Issues, News & Views


Sworn In
April 10, 2017

A Tremendous Day for
sound jurisprudence and
our Constitution!

Watch the swearing-in and
savor the prospect of a
Supreme Court Justice
who will defend our

Below is our rating of
Supreme Court justices
based upon judgement of
their fidelity to the

As the chart illustrates,
there are too many rogue
justices on the Supreme
Court. These appointed,
life-term judges take it
upon themselves to
arbitrarily unilaterally and
autocratically over-rule the
will of the people. They are
the equivalent of tyrants.

It is crucial to our
Democracy to fill all open
seats on all Courts, as
they arise, with true-to-
the-law judges. With
originalist, textualist
judges who apply the law
as passed by the
representatives of the

It is NOT the role of judges
to over-rule laws they just
happen to dislike. As
Gorsuch said at the

"A judge who likes every
outcome he reaches is
very likely a bad judge..."

April 07, 2017

A Supreme Court seat
opened with the passing of
Antonin Scalia just months
before the 2016 election.

President Obama
nominated Merrick Garland
as a replacement, but
Senate Majority Leader
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
blocked the nomination,
claiming that the voters
should decide.

Elections have
consequences. Democrats
were certain they would
hold the White House and
regain the Senate in 2016,
thereby giving them full
control of the nomination

But the GOP held the
Senate, and won the
White House, against
all predictions.
Republicans campaigned
on the Supreme Court
issue, and won.

And that's why Democrats
lost the Supreme Court
nomination: because they
didn't win the election. The
people spoke. As it should

January 31, 2017

President Trump has
nominated Neil Gorsuch to
the United States Supreme
Court. View the
proceedings at the White

As the President so
appropriately remarked at
the nomination ceremony:

"I have always felt that
after the defense of our
nation, the most important
decision a president of the
United States can make is
the appointment of a
Supreme Court justice.
Depending on their age, a
justice can be active for 50
years and his or her
decisions can last a
century or more and can
often be permanent."

We anticipate that Neil
Gorsuch will be an
outstanding Supreme
Court Justice, just like
Antonin Scalia, the great
man he will replace.

Neil Gorsuch: a judge who
understands both what a
judge's role is; and what a
judge's role is not.


2017/04/20 - Ahhh… healthcare. The issue never seems to leave the headlines. It has been one of the most contentious issues in American politics and policy for decades. The previous Administration’s “solution” only made the controversy worse. And the recent fix proposed by the new Administration would have only broke it even more.

Perhaps the most logical – and the most natural – approach is to start all over, to develop a 21st century solution from the ground up. Recognizing that the most logical and natural process for the delivery of goods and services is, and since the beginning of human civilizations has always been, through free markets.

Let’s stop paying lip service to market-based solutions. Let’s act. Let’s enact a system that enables people, through a combination of their earnings power and sound assistance policies, to make their own choices based on their own needs and preferences about goods and services and prices, without government interference.

Freedom to supply and freedom to choose will always lead to higher quality, and lower prices, and dynamic innovation, all at the same time. Less government in the marketplace always leads to better outcomes for everyone, everyone, that is, except for government bureaucrats. Big Government can only fail to give us better or cheaper healthcare.

Americans are fed up with all the talk from politicians about reducing the size of government, politicians who then deliver the opposite. The federal, state and local bureaucracies continue to grow, they cost more to taxpayers, deliver less to taxpayers, and become a breeding ground for parasites. Big Government is sucking us dry. If this is not another American Century it will be because of Big Government.

As Thomas Jefferson wrote of King George in the Declaration of Independence, “he has erected a multitude of offices and sent hither swarms of officers to harass the people and eat out their substance”. We need to reclaim that spirit of independence.

As our economy becomes ever larger and more complex it continues to develop a scope and scale far beyond the ability of Big Government central planners to efficiently and effectively address public policy issues. This is as true with healthcare as with any other sector of the economy.

The logical starting point for healthcare is to allow people to choose for themselves among a host of competing insurers and products. The key issue is access and affordability. We need to ensure all Americans have access to healthcare – it is a crucial building block in helping individuals build their own, unique, personal American dream.

The government has two roles in the system: ensuring universal access through affordability; and maintaining and enforcing a regulatory framework. Encouraging and enabling players to participate, and arbiting disagreements between participants.

Affordability is not that complicated, it comes in two pillars. First, incentivize Americans to save (yes, save!) for medical expenses by encouraging all individuals to open tax deductible health savings accounts, from which all – but only – healthcare expenses of the taxpayers and his/her dependents can be paid. Monthly insurance premiums would be charged directly to the account. Accountholders would be provided with a debit card which can be used to pay for copays and other designated expenses such as, perhaps, gym memberships, or possibly sports equipment like, bicycles.

Health Savings Accounts are at the core of the system. Note that everyone who wants healthcare assistance must open an HSA. Personal and/or employer contributions would be tax deductible, thus reducing the burden for middle income taxpayers. No HSA, no tax deduction.

The second pillar of affordability is subsidies for low income individuals. Lower income people would open an HSA just like everyone else, and would receive their subsidy in the form of a periodic direct deposit to their HSA. No HSA, no subsidy.

Note that subsidies would go to individuals, not insurers. Each individual would have access to the same insurance options as everyone else. For people with no income, their subsidy would approximately cover the full cost of the average policy that someone in similar "Age and Wage" circumstances would generally face. From there the subsidy would slide down the scale to zero at some point in the general vicinity of the median income.

In this way everyone would pay their healthcare expenses through their HSA, which would be funded through a combination of tax deductible contributions and government subsidies. If you want a subsidy, you must file a tax return, and supply the IRS with your HSA account number. This incentivizes people to get out of the shadows and participate in the visible economy. The IRS calculates the subsidy you are eligible for based upon your return and makes a periodic deposit to your account.

If you were reading between the lines and thinking ahead, yes, you are correct. Everyone needing to obtain coverage regardless of age or wage participates in the same system. There is no more Medicaid or Medicare. Everyone buys quality, market insurance at efficient, market prices. The societal benefits to this change are enormous.

Massive federal and state entitlement bureaucracies would be eliminated. Even if they were well run, these bureaucracies still cost the taxpayers billions annually, and perform a completely useless non-service. But they are much worse than merely massive tax sink holes, they are fraught with waste and fraud which cost the taxpayer billions more. But in our plan, the bureaucracy is gone. And all the waste, fraud and crime that goes along with it? Gone.

Even the Veterans Affairs bureaucracy would be slashed – not veterans’ benefits, just the VA bureaucracy. Veterans who are eligible for healthcare would have their HSA’s funded by the VA so that they would be able to obtain, at no cost, the same commercial insurance as all other Americans.

Instead the VA’s direct healthcare mission would be streamlined and focused on the core responsibility of combat care - the physical and emotional traumas experienced by our veterans as a direct consequence of warfare. This would greatly reduce the scandals that have plagued the VA for decades, and provide a more effective and efficient delivery system of the healthcare needs unique to our servicemen and women.

Further, and this is a problem ignored far too often, government is currently participating financially in the system. They are a player. They have skin in the game. Their gain is someone else's loss. They are the referee, and a player. Government is the pitcher, and the umpire. It call balls and (mostly) strikes on its own pitches. Who, that has their thumb on the scale, can resist the urge to press down? Guess who wins? Yes, the government and its influence peddlers; and who strikes out? Yes, everyone else. Such as doctors, and taxpayers.

The phrase “bend the cost curve” is code for “screwing doctors”. Cutting reimbursements to doctors creates positive short term “cost savings” headlines and photo-ops, but will have detrimental long term consequences to the quality of healthcare. Government needs to be dedicated to its rightful place as an umpire alone, and not compromising its authority and impartiality by picking up a bat or glove and taking a position against some players. When you hear the phrase “bend the cost curve” you can assume you are being lied to. If policymakers were serious about "bending the cost curve" we would already have be tort reform. If you want to blame a profession for out-of-control costs it's the lawyers, not the doctors.

And how do we pay for this? This is a question that no one wants to face. But we need to face the fact that healthcare is expensive. Think about the terms “civil war” or “jumbo shrimp” – they are classic oxymorons. So is “free healthcare” - there is simply no such thing, it’s not logically possible. One way or another we pay, and pay we do.

Healthcare is extremely expensive – it represents over one-sixth of our entire economy. That means Americans spend nearly $3 Trillion per year on healthcare. Even if we think we are getting “free healthcare” from our employers, we are not – our employer reduces our salary. It all comes out of the same pool of money that they set aside for employee compensation.

Unfortunately, the tendency to hide and bury healthcare costs – such as in Medicaid, Medicare, or employer programs – adds to the inefficiency of our system. If people don’t know how much something costs, how can they make rational choices about how much to consume? Bringing healthcare costs out of the shadows, and into the light, will make the system more efficient. The truth is ugly but we need to face it. Can we handle the truth?

Presently Medicare receives funding through payroll taxes, levied on both employees and employers at a combined rate of 2.9%. Most people know they pay a Medicare tax, however, far fewer people realize that employers are also paying that tax, that's actually tax on hiring and paying wages!

Our plan phases out these economically perverse payroll taxes. We should seek to eliminate payroll taxes to the fullest extent possible as they represent a disincentive for individuals to seek and maintain employment, and a disincentive for employers to hire and retain workers. Eliminating this tax cuts payment and administration costs to employers, and increases employee take-home pay. It will stimulate employment and job creation.

The healthcare subsidy pool should be funded by taxes directly connected to the delivery of healthcare, rather than being buried in general income tax revenues. The bad news is that the taxes will be hefty, but there are at least three pieces of good news: first, people will get a better grasp of how much healthcare actually costs; second, we can more directly connect unhealthy behavior with the cost of healthcare; and third, Medicare and Medicaid would no longer exist so taxes and expenditures for these programs would be reduced and/or eliminated.

The upside of replacing government bureaucracies like CMS, Medicaid and Medicare with private insurance would dramatically improve federal and state fiscal positions, and would reduce disincentives to hiring and employment

Funding streams for the subsidy pool could take on a number of forms, and could be conducted at the federal level and augmented at the state level. For example, a sales tax on healthcare expenditures, including premiums and out-of-pocket costs could be levied at the federal level and distributed nationally. States could augment the federal subsidy to their resident’s HSA’s by distributing taxes on liquor, tobacco and unhealthy foods.

The importance of funding the pool with “sin taxes” cannot be overemphasized. Tobacco products cost us so much in increased healthcare costs, it only makes sense to place a surcharge on tobacco products and use the revenue to fund the healthcare system. Ditto sugary snacks and fried foods. Obesity and diabetes are major drivers of our healthcare costs, it only makes sense to tax the causes and fund the system with those taxes.

It’s a very simple program. Everyone participates without obtrusive mandates of dubious constitutional validity. Upper income people will participate because even if they don’t buy insurance and instead choose to pay cash to a top-tier doctor, the doctor will still be required to collect the healthcare tax and fund the subsidy system; middle-income people will want to participate so that they can tax-deduct their HSA contributions, a benefit that would more than offset the healthcare subsidy funding tax; and lower income people will participate in order to collect the subsidy.

Individual HSA contribution limits would be quite high – ideally we would want individuals to accumulate substantial balances in their HSA over the long term to ensure they have resources in case of future difficulties.

Hey, why can’t we buy health insurance the way we buy car insurance? Why do we need a government website? We don’t need a government website. Everybody buys airline tickets from websites. Rich people and educated people, for sure, but also old people, poor people… everyone from all walks of life from all demographics from all over the world manage to buy airline tickets. Some people deal directly with airlines, some people go through travel websites like Priceline or Kayak or Expedia. It can be done.

There is no reason why Silicon Valley entrepreneurs can’t develop healthcare websites far better than anything the government came up with. Really, – whose idea was that??

The mechanics are simple. Individuals report their HSA account number to the IRS. The IRS collects the various taxes and accumulates the funds in a segregated account. The IRS periodically transfers a calculated amount to taxpayers' HSAs based upon their prior year returns and the size of the pool. Because the subsidy transfer is based on prior year actuals rather than current year estimates, the IRS has no recourse for its errors, it has no “claw back” powers, and there is no “honor system” such as the one that relentlessly haunts Obamacare enrollees.

And save the best for last? This is a defined-contribution subsidy system that replaces our current defined-benefit system. We cannot afford our current system and it is dragging us toward federal, state and municipal debt catastrophes. The American taxpayer simply cannot afford the promises American governments at all levels have made to their people. We need to change. This is the change we need.

This proposal is a good, market-based system. It is simple, and cuts out most of the bureaucracy that adds so much useless bloat to the final cost of healthcare in America. It keeps the government out of the physician/patient relationship. It allows supply and demand to determine price, quality and innovation. It gives employees and employers the freedom and ability to make advantageous choices, rather than mandating behavior. It's a good system. It's as good as it gets.


April 26, 2017 - There are people who will ask, somewhat sanctimoniously, "does the end justify the means?" and to them we can only respond, "do the means justify the end?"

Sometimes winning is very important, like the Civil War or WW2. Some things truly are worth fighting for, like the end of the Kim regime and the DPRK. Frequently the end truly does justify the means. Sometimes war really is the answer.

Content people living in bubbles smugly ask if the end justifies the means. Suffering people living in hell-world, like plantations, concentration camps, or North Korea, yearningly lament why those who can help, aren't.

If you were to ask a freed slave, or a liberated holocaust survivor, whether war is the answer, they would respond with another question, and they would not ask “does the end justify the means?” but rather "what took you so long"?

What is taking us so long with North Korea? It is no longer a question of "if" but "when". Time is not on our side.

The objective of the Kim regime is to unite the north and south into a single Kim-controlled horror state, using the nuclear threat as leverage to dissuade intervention by foreign powers.

And if they need to lob a nuclear demonstration into Tokyo that would be fine by them, after all, there are plenty of unsettled scores from Japan’s Forced Occupation from 1910 to 1945.

And the threat posed by the Kim regime only worsens over time as their weapons programs advance.

We must show the courage to act that has been sorely lacking for the past 25 years. We can no longer use words to buy time. We are on the path to a foreseeable, horrible, unacceptable outcome. We cannot put it off, we must take action now.

We never know the counterfactual. Do we wait for them to do unto us, or do we do unto them first?

Yes this may be a time where the end justifies the means.

April 07, 2017 - Real News: How stupid is Hillary Clinton?

Two days ago President Trump met King Abdullah II of Jordan at the White House. During the press conference Trump was asked what kind of US response can be expected to the heinous Syrian chemical attack. His response was right on the mark:
I watched Mosul, where the past administration was saying, we will be attacking in four months. And I said, why are they doing that? Then a month goes by, and they say, we will be attacking in three months, and then two months, and then we will be attacking next week. And I'm saying, why are they doing that? And as you know, Mosul turned out to be a much harder fight than anyone thought, and a lot of people have been lost in that fight. I'm not saying I'm doing anything one way or the other, but I'm certainly not going to be telling you, as much as I respect you..."
Now that makes a lot of sense. You don't have to be a military tactical genius to know that the element of surprise is very helpful.

So, the very next day, yesterday, the former Secretary of State who accomplished absolutely nothing, feels compelled to trade on her inside knowledge, open her pie hole, and eliminate the advantage of tactical surprise by pre-announcing exactly what America will do:
I really believe we should have and still should take out his air fields and prevent him from being able to use them to bomb innocent people and drop sarin gas on them.
Way to go, moron. Exactly what our President just said NOT to do. Nothing like pre-announcing exactly what the most likely US response will be, just as we are about to embark on exactly that course of action. Yes, we attacked an airbase in Syria last night, with Hillary Clinton disclosing military action just hours before such operations were conducted.

Loose lips sink ships. Let's not call it treason, let's be kind, and just call it stupidity.

Whose side is she on, anyhow? We all know. She's on her own side. She's with herself.

It's called "Opportunity Loss": sure we did some damage, but how much damage and pain did we not inflict on Assad because of Jaillary Clinton's narcissistic need to feel relevant?

That's why it's good if people who know too much - like George W. Bush - are also smart enough to quietly ride off into the sunset.

Jaillary for Prison - that will shut her up, before she screws up anything else.

April 05, 2017 - It appears that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) will soon expedite the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.

Gorsuch is fully qualified and an outstanding nominee, but Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has vowed to try every trick in the book, and some not in the book, to prevent the confirmation.

Schumer will of course fail, and within a week or so Gorsuch will be numbered among the nine Supreme Court justices and rightfully so.

It is hard to understand what Schumer hopes to gain from his hyper-partisan theatrics, making such an overwhelmingly large issue out of the nomination. It is not a winning issue for him, all he's doing is providing ammunition for Republicans.

The composition of the Supreme Court is real news, stuff people really care about - and they take the Republican side. Shouldn't Schumer just quietly confirm Gorsuch - which he can't stop anyhow - and go back to harping on his fake news, like Russia?

With the election looming last summer McConnell blocked lame duck Obama's Democrat nominee, declaring that the voters should decide who gets to nominate the new judge. Republicans campaigned on this, and candidate Trump went so far as to provide a list of candidates from which he would choose his nominee.

As Obama famously said, "Elections have consequences". The Republicans won. In exit polls a large majority of Trump supporters said the Supreme Court nomination weighed heavily on their decision.

President Trump has kept his promise, nominating Gorsuch from candidate Trump's list. The voters have spoken. So confirm Gorsuch. It's simple.

Which brings us back to Schumer. Next year there are 33 Senators up for election, 25 Democrats and 8 Republicans. Nearly half of the Democrats are vulnerable, probably none of the Republicans. Supreme Court is a winning issue for Republicans. It looks like Schumer is about to burn down his own house.

Chuck Schumer: highly partisan - and making a dreadful strategic blunder? Let him. If he's going to hang himself, don't take away the rope.

April 03, 2017 - We have officially hit the Trifecta on North Korea.

March 17, 2017 - Secretary of State Rex Tillerson: "The policy of strategic patience has ended."
March 31, 2017 - Secretary of Defense James Mattis: "North Korea... has got to be stopped."
April 02, 2017 - President Donald Trump: "If China is not going to solve North Korea, we will."

Well, that just about covers everyone that matters.

The United States is arguably in a state of war with North Korea, and has been since 1950. The UN Security Council authorized a military engagement which was funded by Congress.

An armistice was signed in 1953, but that was merely a cessation of active warfare, not an actual termination and resolution to the conflict.

So are we on the cusp of a total solution that assigns North Korea to the dustbin of history?

Is the media's obsession with Russia a smokescreen created by the Administration to distract attention from what we are about to do to the Kim regime?

Or is the pending resumption of hostilities on the Korean Peninsula a smokescreen to distract media attention from Russia?

How many pundits in the spring of 2001 predicted we would be invading Iraq in the spring of 2003?


© Copyright 2017 Challenge The Premise. All rights reserved.