech and half truths (where the essential other side is omitted).  And then you could be a President that I could have some rational confidence in...

"Occupy" movement - where is the limit on hurting other people?

I wrote about  "Occupiers Of Wall Street - Listening - And Educating" on October 18th.

Yes, they are expressing their free speech rights, but does that include hurting others and running up big bills?

They are asking for benefits and compassion, yet hurting businesses and costing them and the cities hundreds of thousands of dollars.

They even shut down the Port of Oakland, depriving fellow "99%ers" from their daily wages. 

Yes, there must be listened to and there must be free speech, but we must draw the line at other people being hurt and the damage that is being caused. 

I believe that a true leader is needed here, who will be the compassionate but wise adult in the room.  We should have a President who steps up to the plate, even if there is political advantage for him in repeating his 1% against the 99% theme and inciting voters to go to him.

He has an ethical choice here

To do what is best for the nation or
To do what is best for his election

A full blown speech and "talking to" is merited here - one that does not exploit the politics but encourages solution and cooperation.  The President has been light on both, although he advocated them in his campaign speeches, as is pointed out in the chronicling of the President's moves in Ron Suskind's book Confidence Men.

Such a speech would express compassion (a good thing to show to be reelected) and understanding, laying out their concerns and pointing out that particular races, creeds, and types should not be blamed but that the system has to be fixed to support what works.  And then he needs to lay out what will be done and can be done, calling on them to seek positive solutions and to be responsible for producing results as productive citizens operating without blame.

Is there an adult in the room?   Will we draw a line between where someone can flail their arms and where they are hitting us in the nose (beyond the boundary of no harm)?

Will we begin to have an adult conversation that is absolutely necessary and will lead us further to creating a strong America, with each citizen stepping up to pitch in?   If so, we can have a great future.  If not, then...

I hope there is a rational choice made here.

The Rational NonPolitician
( )

I voted for Obama (see the site for why) and I had hoped he would do what he said he would do.  But now all fact finding points to his not following through on his promises plus being unable to govern nor to have the perspective to be able to make the right choices.  Unfortunately, "on the job training" is not effective for a President.  

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Are Gay Civil Unions or Marriage Inevitable?

Yes, they are inevitable. 

According to a recent Gallup Survey 53% of Americans favor legal gay marriage.  And as younger people become voters this percentage will increase.

So, those opposing gay marriage would best rationally just accept that gay unions with the equivalent of full marriage rights are inevitable - and being righteous about it will do anyone any good - I think Jesus, Buddha, Mohammad, and the Dalai Lama would agree that righteousness and make wrong are not "right" acts.

The best that can be accomplished is to protect the term "marriage" for those who extremely value it as being a unique family unit.  I think the majority of Americans do not have the right to trod on others - especially since there is another way to give equal rights to gay people.

The rational choice is to have a legal name such as civil unions for the gay person's full rights and to leave intact the term marriage for the traditional meaning, not changing the definition nor imposing the majority's will on others.

So, give up opposing such unions for gay people.

And, for others, please consider honoring others' beliefs and even holy values by giving them the respect of keeping intact the meaning of the family value of marriage.

This involves only a small compromise on both sides and accomplishes creating a greater good overall for the people involved - and that is what ethics is.  And Ethics is how we should run our country and our lives.  (Read Ethics.)

Will rationality prevail?  Will you support rationality?   What do you think about all of this?

Let's just be settled on this and accept the inevitable in a gracious way while being respectful of others...and let's get on with the key matters that will determine our future, creating an America of strong values and great effectiveness for producing financial abundance and benefit for all...and for creating greater happiness and health.

The Rational NonPolitician

Are abortion rights endangered?

It would appear from all the data that those who are concerned with abortion rights being taken away have nothing to worry about. 

AND it is also true that those who do not want the federal government to pay for abortions have nothing to worry about. 

These are areas of intense emotional importance to many people.  That's just fine. 

But it is not fine for politicians to exploit this nor for anybody to not look at the facts and stick to rational discussion of it - neither should be acceptable if we want a well functioning society.

Nancy Pelosi flunks the objectivity, fact-based, rational test.  She accuses the Republicans of wanting to deny care to women who need abortions where there life is threatened, that they will be left to die on the hospital room floor.  It is not true by any reasonable interpretation of the actual words in the Protect Life Act recently passed in the House 251 to 172.  The exaggerative language is readily apparent to any discriminating thinker.

On Sep. 9, 2009, President Obama told Congress that under his legislation, “no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.”  The new proposed law only codifies his executive order, as executive orders can be changed at any time.
(See the contents, summary or full text: Act - and judge for yourself.) 

A March Pew Research Center poll shows that 54 percent of Americans surveyed support the right to a legal abortion in all or most cases.  As more and more young people enter adulthood, this is likely to increase, as that age group strongly favors abortion rights.   The Right To Choose will stay in place, so it is not wise for the "other side" to do battle against it - any temporary restriction would be overridden by popular movement.

About 2/3 of Americans are against federal funding of abortions.  That, too, appears to be irreversible.

In both cases, it is wisest to now focus attention on what we can change, while saying a version of the Serenity Prayer. 

Or, like the old song says, but in regard to these two issues:  "Don't worry, be happy...". 

Instead, focus on which candidate for President can actually run the country effectively to create a strong America for the future.

The Rational NonPolitician

Tuesday, November 1, 2011

The "Lie" about the Obama Jobs Plan, Student Loan Plan, and etc.

I am saddened to see non-complete, non-informative, non-truth rhetoric from the President.

He blames the Republicans for not wanting people to have jobs, which, is, of course, preposterous.  He fails to mention that the non-starter, which he knew was a fixed position, was the increase in taxes that the Republicans would not accept. 

Instead of funding the jobs bill with expenditure cuts elsewhere in order to keep balance, he chose the unworkable route of more taxes.  The effect of adding a 5.6% tax for the over million dollars a year group would be $45 billion a year, which, in the "new math", would amount to $450 billion over 10 years, which is the amount of the cost of the jobs bill.

So, this would mean the deficit is increased by $405 billion this year, since that amount will be coming in over the remaining nine years.  Undisclosed fact - and I am saddened by this modus operandi - not angered, but tremendously disappointed in the lack of true leadership, of which I think truth-telling is a major element.

His beneficence on shortening the time before student debts are forgiven simply allows for not having that money paid back to the federal government, which creates a hole that must be filled by passing the burden on to future taxpayers.  (See Student Loan discussion.)

His 'Mortgage Relief' beneficence in allowing people who are up to date on underwater mortgage loans passes a burden to taxpayers, as there is no free lunch.  This burden is not obvious, though it is logical.  To have a new lower interest loan an old loan must be cancelled, which causes a loss.  In this case, the loss is to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which will result in adding to the bailout costs, largely not discussed, which are estimated to be the biggest of any in history.   The estimated costs will be between $450 billion to well over a trillion dollars.

When we relieve Americans of paying payroll taxes for Social Security, guess what happens.  The Social Security fund is then short by that amount.  And that means that future generations must make up the difference. 

And we don't see these discrepancies in the pitches that are being made, as they are being made without proper and complete disclosure.  The irony is that this government is pushing for better consumer disclosure and other disclosures - but it is being out of integrity with its own disclosures.

A culture of responsibility is the only solution, rather than a culture of sales pitches and being irresponsible for the consequences that will inevitably, predictably occur.  

And I am saddened and disappointed by all of this - and I stand for picking leaders who will face the responsibility with full integrity.  We do not have a leader who is doing that...

Yours for rational choices,

The Rational NonPolitician