Saturday, June 13, 2020

Could Lincoln's 10% Plan Work for Trump

In my upcoming book, "Conveyance," some of the darker nooks and crannies of Abraham Lincoln's presidency are recounted. Most Americans would find them difficult, if not impossible to believe!

Conveyance is a Reconstruction offering largely covering a time period between May 10th, 1865 and Halloween, 1866. The war had barely concluded. The painful memories were still fresh on the countries mind. The setting is Louisiana, where Abraham Lincoln had established his now infamous "10% plan."

Lincoln never wavered from his resolve that there were sufficient loyalists in all departing Southern states to justify representation. He sought to bring them back to the table; resuming their place in the American family.

Lincoln believed that if a mere 10% of the populations of those seceding states might swear a loyalty oath to the United States of America, they should seat their state's representatives in the House and Senate, without prejudice. His was a plan that was not embraced by the more extreme members of his party.

Contemporary application of Lincoln's plan could actually be rationalized!

A case can be made that America is currently experiencing a "cold civil war." We are unquestionably more divided than at any time since 1861! The question becomes, "where is the tipping point?" In 1861, it was Fort Sumter.

Unlike 1861, the divide is not sectional. It is ideological. Also missing is that overriding moral issue of slavery. The sides are decisively drawn: "Faith based National Populism" versus "Secular Global Socialism."

In 2016 Donald Trump connected with a segment of the American population, National Review described as the "disaffecteds." Hillary Clinton was less complimentary in her labeling them as "a basket of deplorables." Unfortunately for her, they voted.

These "deplorables" represent 20% of the nation's population. According to NR, "23% are non-white, 90% have no party affiliation and their average household income hovers around $30,000 per year.

Joe Biden's embrace of open borders, T.P.P.,NAFTA and his globalist agenda directly threatens their previously meager yet rapidly improving livelihoods. Trump is credited with their recent gains.

Immigration clearly falls under Federal jurisdiction, per the 10th amendment. For a state to declare itself as "sanctuary" in defiance to federal immigration laws, puts them technically in "defacto secession." Currently California, Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey,New Mexico, Oregon,and Vermont are in defacto secession.

The President could invoke Lincoln's 10% plan in those eight states declaring themselves "sanctuaries." He would invite those loyal to the United States of America to establish a loyalist government within their state. If 10% came forth, they would proceed with business as usual, casting the 2020 Presidential electors and seating their states Congressmen and Senators.

No doubt such an overture would cause a stir in those states, as well as the nation. But it would be months before opposition would become adequately situated to stop the momentum. Any lower court injunction efforts would likely be ignored.

Donald Trump would enter his first 100 days in 2021 with a Senate super majority and control in the House. This would allow him to pass strict voter I.D. laws, the key to saving our Democracy. When the populace loses faith in the integrity in our electoral system, it's over. Sadly, we are there!

Trump would also implement a merit based immigration system, similar to Canada's. He would define birthright citizenship and set boundaries for chain migration. With the help of his Senate super majority, he would pass legislation making English the nation's official language.

Immigration applicants would be required to pass a fourth grade English proficiency examination as a prerequisite for green card. This is the current standard in Australia and New Zealand. This measure effectively accelerates assimilation, as those nations have proven.

During his presidency, Abraham Lincoln closed over three hundred newspapers, subsequently interning dozens of Editors and Correspondents. In many cases, Habius Corpus was suspended. Then, as would be now, there were howls and protests nationally.

Lincoln justified his action in phrasing, "We will shoot a simple soldier boy for desertion. Yet must we allow an agitator to incite riots and unrest?"

These measures were considered "draconian" then, as they would be now. Yet Lincoln knew that anything less would have ended in the break-up of the nation.

Critics acclaimed that Lincoln severely "trampled upon" the constitution. Defenders counter in asserting that he did so to save the constitution, and with it, the nation.

It's highly probable that Donald J. Trump has been studying and assessing Lincoln, as of late.


























Sunday, January 19, 2020

How Trump Walks Away with the 2020 Election

"Any job requiring use of all or part of an Americans' social security number will be precluded from offshore outsourcing."

Granted, I think the President will easily win re-election. Still, if we are talking about a "knockout," this ploy would likely do it.

Do you recall when former House Speaker, John Boehner asked,"where are the jobs?" His question came on the heels of a favorable stock market report. It was called the "jobless recovery."

Where the speaker fell short was the telltale answer. "The jobs have been sent overseas. There, the price of labor is more affordable."

I shudder when I think about the Trans Pacific Partnership(T.P.P.)" Lauded by Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Joe Biden, as the key to arresting Chinese growth in the far east, little was mentioned regarding the resulting lost jobs in America. Especially in the automotive industry.

Anyone who has dealt with A. T. & T. or J.P. Morgan Chase can attest to the slowness and cumbersomeness equated with dealing with their offshore help! Sadly,most of the Fortune 500 companies have opted for this marginally inefficient, yet cheap source of labor. Customers are told, "that's the way that it is."

Yet, if legislation were passed, precluding this practice, who would win? These companies would promise massive rate increase. But, how massive? And if these jobs were restricted to American soil, where would you place them? Who would be the recipients? Don't we already a labor shortage in the United States?

Fow now, yes. But, with increasing use of automation, that shortage may be short lived.

Without question, these large companies will protest vehemently! They will remind the country that we live in a global society and it is important to do as New York Times Columnist, Thomas Friedman reminded in his book, The World is Flat:"Level the global playing field; because Americans have supposedly lived much better than the rest of the world."

Like Donald Trump or not, one thing can be concluded. The President is an "Americanist." Those opposing his agenda are generally globalists.

Most Americans are understandably angry with their jobs being shipped away. Not only are they jobs that could have gone to an American, but their foreign counterparts are often slow and vague with limited English skills.

Who would want these jobs?

Call center jobs would be ideal for three groups. (a) Older workers, (b) students and (c) part-time spouses.

There are many parents who are available for M-F 9-3 jobs. That's thirty hours; technically full time. If they are paid even eight or nine dollars per hour, it's a regular paycheck. Students are always available to work off-times such as six to midnight or weekends. As far as older workers, between 62 and 66, a 40 hour per week job, paying eight dollars an hour is gold! Because, it won't compromise their social security entitlement. And, they gain access to the companies group health insurance plans.

Where would you place these jobs?

There are inexpensive states with higher unemployment numbers than the national average who would gratefully accept them.

We are not talking exclusively call center jobs! I recall visiting several Chase Banks during the last decade. You would see empty offices and empty cubicles. A large number of 36k per year Universal Banker jobs had been shipped abroad! Because, a Universal Banker in the far east goes for 5k per year! Where a manager might cost 75-80k per year in the U.S., the cost runs 15-20k in India or the Philippines!

Ever wonder why dealing with credit repositories is so difficult? For starters, they are housed in South America, the Philippines and India. When calling, you are first sent thought the "seven layers of automation." Then, assuming that you're still on the line, you'll be speaking to an offshore representative; with all of your personal information at their fingertips!

It's positively scary!

Identity theft continues to be the fastest growing crime in America. This fact alone should support preclusion of any offshore outsourcing that requires use of all or part of an Americans social security number.

The positioning statement would be cut and dry! "Those not supporting this initiative are unAmerican, unpatriotic and unfit for leadership."

In other words, "go to hell globalists! In effect you are nothing short of traitors to your country!"

When seen in this light, it becomes increasingly easy to identify the "snakes in the woodpile!"

No doubt the President would make enemies with such a proposal! But when has that stopped him?

He has spoken repeatedly of a "rigged system." Here again, it is manifested.



Sunday, November 3, 2019

17th Amendment Repeal a Viable Alternative to Term Limits

Senator Mitch McConnell was asked. "What do you think about term limits?"

His answer. "You already have them!"

"Oh?"

"You have them; every time that you go to the polls." The Senator said coyly.

The place was Eastern Kentucky University. It was 2012. Mitch McConnell was speaking on behalf of the EKU Future Business leaders. An audience member had asked what was on the tips of many tongues.

That the Senator failed to note the advantageous position generally held by incumbents was not surprising. Incumbents nearly always have more money. A challenger needs to have deep pockets, OR some serious patrons who will make up for the shortfall.

Democrats had reason to believe that 2014 might be their year. Their candidate, Alison Lundergan Grimes was a rising star in the Democratic Party. Funds were pouring in from California and the East, in support of her candidacy.

For a brief period, it had looked like Mitch might get a primary challenge. Then businessman, now Kentucky Governor, Matt Bevin was the Tea Party favorite. I recall getting a scathing note from one of their members, reminding me of mcConnell's alleged corruption.

I defended McConnell, stating that he might have negatives, but would have a better chance of defeating Grimes. Not that Mitch needed it! He reached into his war chest and soon, Bevin was an after thought!

In the general election, McConnell continued his generous use of resources to position Grimes as a "puppet for out of state special interests and "Bay area" liberalism. The election wasn't close.

When the Convention of States organizers came to Kentucky, they quickly realized that "terms limits" would be a non-starter. As one supporter phrased, "Mitch McConnell simply has too much power." Nobody here is interested in including term limits in the petition.

Why?

Fairly easy answer. How would Kentucky benefit from replacing the Senate Majority Leader, who happened to represent the Bluegrass state, with a freshman?

Arkansans faced that same quandary in the 1960's, with Wilbur Mills. He was anything but popular. People outside of Little Rock loathed him. But, he chaired the House Ways and Means Committee, controlling vast amounts of money. Did the state really want to replace him with a freshman?

I recall then Texas Governor, Rick Perry's rationale regarding term limits. "If Bureaucrats know that a politician is going to be term limited, they'll just wink at him and essentially stall until his term ends." In other words, term limits would not work UNLESS Bureaucrats were also term limited! Which, might not be a bad idea! But, it would be complicated.

A better solution might be to take Perry's suggestion that we abolish the 17th amendment. As in, allow the state Senates to select the state's federal Senators, which is the method the founders originally laid out.

At first glance, it sounds like an unpopular concept. No longer would U.S. Senators be elected in a direct primary. We would return to the way things used to be: The state Senates would make the call. Sounds less Democratic. Yet...

Benjamin Franklin used the analogy of "pouring hot tea into a saucer before drinking it."

America was founded as a Republic, lest we forget. The concept of allowing our state Senators to choose our federal Senators, goes hand in hand with retaining control at the state level. In other words, making it more difficult for out-of-state special interests to buy a Senate seat.

Three 2018 midterms come to mind: Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin. All three states had Republican controlled Senates. Would Deb Stabenow, Sherrod Brown and Tammy Baldwin have won reelection in those states; if the decision had been made by those individual state Senates? Probably not!

What about Mitch McConnell?

Kentucky's state Senate has been Republican controlled for a while. My guess is, McConnell would skate along, without opposition. No small state is going to relinquish power voluntarily! But, if he were challenged, it would not be about who had the most money to spend!

Thus, those supporting term limits may want to pivot to a new strategy: "Repeal the 17th amendment." If handled as the founders intended, the pressure would shift to their incumbent state Senators, insuring that government remained closer to the people, as was intended.

Even though the verdict might be the same, it would be a verdict that was determined from within the state. Not outside.













Thursday, October 31, 2019

Democrats Impeachment Antics Could Lead to Civil War

Are the Democrats crazy?

What's happening at this moment is, to quote Dr. Alan Dershowitz, "Stalinist."

Trick or Treat!

The closed door proceedings currently taking place in a windowless Washington D.C. basement, are reminiscent of Antoli Rybokov's Glasnost thriller, "Children of the Arbat."

The setting is Moscow. The year is 1934. General Secretary, Joseph Stalin is flexing his muscles. Suddenly, fear is enveloping the Russian countrymen in a manner similar to a wet blanket in thirty degree weather. I shiver at the thought!

Yet, we have those in our own country who are relishing this moment. Maybe even embracing it! Now, they are moving to the next step: A coup against the American people. It starts with kicking out a duly elected president.

2016 was a surprise. To everyone! Especially those entrenched Washington elites. There would be no way that Trump could win. And, if he did, there was always "the insurance policy."

Nobody asked the question, "what if Hillary loses and the insurance policy proves inadequate?"

Well, we can always impeach the guy! Can't we?

There is a problem alright! That problem amounts to the people with the desire, and guns, absolutely love Donald Trump. Don't think for a second that an impeachment will end with quite acquiescement! It won't. Instead, we will see violence on this continent not seen in 155 years!

Here are the facts. The military is behind Trump. Homeland security is behind Trump. Law enforcement is behind the President. Most importantly, "armed America" is with Donald J. Trump.

In a recent National Rifle Association finding, it was discovered that there are roughly 312 million firearms in America that are accounted for! There are probably that many more unaccounted for. 90% of these firearms are in hands of 30% of the population. Get the picture!

Democrats need to quit trying to change the 2016 election outcome. They lost! Yes, it may be that Hillary Clinton received the most popular votes! But, she was soundly beaten electorally. So, if you don't like the electoral college system, propose a constitutional amendment and abolish it. Until then, shut the f...k up! It's over! Move on!

Democrats need to wait just a short 53 weeks and they can defeat Donald Trump at the polls. That isn't that long, if you think about it. So why all these divisive, marginally illegal hearings?

Maybe it's because the party knows that it's going to lose in 2020. The Democratic party is hopelessly compromised. There is no longer the party of Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy or even Bill Clinton. They're history. At best, today's party is reminiscent of Britain's contemporary Labor Party. At worst, it has a Stalinist hue.

Meanwhile, the American economy is humming. People are feeling it! More money in their pockets. New cars in their garages. Who would want to return to the "Great Recession?"

Old habits die noisily! So... Do Dems want to try to impeach this president? If so they could nullify all gains made over the past 50 years! Take a moment to reflect on this question...

Here's what will happen. The left will be beaten horrifically. It would be a whipping that will later be described as the worst that recorded warfare has had to share! Thousands, if not millions, would no longer be with us. Including some dead Congressmen!

Nancy Pelosi would be sipping Chardonnay from the porch of her Lucerne mansion, provided that she could slip out of the country unscathed. More than likely her San Francisco bayfront mansion would have guests sipping wine too; from Nancy's private wine cellar.

Adam Schiff might not be so lucky! It's probable that he would become acquainted with a "blow torch and a pair of pliers."

Sanctuary cities would be encircled by little mounds. Planted atop of these mounds would be signs reading, "here lie the Communist traitors." Previously, they were known as "ANTIFA." That was before those "deplorables" from "fly over America" got ahold of them!

The "great reckoning" as they would later call it, would right many wrongs in America. Starting with taking Harry S. Truman's advice and precluding federal workers from unionizing.

Currently, the average federal worker earns 70% more than their private sector counterparts; with better benefits and job security.
For those Article Fivers pushing for a balanced budget amendment, this will get us there; in much quicker and less painful fashion. It amounts to taking Ronald Reagan's positioning statement literally: "reduce the cost of government."

In the end, America would cleanse itself. Defacto Communism would be expunged from the continent. California would undergo an "1869 style" Reconstruction. Voter fraud would be virtually eliminated. Bias would disappear from college campuses. Health care would be less expensive and more available. Real environmental policies would be in place.

Do Democrats want to go there? I don't think so! If they are lucky, they will simply lose the house and watch their executive hopes go out in Elizabeth Warren splendor.

The alternative would be quite unpleasant.

Saturday, October 12, 2019

S.E.C. "Pod System" Would Enhance Overall Experience

Very recently a "POD System" introduced an alternative to divisions in the S.E.C. I thought that it merited study.

The conference does have fixed rivalry games that fans want to continue. Yet, other than one fixed opponent from the other division, you don't see the other side of the conference too often. Today, Arkansas will visit Lexington for the first time since 2008. L.S.U. has never been to Columbia, Missouri.

The proposal incorporates all schools into one 14-team league. Top two teams play in the S.E.C. Championship game. Three "Annuals" play every year. This is the "POD." The remaining ten schools appear every two years.

More on the POD System shortly. There is another "politically doable" idea that may merit some discussion.

University President and former U.S. Senator, David Boren has expressed restlessness with the Big Twelve and their inability to expand from the current ten teams. It is entirely possible that when the next round of league expansions come, Oklahoma will be in every conversation.

The S.E.C. looks to be the ideal solution! There are currently fourteen teams. Adding O.U. and "little brother," Oklahoma State would put the "Sooner" state in a form of low level hysteria! With few exceptions, it might solve the "must play rival" issue simultaneously!

I recall chatting, one-on-one with the late Frank Broyles, during a basketball practice at Barnhill Arena, two weeks after the announced conference change in 1991. Broyles said that the preference was to place Vanderbilt in the West and Auburn in the East. "But Hootie Ingram(then A.D. at Alabama)insisted that Auburn must remain in the same division as Alabama."

When I described the newly proposed SEC West as the "blood and guts division, " and the East as the "powder puff division," Broyles countered, "The East will be tougher in Basketball."

The legendary football coach admitted his disdain for "eight and not seven" annual conference games.

Would Coach Broyles approve of the two Oklahoma schools joining the S.E.C.? I honestly don't know!

The split would amount to OU and OSU joining Arkansas, L.S.U.,Missouri, the Mississippi schools, and A&M,

The current eight-game conference season would remain in effect. Each school would play the remaining eight schools "twice in sixteen years." Unless, of course, they met in the SEC championship.

What might prove interesting is if Basketball elected to go "double round robin" in divisional games and "single round robin" for non-divisional opponents. That would result in a 22-game conference slate. Add a sixteen team tournament and you "are going to see a lot of each other!"

Oklahoma isn't a huge media market. From a television standpoint, it represents an expensive cost-per-point! OU will typically deliver a larger audience than the Dallas Cowboys! OSU is not slouchy!

Thus, the two Oklahoma schools would bring a rabid fan base and a relatively small number of TV households to the conference. Both have successful basketball programs. One competes for the football national championship most years.

In adding the Oklahoma schools, the SEC would be extending it's footprint, albeit not in a huge way. From the standpoint of adding two quality programs, it would be a "home run."

Still, I am not certain if I like this idea! A school like Arkansas would find itself more central to its opponents. Four of the eight schools, were part of the original Big 12 in 1992. Interestingly enough, Arkansas, L.S.U., Oklahoma and A & M were all Charter members of the Southwest Conference when it was originally founded in 1914.

L.S.U.'s response would be interesting. That the Mississippi Schools, Arkansas and A&M are old rivals, is good. The two biggest losses, Alabama and Auburn would be replaced with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. Florida would disappear from the every year slate. Not too many Tiger tears would be shed over that!

I don't think Kentucky's fans would be enthusiastic about replacing Missouri and Mississippi State with Alabama and Auburn! Auburn fans could live with replacing L.S.U. and A & M with Tennessee and Florida.

In the end, some schools would come out more favorably than others. Yet is there any idea that would truly make everyone happy?

The POD system provides access to places fans want to travel! Don't forget, we are talking about a cultural zone! Many fans plan their vacations around S.E.C. football road games. It comes down to football and more.

The S.E.C. has some neat destinations! And, there are super neat places near those destinations!

I have a friend from Louisiana who contends that we should get rid of the common "opponent in the other division." He thinks "rotate two teams every year." This way, "any student athlete who stays four years could have a chance to play everyone at least once."

Rivalry games such as Alabama-Tennessee or Georgia-Auburn would simply not count as a conference game, assuming that the schools chose to continue their annual series.

Definitely some alternatives!

While, the POD System brings many advantages, it may be a difficult sell. In all too many instances, you'd hear, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it! That would be my prediction.

Regarding expansion, it may never happen. I would bet against it. Nobody wants to divide up the money! It might be possible to see Auburn move to the East and Missouri to the West. Outside of that, likely nothing. It looks like we're set.







Monday, September 30, 2019

A.A.'s Should be Furious with Democrats, Neo-Cons

The first noticeable distinction between 2016 and 2019 is the number of new cars now occupying the roadways.

The second noticeable distinction between 2016 and 2019, are the increased numbers of black faces greeting you when you drive through a McDonalds, walk into a Kroger or enter a bank.

In essence, people who were looking in from the outside in '16, are now in the middle of things. Working! And, working for companies that provide benefits and longevity.

True, there are the cynics, who find disfavor in everything. Yet the fact that more Americans are working today than ever, can't be slighted! I hear the naysayers now. They called it "trickle down economics." As in, the rich get richer and the poor get the "crumbs." That was Nancy Pelosi's description.

Amazingly, even Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, the two leading "progressive" candidates vying for the right to face Donald Trump in 2020, have deleted a major point. They have talked about the rich getting richer. But, they have been vague as to "how" the rich have gotten richer.

Here's a tip: The President's "American First" agenda is about, "charity beginning at home." In short, take care of Americans first!
This translates to using every means possible to encourage American companies to keep their plants and factories within our shores.

Neo-Cons, such as Mitt Romney, Carly Fiorina and the late John McCain described themselves as "free traders." Which translates to, "the best jobs are those that can be outsourced."

The border crisis hasn't been solved, but is solvable. It's about "having the will" to solve it. Neither Progressives or Neo-Cons have showed must interest in a solution. Why should they? For Progressives it's about new voters. For Neo-Cons, it's about cheap labor. Never mind "who" in America gets hurt by this posture!

When you push for open borders, you hurt Americans at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder. Traditionally, these Americans are black and brown. You do it by depressing the wage. When you have people slipping into the country, living in the shadows and accepting less for their labors, this is the result.

We're not exclusively talking about Eight-dollar-per-hour jobs! I recall my wife's friend's husband sharing a poignant story that exemplified "why" Corporate CEO's tend to be so wealthy.

"Roger," a $46,000 per year technician working in Hewlett Packard's Sacramento office, was called in one Friday.

His boss related, "I have some good news and some bad news, Roger. The bad news is that your job's being outsourced to India. The good news is that you'll be able to stay on six months; to train your Indian replacement."

Bad news! But, it could have been worse!

In the following weeks Roger learned that his Indian counterpart would be paid $9800 per year. This represented a significant savings for the company. As then CEO, Carly Fiorina phrased, "it's about acknowledging that ours is a global economy and we must make the necessary adjustments."

Donald Trump came on the scene and immediately saw the fallacies in the Trans Pacific Partnership. For Fortune 500 companies, it brought greater access to sweatshop East Asian labor. That it might compromise the American worker, well...

I recall a friend from J.P. Morgan Chase who whispered, "you see all the empty cubicles. These used to house 35k per year Universal Bankers. But why pay that when someone in the Philippines will do the same job for $7,000 per year?

I can't spite Warren or Sanders too much for their slip up. Neither are business people. They talk about increasing disparity of incomes. But has either come out with proposed legislation that would include, but not be limited to, a "prodigious outsourcing tax" for these American companies who choose to take their jobs offshore?

This China trade war is really not a trade war. It's about punishing American companies who elected to move their plants to Mainland China. Here they have been able to take advantage of the Totalitarian Chinese Government, the docile Chinese population and slave labor conditions. It does make for a better bottom line!

What mystifies me is "why" our mainstream media has not brought all of this to the nation's attention! Maybe it's because they too, are "globalists," caring little for their countrymen.

Even more baffling is why especially Black Americans have not seen through it! You look at long term Congressional members, Maxine Waters and Elijah Cummings then look at how people live in their districts. Then you ask, "how" can their constituents keep electing them! Stokely Carmichael once posed this question.

In short, they can hate Donald Trump with every ounce of vigor in their soul. He never promised that he was going to be their "buddy." What he has done is stood up for them; against Democrats advocating open borders and depressed wages and Neo-Cons seeking to siphon off their prosperity to a foreign country.

It thoroughly pisses me off! And I am not even Black!








Monday, September 23, 2019

Healthcare Deal Possible with Compromise

No topic has drawn more discussion or scrutiny than the nations Health Insurance crisis!

Notice I did not say, "health care" crisis. Why should I? We already have the finest health care in the world!The issue is with insurance.

The "Affordable Health Care Act," AKA Obamacare, brought more people into the family. But, it fell woefully short of it's goal. There are entirely too many people still not covered. Many have watched their premiums skyrocket, their deductibles jump ridiculously.

There are winners and losers with Obamacare.

I know a family of three, previously not covered, that qualified for better than $20,000 in free health care. Not a cent out of their pocket! Another family of four, watched their deductibles climb to $5000, their monthly premium shoot from $400 during W's last year in office to more than $900 in 2016.

I recall hearing from this woman, a part time Realtor for Keller Williams singing "hey, hey the witch is dead. Which ole witch, the wicked witch." You recall that iconic song from the Wizard of Oz. She was singing it the day after Hillary Clinton's defeat.

Trump's plan ran off the rails, thanks in part to John McCain. The newly elected President never was in sync with then Speaker, Paul Ryan. In retrospect, he would have been better off tabling health care until after the tax swap.

One problem is that we are paying entirely too much for pharmaceuticals. Even worse, is that many of our political leaders are receiving monetary help from "big Pharm." Nobody likes to bite the hand that feeds them. Unfortunately, it opens the door for corruption. Herein lies the dilemma.

Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren advance their aspiration for "Medicare for all." In theory, we do have a rich nation and probably can afford to provide something for everyone. But, there will be conditions. And restrictions. Neither Warren or Sanders want to go there.

So, we are back to square one. Is there some middle ground here? And could this middle ground be found that utilized capitalism and the free market to bring the cost of good healthcare to affordable levels?

Maybe. But, it would require a compromise. Any real compromise will result in neither party being totally happy. That's why they call it a compromise. So here goes! And, I guarantee you! Neither Republican or Democrat will be overly thrilled...

The starting point is "pre-existing conditions." All of the Democrats and the majority of Republicans are together on the need to protect Americans with pre-existing conditions.

The watchwords are "it could be me." For those who have faced insurance companies and been doomed to impossible costs know! Half of the bankruptcies in America are Medical BK's.

This brings us to the proposal: "What IF we designated a national sales tax, perhaps as little a "on-fourth of one cent," and used it to establish a "Catastrophic pool." The "pool" would be unavailable until an annual claim reached $10,000. It could be one claim, or cumulative claims.

Upon reaching $10,000, "80% of subsequent claims total would be covered," leaving the insured with a "20% co-pay." This would climb to 85%, when an annual claim/claims reached $50,000 and cap at 90% when the claim/claims hit $100,000.

So total cumulative claims of $13,800 would qualify for $3,040 from the Catastrophic pool. $65000 in annual cumulative claims would yield $44,750 from the pool.

We currently have 1300 insurance companies nationwide. This number would increase dramatically. The consumer would be allowed to cross state lines, as they do with auto insurance. "Aflac like" companies selling inexpensive "Cat Pool" supplemental policies would appear overnight.

I can hear the moans and groans from both sides!

Democrats will say(correctly) that this was a "regressive tax." Proportionally, "more of the burden will fall upon the poor."

Republicans will say(correctly) that "this is universal health care." Besides! "Can we trust the federal government with such a money pot?"

All concerns are valid. Let's address the last one first. Clearly noted stipulations prohibiting any Cat-Pool monies drawn out for other needs would be an imperative! In other words, "no borrowing from Peter to pay Paul!"

Regarding the "regressive tax on the poor" argument, remember this: The poor will still be buying beer, cigarettes and eating at McDonalds! So if a Big Mac, French fries, a pie and a milkshake, come to $10, the buyer will have contributed 2.5 cents to the pool.
Smart money says, "they won't miss it!"

Meanwhile, new insurance companies will be popping up all over the place! For the typical American family seeking a "80-20 co-pay featuring a $500 deductible for $150 per month," they'll be in luck! A family in Waynesville, North Carolina might ultimately contract with Sun Valley Health Insurance of Pocatello, Idaho. But so what? It's about shopping for the best deal.

This would be possible BECAUSE the "Cat-Pool" will serve as a backstop in the event of a large claim. So the small Idaho based company can offer inexpensive policies to middle class American families, without the worry of a few large claims putting them out of business.

Americans with pre-existing conditions would have protection. There would be companies offering not so good deals to cover the first $10,000. And, there would always be the option to self insure. Especially if the insured was a Cancer survivor, was
taking nitroglycerine or something equated with high risk.

Of course, there will be losers. The large insurance companies will ultimately become reinsurance companies, working on a lower margin. I recall a Blue Cross-Blue Shield representative in Indianapolis telling me that their profit margin was something around 12%. That's pretty lucrative!

What about the Pharmaceutical companies? Why ARE we paying damn near twice as much as the rest of the world?

Hate Trump or love him, he IS trying to address this problem. Democrats need to join him. Forget about who gets credit! We need this to happen and happen now!

Would "1/4 of a penny" tax be enough? Not certain. But, it would be a starting point.

Bottom line with this idea is, "Republicans could say that they drastically lowered health care costs for all Americans including those with pre-existing conditions." Democrats could accurately attest to the fact that they delivered on their goal of "Universal Health Care" for all of the country.

In the end, not perfect but fair.