Election Issues 2020: Climate Change

 

As election day draws near I have been wondering why some very, very rich people are not only supporting Democratic candidate Joe Biden but contributing record amounts of money to his campaign. After all, he is threatening to raise taxes especially on those making over $400000 per year.

 

Could there be more to his appeal than meets the eye? Billionaires like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates did` not become rich by neglecting to get good returns on their investments or their political contributions. Billionaire Michael Bloomburg, the former mayor of New York City, is investing millions to help Biden carry the pivotal state of Florida. Is it just hatred of President Trump? 

 

As the old saying goes. “Follow the Money.” Could it be that these very rich Democrats see an opportunity to profit even more by supporting Progressive causes? After all, if you can substantially increase your assets by gaining access to government stimulus money, why not pay a little more in Federal income taxes?

 

Michael Schellenberger, a committed environmentalist, describes how billionaires have profited from climate change activism in his new book, Apocalypse Never.  Subtitled, “Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All,” the book offers a balanced assessment on climate change and how to deal with it. However, he also details how well connected politicians and venture capitalists have profited from government environmental spending.  

 

He quotes John Doerr, a venture capitalist, who found an upside in climate change.“Green technology—going green—is bigger than the Internet,” Doerr said. “It could be the biggest economic opportunity of the twenty-first century.”

 

During the administration of President Obama, Shellenberger admits that he was involved in an environmental program that could be regarded as a forerunner of the Green New Deal. But things did not work out as he expected. He writes:

 

Between 2009 and 2015, the U.S. government spent about $150 billion on our Green New Deal, $90 billion of it in stimulus money.

 

Stimulus money wasn’t evenly distributed but rather clustered around donors to President Obama and the Democratic Party. At least ten members of Obama’s finance committee and more than twelve of his fundraising bundlers, who raised a minimum of $100,000 for Obamo, benefitted from $16.4 of the $20.5 billion in stimulus loans.

 

Fisker, which produced some of the world’s first luxury hybrid vehicles, received $529 million in federal loans; Doerr was one of Fisker’s major investors. It eventually went bankrupt, costing taxpayers 132 million. … (217-218)

 

But the loans were just one program among many others that funneled money to well-connected Obama donors without creating many jobs. The most famous of the green investments was when DOE gave $575 million to a solar company called Solyndra, 35 percent of which was owned by a billionaire donor and fundraising bundler for Obama, George Kaiser.

 

Nobody wanted to invest in Solyndra because its panels were too expensive, which independently minded DOE staffers pointed out. They were overruled, however, and the loan was approved.

 

The people who benefitted most from the green stimulus were billionaires, including Musk, Doerr, Kaiser, Khosla, Ted Turner, Pat Stryker, and Paul Tudor Jones. Vinod Khosla led Obama’s “India Policy team” during the 2008 election and was a major financial contributor to Democrats. His companies received more than $399 million.

 

However, few Democratic Party donors outperformed Doerr when it came to receiving federal stimulus loans. More than half of the companies in his Genentech portfolio… received loans or outright grants from the government. “Considering that the acceptance rate in most of the Department of Energy programs was often 10 percent or less, this is a stunning record,” wrote an investigative reporter. (218)

 

Shellenberger’s research led him to conclude that nuclear power is the answer not only to creating a cleaner environment but also to providing for the world’s expanding energy needs. But he documents the efforts of pseudo-scientific activists and self- interested politicians like former Governor Jerry Brown of California to shut down nuclear power in California. Brown and his family were heavily invested in fossil fuels like oil and natural gas.

 

Apocalypse Never does offer solutions to serious environmental problems but it is also a sad story when it details how many have profited by alarming people all over the globe. He cites his own example as typical of many:

 

I was drawn toward the apocalyptic view of climate change twenty years ago. I can see now that my heightened anxiety about climate change reflected underlying anxiety and unhappiness in my own life that had little to do with climate change or the state of the environment.

 

Nothing is sadder that the plight of now-famous teenager Greta Thunberg who, like many other children, has been traumatized by climate alarmists. She claims that her childhood was taken from her by these fears, and truly believes that the human race will be extinct in 15 years. Who taught her that?

 

In Apocalypse Never Michael Shellenberger concludes that there is much more reason for optimism than pessimism. 

 

Conventional air pollution peaked fifty years ago in developed nations and carbon emissions have peaked or will soon peak in most others.

 

The amount of land we use for meat production is declining. Forests are growing back and wildlife is returning.

 

There is no reason poor nations can’t develop and adapt to climate change. Deaths from extreme events should keep declining….

 

None of this means there isn’t work to do. There is plenty. But much if not most of it has to do with accelerating those existing, positive trends, not trying to reverse them in a bid to return to low-energy agrarian societies.

 

The people who use the threat of climate change to make fortunes or gain votes should be ashamed of themselves. 

 

### 

Debate Debacle 2020

  

      

In their second and final debate I gave President Trump a “B+” and Democratic challenger Joe Biden a “D”. I think it was obvious to all that the President won the debate. Even left leaning commentators could find little to blame in his performance. One commentator even said it was the President’s best ever debate performance. Using sports talk, the President was always playing offense while challenger Joe Biden was playing defense. Whether in sports or in politics you will lose if you are always playing defense.

I gave Biden a “D” not because of his politics or policy plans but because of what he did not say or do. Not only was he unable to mount an offense, his defense was weak. At one point in the debate the question had turned to China. Nevertheless, Biden turned to face the camera and the viewing audience and launched into an obviously prepared set piece about ordinary people sitting around their kitchen tables. 

 

The President immediately caught him up and said something like, “What happened to China? How did we get to the kitchen table.?” Then came the stunning and devastating blow: 

 

“You’re just a politician.”

 

It was even more stunning because the President uttered it calmly and matter of factly. He did not raise his voice, there was no malice and maybe even a hint of sadness. “You’re a politician.” It was a slap in the face and Biden just took it.

 

When the discussion turned to the enrichment of the Biden family by deals in the Ukraine and China, the President calmly called Biden a “crooked politician,” and again there was no response. Biden just took it. 

 

Later, the President doubled down. In response to Biden’s repeated claims that there were many things wrong in America and that he had “plans” to fix them, the President said, “Joe, you had eight years to fix them. You did nothing.” And then came the crusher: “Joe, you are the reason I ran four years ago. If you hadn’t done such a bad job, I would never have run for the Presidency.”

 

Slap, slap, slap. Incredibly Biden did not respond. He just stood there and took this damning indictment. He could only bring himself to mutter something like, “I was only Vice-President.” In effect, he threw his old boss, former President Obama, under the bus.  

 

I would have given the President an “A” except for the fact that he failed to capitalize on a great opportunity at the end.

 

For her last question Kristen Welker, the moderator lobbed this softball at both candidates. I paraphrase but she asked, “Assuming you won the election, what would you say in your inaugural address to those who had voted against you?”  It seemed to me that both gave a stock answer and that the President settled for a single when he could have hit the ball out of the park.

 

He should have been prepared to say, when given such an opportunity, “I know that many of you who voted against me do not like me. Many even hate me. I know that you will not believe anything I say. But I am reminded of the conman’s attempt to trick his victim: ‘Who ae you gonna believe, me or your own two eyes?’ I will not ask you to believe me, but in the next four years I will ask you to use your own two eyes in looking at the actual work of my administration.

 

Just look through your own eyes and not through the eyes of the media which no longer brings you straight, unfiltered, no-spin news. Use your own eyes to see how you, your family, your neighbors, and your community are doing.  Are your own sons and daughters fighting in endless foreign wars, or are they coming home at last? Is a vaccine available to all for the coronavirus? Is the air and water in your community clean and healthy? Are your childrens' schools open and safe? Are you financially more secure? How is your 401k and IRA doing? Has your home increased in value? 

 

Is the America that you see every day as bad as my opponents claim? Most of you live in communities that are the envy of the world. That is why so many people want to come here. Etc. etc.

 

I watched the debate until the end when the candidates’ wives joined their husbands on stage. It was really sad to see Joe Biden’s wife join her 78-year-old husband after this long ordeal. What could she have been thinking?

 

###

Election Issues 2020: Coronavirus

 

In recent debates Democratic candidates Joseph Biden and Kamala Harris have made the coronavirus the number one issue in their campaign. They have accused President Trump of being responsible for the 225000 deaths attributable to the coronavirus in this nation. It is clear that millions of ordinary people share this view but what is the scientific evidence for this accusation?

 

Those who hold the President responsible should at least answer some simple questions. First, what explains the different results in the various states? In my home state of Connecticut over 2,000,000 tests have been administered and 64000 people have tested positive. So far 4554 deaths have been attributed to the coronavirus. In Kansas, half way across the country, there have been 74000 positive cases but only 872 have died. Connecticut has 1277 deaths per million, and Kansas only 299 per million. Is there a scientific answer?

 

Similarly, New Jersey and Arizona have had about the same number of positive cases, but New Jersey has had three times as many deaths (16339) as Arizona (5830). New Jersey leads the nation with deaths per million at 1840, while Arizona’s is 801 per million. What can explain this difference? Is it politics or science?

 

What can explain the fact that deaths in New York (33497), New Jersey (16339), and Connecticut (4554) match the totals in California (17001), Texas (17599), and Florida (16025), the three most populous state in the country? Democrats certainly do not blame the ineptitude of governors in those blue states.

 

How can President Trump be blamed for results so disparate? How can a national action or inaction produce such different results? Did the Trump administration somehow manage to do better in some states than others?  If it’s not politics, maybe there is a scientific explanation.

 

The coronavirus recognizes neither state lines nor borders. So far over 8 Million people have tested positive but only 225289 of those infected have died. In other words, about 3% of those who tested positive have died. But wait a minute! Scientists have insisted from the beginning that the actual cases must far exceed the number of confirmed cases. Lately, they have been multiplying the actual cases by ten which means that they believe that about 80 Million people in the USA have been infected with the dreaded disease.  Obviously, since only 225289 have died, almost 80,000,000 have survived. Should President Trump be given credit for that? 

 

Great Britain and Italy, countries with nationalized health systems, and with only a fifth of the population of the USA, have done much worse than the USA. In those countries over 12 percent of those who have tested positive have died. if we had the same fatality rate as those two countries, we would have had over 800000 deaths by now. 

 

Finally, about 85 percent of those who have died in the USA have been over age 75. Most of them had what are called co-morbidities, other health conditions that weakened their immune systems. Many of those seniors were in nursing homes. Studies have shown that for one reason or another the immune systems of these Seniors was compromised. Most actually died from an over-reaction of the immune system that led to pneumonia. Is it scientific to say that President Trump’s policies caused Seniors to die while sparing children? Was it President Trump’s order that sent infected seniors back to nursing homes in New York?

 

Blaming President Trump for 225000 deaths is not only unscientific, but also dishonest and downright despicable. Many people cannot bring themselves to like or vote for the President for things he has said, but nothing he has said has ever been worse than the charge that he is personally responsible for the deaths of over 225000 people during the pandemic. 

 

###

Election Issues 2020: Supreme Court

  

      

 

It would appear that the Senate will confirm President Trump’s nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court this week. She has flown through the hearing process with ease and no one seriously questioned her qualifications, experience, or knowledge of the law. 

 

Democratic complaints that her nomination came too close to the upcoming election can be dismissed with a simple observation. If the shoe had been on the other foot, and a Democratic President, with a Democratic controlled Senate at his disposal, had made the nomination, no Democrat would have argued that the process should be put off until after the people had decided. Just four years ago, President Obama did not hesitate to try and fill a vacancy in an election year. 

 

In our Constitution the President has a duty, not just a right, to appoint a judge to fill a vacancy. The Senate has a duty to advise and consent. It is neither a right nor a duty of the “people” to appoint judges. 

 

Trump haters who refuse to acknowledge that the President has done one good thing in his first term, must admit that the nomination of Judge Coney Barrett is of the highest quality, even if they dislike her conservative values. She has been on the Appeals Court for three years and no one questions her record there.

 

When she was confirmed for the Court of Appeals she was criticized for being an “orthodox” Catholic as if this meant that she was a kind of fanatic. I recall Senator Dick Durbin asking her if she was not just a Catholic but an "orthodox" one. 

 

 The implication of the question, aside from raising the issue of a religious test for office, was that Amy Coney Barrett would be rigid and doctrinaire as a judge. However, as a lifelong Catholic I can say that orthodoxy means just the opposite in the Catholic tradition.

The Latin root of the word orthodoxy is ortho which just means straight, or straighten. An orthodontist straightens our teeth and an orthopedist straightens our bones. For Catholics it should mean holding a middle position between the extremes of puritanism and legalism on one hand, and laissez-faire or anything goes-ism on the other hand.

Moreover, the orthodox Catholic while trying to steer a straight course will seek to trim sails when things are tending toward one extreme or another in order to bring things back into balance. It seems to me that a truly “orthodox” Catholic would be a perfect candidate for the Supreme Court.

The real danger facing the Supreme Court today is not the appointments of President Trump which have been remarkably free of political cronyism and favoritism, but the court packing scheme proposed by Democratic activists. Tampering with the Court is a major issue in the campaign.

 

The continued refusal of Democratic candidates Joe Biden and Kamala Harris to address the court-packing scheme in recent debates is striking. President Trump and Vice-President Pence have been very forthright in opposing any idea of increasing the number of Supreme Court Judges, but their opponents have repeatedly declined to answer pointed questions. 

 

Even if Justice Coney Barrett would be the deciding vote in overturning Roe v. Wade, it would just mean that the issue would go back to the “people” and their representatives to decide. Roe v. Wade is not a law, but a judicial opinion that ruled that state laws prohibiting abortion were unconstitutional. 

Legislators like Biden and Harris have been reluctant to deal with the abortion issue for years but now shudder at the possibility of having to do their duty and legislate. They would much prefer to pack the Supreme Court with compliant judges who will do the legislating for them. 

 

###

Vice-Presidential Debate Assessment

 

      

After the chaotic Presidential debate, I gave a C grade to both President Trump and former Vice President Biden, albeit for different reasons. In last week’s debate between the Vice President candidates, I give Vice President Mike Pence a B+ but have to give Democratic Senator Kamala Harris an “I” or Incomplete for her failure to answer many of the questions on the exam, as well as her omissions on ones she tried to answer.

 

I think it was obvious to all that Pence won the debate. Even left leaning commentators had to work hard to spin the debate in favor of Harris. Pence appeared Presidential. In both his answers to the moderator’s questions, and in his replies to Senator Harris, he managed to tell the story of what the administration had accomplished in its first term.  He was articulate and forceful in driving home his points and at the same time did not appear overbearing or rude. If President Trump had done the same in his debate, the contest would be over by now. 

 

 

On her part Senator Harris appeared evasive and untrustworthy. On the first question of the night, when the moderator asked how a Biden administration would act differently than a Trump administration in dealing with the coronavirus, she spent most of two minutes blaming the President for 200000 deaths. In the few seconds she gave to the Biden “plan,” it sounded pretty much like what the President has been doing all along.

 

Her evasiveness was even more obvious when she deliberately refused to answer the question about packing the Supreme Court with additional members. In this refusal, she was just following in the footsteps of Biden, who evaded the issue in his debate. Democratic strategists have obviously coached them to hide the party’s determination to pack the court. As all good debaters should do, Vice-President Pence was quick to fill the void and affirm his and President Trump’s determination to keep the Supreme Court at nine members.

 

Senator Harris was also evasive on taxation. She claimed that the Biden/Harris tax plan would only raise taxes on those making over $400000, but did not answer the question of how her party’s proposal to immediately repeal the Republican tax reform measure would not result in higher taxes for those making less than $400000. Vice-President Pence had pointed out that the 2017 Tax Reform bill had raised the standard deduction for all, and that the great majority of Americans had seen a tax savings of between $2000 and $4000 a year.

 

Senator Harris also seemed evasive on “fracking,” the drilling process that in the last two decades had made the USA one of the world’s leaders in natural gas production, and incidentally created thousands of jobs in key battleground states. After being one of the prime movers in Congress to ban fracking, Senator Harris now says she is not opposed to fracking, and neither is Joe Biden even though he has proposed to eliminate the use of fossil fuels by 2035. She needed to explain her about face but chose not to. 

 

She also dodged the question about what she would advise her home state of California to do if the Supreme Court threw out the Roe v. Wade decision on abortion. It is only fair to say that Vice-President passed on that one as well except to say he was pro-Life.

 

Finally, she did not respond to allegations that she had been an unusually harsh Attorney General of California especially in dealing with Blacks and Hispanics. Senator Harris identifies herself as a Black Woman, but in expressing her thanks to Old White Joe for choosing her as his running mate, she did not explain why she chose to join the ticket with a man she practically branded as a racist in the Democratic debates. 

 

Senator Harris led the attack on Judge Bret Kavanaugh and claimed that he was unfit for office because of an alleged teen-age indiscretion. But now, Biden’s past racist associations and votes do not make him unfit for office. What an opportunist!

 

It is interesting to watch Biden and Harris go at each other during the Democratic debates. Just click this link or watch for five minutes the video below to witness their heated exchange. Please stay tuned to witness Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard tearing into Senator Harris for her actions as Attorney General. ###

 

 

Whitey Ford: Memorial*

The death of Whitey Ford , the legendary Yankee pitcher, brought back a childhood memory as only baseball can. It was 1950 and my favorite team, the NY Yankees, was in the World Series against the “whiz kids” of the upstart Philadelphia Phillies. My aunt worked for a company that had seats for the Series and so my uncle and I were able to attend the fourth and, what turned out to be, the final game.

The Yankees had won the first game 1-0 in Philadelphia as Vic Raschi, one of the Yankee magnificent pitching triumvirate, pitched a masterful two hitter. The Yankees won the second game 2-1 as their fire-balling ace Allie Reynolds outpitched Phillie star Robin Roberts. Both pitched complete games, a rarity today. The Yankees won the third game 3-2 behind cagey left-hander Ed Lopat who had a wide variety of pitches none of which would match the speed of a high school player today. Still, Lopat pitched eight innings in that victory.

So, my uncle and I had the good fortune to be in box seats near the left field foul pole for game four. The Yankee pitcher was their young rookie phenom Whitey Ford, a small but crafty pitcher who had come up to the majors in mid-season and racked up nine straight wins. In his long career he would go on to become the winningest pitcher in World Series history.

Anyway, Ford was in good form that day and the Yankees jumped out to an early lead. He pitched a shutout into the ninth inning and the score was 5-0. There were two outs in the ninth when a fly ball was hit to Yankee left fielder Gene Woodling who was positioned just about fifty feet in front of us. He lost the ball in the sun and dropped it allowing two runs to score. (World Series games were still played in the daytime back then).

I think I remember all of this because of what happened next. Yankee Manager Casey Stengel immediately came out of the dugout and removed Ford, who had pitched magnificently, from the game. Up three games to none and ahead 5-2 with two outs in the ninth, Stengel was not going to take any chances. He brought in Allie Reynolds, who had pitched 10 innings just a couple of days before, to end the game. I believe that Reynolds blew away the batter on three straight fastballs, and that was that.

People thought that Casey Stengel was crazy and he certainly could say crazy things in a crazy manner but no one has ever matched his success as a manager. He was unorthodox but many of his seemingly strange strategies soon became the new orthodoxy. Looking back on that game now, I wonder if Stengel was motivated by more than winning the game and the World Series. He took Ford out after he had pitched brilliantly and should have won but for Woodling's mishap. The rookie left hander left the game and no blame or shame could be placed on him. He went on to a great Hall of Fame career.

* The announcement of Ford's death at the age of 91 coincided with the elimination of the NY Yankees from the playoffs in this pandemic shortened season. Once again, the teams's ace closer gave up a game losing home run on a 100 mph fastball, a velocity Ford could never have come close to. Still I believe that  Ford would have handled that batter easily.

###

Debate Blunders

  

      

 

 

It is hard to evaluate or score the chaotic first debate between President Donald Trump and former Vice-President Joe Biden. On reflection I gave both a C but for different reasons. Biden got a C because he exceeded expectations by just showing up and making it through the grueling hour and a half. Trump got a C because he failed to live up to his reputation as a debater.

 

When I play chess online with opponents from all over the world, it is possible to get an impartial evaluation of the game afterwards from the computer that in less than a minute will assess every move. The computer analysis not only tracks who has the edge after each move but also evaluates each move. It lists moves that are merely inaccuracies, others that are mistakes, and others that are definitely game losing blunders. 

 

Blunders can be of two kinds. You can either make a really bad move that should result in certain defeat, or fail to capitalize on an equally bad move by your opponent. Failure to take advantage of an opponent’s blunder is often devastating. Of course, in the heat of battle, you always try to make good moves but inevitably the computer analysis will show a number of mistakes and even blunders. 

 

I can’t be as impartial as a computer but I would like to point out some of the blunders made by both candidates. I agree with many commentators that President Trump’s constant interruptions and interjections were a blunder. They just confirmed the bad opinion of the man held by the nation’s Trump haters, and could not have appealed to independents. Even Trump supporters had to be chagrined by his contribution to turning the debate into a circus.

 

But an even more serious blunder was his failure to tell his story. This debate was perhaps his best opportunity in four years to meet and address the nation unfiltered by a hostile media. He could have taken the opportunity to explain that when he took office, the ship of state was headed in the wrong direction, and that it had to change direction. The previous administration had been a disaster in both domestic and foreign affairs.

 

Despite the insubordination and obstructionism of many of the crew members that in some cases amounted to downright mutiny, he and his administration had managed to change course and steer the ship in the right direction. At the outset opponents thought his administration could not last four weeks, but now in his fourth year he could claim to have accomplished more than the previous administration did in eight.

 

The President could also have told his story in response to the inevitable question about his personal income tax history. He could have explained that all his life he had been a businessman. He had inherited a good business from his father, and that he had worked hard to make it bigger and better, and that now he is a wealthy man. He could have explained, however, that in business you have good years and bad years. In the good years he paid millions in taxes, and in the bad very little because there were no profits. Expenses, including payroll, had exceeded income.

 

He could have contrasted his career with Joe Biden’s who had worked 47 years in government receiving a steady salary and benefits like other public servants. Nevertheless, Joe Biden managed in his 47 years to become a multi-multi-millionaire on a civil servant’s salary. Of course, the salaries and benefits of his congressional staff never came out of his pocket.

 

Candidate Biden had his own share of blunders. Perhaps the most serious was his evasiveness on a number of occasions. When asked for his opinion about packing the Supreme Court if he was elected, he deliberately declined to answer. It was an obviously prepared ploy especially when he then turned to the camera and implored people to get out and vote. 

 

The President merely had to respond that even though candidate Biden would not answer the question, he would himself never be part of a scheme to increase the number of Supreme Court justices beyond the traditional nine. He let his opponent get away with this blunder.

 

In the same way, Biden evaded the question about the riots and looting going on in American cities. He claimed that he could not speak about them because he was just a “private citizen.” Yet, earlier he had boasted that not only was he the head of the Democratic party, but that in fact he was the Democratic party. 

 

Biden’s name calling was also a serious blunder. He called the President of the United States a racist, a liar, and a clown. I thought the President should have called him out on this name-calling and even injected a little humor. “You call me a clown, but I did not stuff a jetliner with cash and fly it to Tehran to be used by an enemy regime to further terrorism.

 

In addition to these blunders, Biden made some mistakes that largely went unnoticed. He claimed that either 19 or 91 companies (he wasn’t sure) did not pay any corporate taxes last year, but failed to explain how his plan to raise the corporate tax rate from 21% to 28% would get revenues from companies who were in an effective zero bracket because of losses.

 

Finally, on the subject of racism he repeated the Democratic mantra of an America plagued with “systemic racism,” but then went on to describe America’s suburbs as racial utopias where White, Black, and Hispanic parents work together in carpools to take their kids to games.

 

Unless the President can make a strong comeback in the endgame, his own blunders in this first debate as well as his failure to capitalize on his opponent’s blunders may have cost him the game. 

 

###