Ken's Comments

California is experiencing horrific fires around Los Angeles, so let's use this opportunity to talk about how the Democrat controlled government has run what should be an idyllic paradise into the ground. Let's start by defining "Democrat controlled government." Governor - Democrat for 14 years State Senate - Democrat for 32 years State Assembly - Democrat for 30 of the last 32 years Los Angeles - there has been one Republican Mayor (8 years) since 1961 Los Angeles - Not one Republican on the City Council San Francisco - Democrat mayors since 1964 I could list more cities or city councils but I think that makes the point.   What has single party Government gotten the people of California? High taxes.   Nerdwallet report on taxes High inflation - Cumulative inflation since 2021 was over 20%.   Joint Economic Committee  and  National Business Capital High Homelessness -  Highest number of homeless people, in fact 1/3rd of all homeless people in...

The late Gov. George Wallace said "There's not a dime's worth of difference between the Democrat and Republican parties."  That may have been true in the 1960s but it's not true today.  Let's look at some of the differences. On stimulating the economy - Democrats believe they know best how to spend my money.  Example: the $900 billion stimulus package enacted by Democrats in 2009 and the proposed $3 trillion stimulus offered by President Joe Biden now. Republicans believe I know best how to spend my money.  Example: tax cuts by President Reagan, President George W. Bush, President Donald Trump, all resulting in booming economies rebounding us out of recessionary periods. On racism - When Republicans heard the racist comments by US Representative Steve King (R-Iowa), they urged him to resign and stripped him of his committee assignments.**   Democrats?  Recently a Texas party leader made a racist comment about Sen. Tim Scott.  He offered to resign,...

I think Amazon going to NY is a good thing for a couple of reasons.  It should be good for NY and it should be good for America if elected officials recognize just what happened here.  Ironically, Jeff Bezos may end up the loser here. Amazon going to NY city is good for the city because it creates jobs.  Before there are the jobs with Amazon, there will be construction jobs building the Amazon location.  Then you can bet there will be other growth around that area creating more construction work.  There will be jobs for people to clean and maintain Amazon's building and any new surrounding buildings.  There will need to be jobs for people filling the vending machines in the Amazon building.  When the Amazon employees get tired of eating out of the machines, they will need restaurants and delis and pizza places.  The jobs story doesn't stop there.  Amazon ships stuff - a lot of stuff.  That means trucks and cars and planes and train...

Innocent until proven guilty - President Trump called them beautiful words.  Democrats responded by saying that then Judge Kavanaugh was not in a court of law and that rule does not apply.  That's a true statement, the issue was not before a court of law but I'm not buying that argument. In this case the US Senate had a duty to decide a question - should Judge Kavanaugh's nomination to the US Supreme Court be approved.  A key issue before them was whether he had committed sexual assault on women in his past.  Evidence was presented - both in the form of testimony by witnesses and a report from the FBI. The Senators then had to make a decision. So the question becomes what standard would you use to make the determination?  If it's not innocent until proven guilty then what?  Guilty until proven innocent? Beyond a reasonable doubt, preponderance of the evidence, more likely than not; all of those are measures that are applied after you answer the firs...

Well I was sort of right about the Republican Primary. Two of the Governors did well enough to move on, as I thought.  I was wrong about which one would come in last - thinking it would be Bush not Christie.  That's one I should have seen coming - Christie was a tough guy in the debates but really did not have a solid message.  I was not surprised by Gov. Kasich doing so well.  His name came up a lot when voters when media types were talking to voters. Cruz did drop - but not as far as I thought.  Rubio, on the other hand, did drop like a stone as I predicted. Sorry to see Carly Fiorina drop out of the primary.  I was hoping she'd stay a bit longer and see if getting a space on the main stage of the debate would help boost her numbers.  It was a crime that she was not allowed to the New Hampshire Republican Debate.  Glad to see Dr. Ben Carson is staying in and I hope he does well in South Carolina.  Apparently he's been working that Sta...

Feel the BERN! Bernie Sanders is a huge surprise.  A guy almost 80 years old from a tiny state dominating the youth vote.  He's going to win big in New Hampshire.  That will create a massive momentum shift in his direction.  I think he's in this til the Convention. Hillary is counting on the minority vote in the South but an interesting analysis by Dick Morris points out that while there are some Southern State primaries coming up there are also Northern State primaries coming up.  The potential votes in the near term North and South primaries balance each other out.  He feels the decision won't be made until March 15. The article is at http://www.dickmorris.com/no-firewall-for-clinton/#more-17238 Hillary has lots of cash.  But Bernie has money and has shown the ability to raise more.  That won't give her an advantage. Hillary has the party support behind her and in the end that is what I think will give her the nomination - assuming she...

I'd substituted the words "Liberal" and "Progressive" for "Democratic" but I like this quote, it is so true: “I vote [Liberal/Progressive], because I’m pro-choice … except on schools, guns, trade, health care, energy, smoking, union membership, light bulbs, plastic bags, Walmart, what kinds of food you can eat. …” Think about it.  Liberals oppose school choice.  They want to take away guns.  They want single payer health coverage - no choice for you.  Energy - limit the choices available for power supply.  Smoking - don't let people do it.  Unions - you must belong, no right to work laws.  And the same is true for all the other items on the list. The quote is from an article dated Feb. 3, by Walt Williams on the Human Events site (humanevents.com).

Were I given an opportunity to ask a question of the Republican and Democrat nominees for President, this is the one I'd ask about Benghazi: In your Administration, if American men and women are under siege as they were at Benghazi will there be American airplanes overhead and American soldiers on their way immediately to provide support or will you keep them on the sidelines doing nothing as the Obama Administration did? If any candidate says anything other than a resounding yes that help will be on the way then they are a disgrace.  I don't want "well I wouldn't have people in that kind of trouble" or "that's a hypothetical and before you commit troops you need information" or any other kind of blah, blah. Just came back from the movie "13 Hours" and yes it is a movie so 75 to 90% is not accurate.  But the basic truths dramatized in that movie are that Americans were in trouble and they got no support, zero, zip, nada, none from the...

If Democrat insiders - examples: Hillary Clinton, her campaign, Democrats who want her to win, President Obama and his supporters, and the Liberal media types who support them - really cared about the poor wouldn't they be talking about all the people out of work who have fallen off the Unemployment rolls?  Wouldn't they be saying the unemployment problem is much worse than the unemployment rate reported by the Government?  Wouldn't they be mentioning the fact that the employment levels in the US are lower than they have been in quite some time? If they really cared about the poor, wouldn't they be concerned about the number of people who are employed but who are holding lower paying jobs or who have to take a second job to make ends meet?  You might say arguing for a $15 minimum wage is an attempt to address that problem and that has a modicum of legitimacy.  My counter argument is two-fold.  First I'd rather they were proposing ideas to create better pa...

The following was published in the Town and Country on April 1 - and not this is not an April fools joke. :-) Why the Health Care Reform Legislation really is bad. The health reform law is a road to disaster paved with good intentions. Start with the nice ideas to protect consumers which, coupled with higher taxes, raise the cost of health insurance. To offset higher costs, the law provides subsidies that are nice if you enjoy a lower paying job. Along with costs, taxes and the deficit will go up too. What goes down is health insurance competition. When President Obama started this process he promised a thoroughbred horse instead we got a three legged camel. For example, didn’t President Obama say he wanted the cost of health insurance to go down? Instead costs will go up because the Democrats wanted to be so good to us. Added to the taxes and regulatory red tape they heaped on insurance companies, there are a bunch of new health benefits that you have to pay for regardless of ...

When health care reform started, a key goal was to lower the cost of coverage. Here is the Democrats idea of how to lower health care coverage costs. First the "facts" (the text below is taken from the NY Times): "Before taking account of federal subsidies to help people buy insurance on their own, the [Congressional Budget Office or C.B.O.] said the [Senate health care reform] bill would tend to drive up premiums. But as a result of the subsidies, it said, most people in the individual insurance market would see their costs decline, compared with the costs expected under current law. The subsidies, a main feature of the bill, would cost the government nearly $450 billion in the next 10 years and would cover nearly two-thirds of premiums for people who receive them. "For most people who get health insurance through employers — five-sixths of the total market — the budget office concluded that there would be little change in their premiums relative to the amounts pr...

Conservative talk show hosts usually raise good points but occasionally they raise issues that just make me say "So What." This includes Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Lou Dobbs and others. The issues to which I refer are things that make them sound like whiners or like goofy people. They really need to get a grip on reality and not try to criticize everything President Obama does. Example #1 - Lou Dobbs raising the issue of whether President Obama is an American citizen. Lou said he has no doubt the President is but asked why doesn't the President just release his Birth Certificate and put all this to rest. This is an issue raised by some people who are just looney so why give it any credence. Example #2 - The President goes to Denmark to try to help Chicago win the Olympic games and some conservative commentators go bonkers. My answer - so what! Chicago is an American city - it is also the President's home town. Winning the Olympics would have been a big deal ...

I saw a question on Yahoo Answers about Insurance companies benefitting from being exempt from anti-trust laws. Until I saw that question and some of the subsequent discussion, I was not aware that this was an issue in the health care debate. Actually, the anti-trust exemption has little or no impact on health care, so I did some research and provided an answer. I am reprinting that below. I also debunked comments suggesting Republicans are against capitalism - presumably because Republicans are in favor of the anti-trust exemption. Here is a shortened version of my answer: A summary of my answer is 1) insurance companies are exempt from anti-trust for valid reasons; 2) the exemption is not relevant to health insurance because coverage is not always been written by insurance companies; 3) historical facts say Republicans were the "good guys" and the Democrats were the "bad guys." 1. History of the Exemption In 1869, the US Supreme Court ruled that insurance was...

The common result of a government spending more money than it earns is devaluation of its currency. The US government's deficit increased during the Bush Administration. The Democrats and the Obama Admiminstration lifted that deficit to an enormous new level. A common effect of currency devaluation is inflation. In a bad economy, that is going to be a real problem - just ask people who lived through the Jimmy Carter Administration. First of all, let's spread this blame in a non-partisan fashion. Republicans during the Bush Adminstration years controlled Congress and the White House and they showed no fiscal discipline. The Bush Administration capped this by spending a ton of money in 2008 to try to prevent or curtail the recession - first having a stimulus tax cut at the beginning of the year and then approving the TARP bailout funds - easily a trillion dollars spent last year to prevent the recession. Now, we have the Obama Administration spending another trillion dollars for ...

Interesting to see how President Obama is following in President Bush's footsteps on a number of important policies. For example President Obama is continuing: To bail out AIG The TARP program for Banks To bail out of GM and Chrysler The withdrawal from Iraq Not releasing photos of prisoner abuse Spending significantly more federal dollars than the amount of taxes collected There are others, but time does not permit me to research them all. It shows that President Bush's policies were not so horrible as was suggested by Democratic candidates on the campaign trail. At the same time, one must admit there are some things President Obama has done differently - environmental issues and cracking down on credit card companies would be two areas of difference that are notable and laudable. There are areas, such as rgulatory reform of mortgage lending or types of stock trading, where President Bush did not have a chance to offer solutions

One good aspect of the proposed Obama budget is that Amtrak will get a significant increase in funding. If we truly want to reduce use the of gasoline, we need to make a significant commitment to rail travel. Amtrak can be a significant alternative to driving and air travel if it received proper support. The underfunding of Amtrak by the Bush Administration, and other administrations before it going back to the Reagan Administration, has been a sin. To get people to drive less and still travel, we need to give them an alternative. Trains can be that alternative. We should be promoting Faster trains between major cities - Chicago to St. Louis or Seattle, LA to Las Vegas, are just some routes that come to mind. If people felt the train could be reasonably close in travel time to flying, the comfort, easier security, and fact that trains deliver them downtown, would win over converts. More "car train" routes - trains would be significantly more attractive if the riders kno...

I find the controversy with Rush Limbaugh and President Obama to be ridiculous. All sides are wrong on this. First, President Obama is wrong to allow his staff to focus the public's attention on this. Rush is wrong because his statements opposing the President's policies are too broad. Republicans are wrong for not speaking their minds on the issues when Rush calls them out. None of this is really helping the current situation. Commentators are starting to point out that President Obama's staff are wrong for focusing the public's attention on the controversy with Rush Limbaugh when there are more important issues - like the economy and health care. Ari Fleischer, former Press Secretary under President Bush, also challenged President Obama on the fact that he has repeatedly said - during the campaign and during his inaugural address - that his Administration would put politics aside. Yet his staff's focusing attention on Rush Limbaugh and the Republicans is completel...

As the Bush Administration's term in office winds down we get to see who is interested in doing what is right for the Country versus who is interested in doing what is right for their party on display. President Bush, by all accounts, has been extremely gracious and helpful to the incoming Obama administration. On the other hand, we see actions that indicate Speaker Pelosi will consolidate her control of the House of Representative so that all dissenting opinions will be pushed down. The Country has not benefitted from the extreme partisanship of the Democrats during the last two years of the Bush Administration and the country will not benefit if the Democrats continue this behavior during the Obama Administration. During the post-election period, President Bush has allowed President-elect Obama to move to center stage on economic issues. A political commentator described it as the U.S. having two Presidents -- one on domestic policy (Obama) and one on foreign policy (Bush). Presi...

Remember when Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber used the "S" word (Socialism) in the election? The media was up in arms. Yet she was not far off, just perhaps Gov. Palin and Joe the Plumber were labeling the wrong person. Consider this story from the NY Times today titled Detroit Bailout is set to bring on more U.S. oversight which says: "Congressional Democrats were drafting legislation Sunday for tight government control of the crippled American auto industry, including the possible creation of an oversight board made up of five cabinet secretaries and the head of the Environmental Protection Agency and led by an independent chairman or “car czar.” "Tight government control..." and "...oversight board..." If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... According to the article, this legislation is being negotiated with President Bush. Let's see where he stands on the idea of the Government having tight control over an indus...

Barack Obama won the 2008 election because he and his campaign were very good. They were also a bit lucky in that their campaign was floundering when the economy began its melt-down. But luck, in this case, was where opportunity opportunity met capability. Plus it did not hurt that the Obama campaign cheated when it came to fundraising. Nevertheless, you have to give Sen. Obama and his campaign their due -- they ran a very good campaign and capitalized on the opportunities given to them. A key reason Sen. Obama won, in my opinion, is that he put forth a positive message. Ironically, I'm reminded of the campaign results of Ronald Reagan. Both Reagan and Obama ran campaigns where they talked about what they would do as President and their messages were simple but powerful messages. In both cases, the result was not just the election of a President but a shift in power in Congress. Sen. Obama's campaign was very good, particularly when the economy went into the tank. They...