We Must Resist All Ministries of Truth

Would you like to know which picture of Trump's inauguration is true? I'll show a cool analysis below to help determine the answer, but first, I'd like to talk about what's been going on lately.

In the book 1984, there is a scene where Big Brother announced one day that chocolate rations would be reduced from 30 grams to 20 grams per week, but 24 hours later announces that it was actually increased to 20 grams and the people celebrated in thanks to Big Brother. Here is an excerpt of what Winston recalls at this moment.

Was it possible that they could swallow that, after only twenty-four hours? Yes, they swallowed it. Parsons swallowed it easily, with the stupidity of an animal. The eyeless creature at the other table swallowed it fanatically, passionately, with a furious desire to track down, denounce, and vaporize anyone who should suggest that last week the ration had been thirty grammes. Syme, too-in some more complex way, involving doublethink, Syme swallowed it. Was [Winston], then, alone in the possession of a memory? (1984, Chapter 5)

When I read this book back in high school, I really thought it was impossible for this to occur in real life, but today, I'm not so sure. Now in the wake of a fake news plague, it's becoming more and more difficult to determine what's real and what's fake. Now that the existence of fake news has itself become news, the fake news outlets have somehow successfully convinced millions that even many real news stories are fake.

The sad thing is, in many cases, it really isn't that difficult to do one or two minutes of research and determine if any one news article is real or fake. Yet, people are more willing to accept what they want to believe as truth, and rely on others to do the "research" for them.

I shouldn't blame the people getting deceived. After all, who really has time to do all this research? We've got day jobs and kids to watch over. We send representatives to Washington to take care of things for us so we don't have to.

But it burns me up that people on both sides of the aisle are intentionally creating fake news to deceive people. It doubly burns me up when those people include our President Trump, his advisor Conway, and his press secretary Spicer.

Shortly after Trump was declared the winner, Trump and his team declared it a landslide. Wait, weren't we all watching the same election? You know ... the one where Hillary got more votes? The one where Trump just barely got a win in each of five battleground states that pushed him over the 270 votes needed? The one where his 306 was less than the 332 Obama got in 2012? What exactly makes 2016 a landslide? Am I the only one in the possession of a memory?

Of course, it doesn't matter how big his victory was. He's president, and no one can change that fact. But it's not enough for Trump. He not only has to win, but he has to win big. So, just like Winston's job in the Ministry of Truth was to change historical facts to match what Big Brother wanted, Trump is now going on this huge witch hunt voter fraud investigation to find enough votes to put him over Hillary.

WHO CARES?

I care that Trump cares, and I'm concerned how far he'll go to change the facts. But other than that, I'm just annoyed that this is all being blown out of proportion.

Okay, now that the long introduction is over, let's get to what you all really want to see. Which picture of Trump's inauguration is true? Before I begin, let me just say this: yes, Trump had a lot of people at his ceremony. It was huge! If we were able to compare with all prior inaugurations, I think we would find that Trump had a relatively large audience. For any opponents to say otherwise is just silly and twisting the facts.

But also, Obama had many more participants at his ceremony in 2009. After all, he was the first non-white president. I would fully expect that specific day to attract more people. He really did have people going all the way back to the Washington Monument, while Trump did not.

Okay, first comes the picture that started it all. I'll go with the Reuters version, which I think is closest to the time Trump was sworn in (around 12:01), and it shows a few more people. Trump's inauguration is on the left, and Obama's is on the right. Doesn't look like Trump has that many attendees -- right?

Before I continue, let's study the so-called Trump picture. I zoomed in below. We'll pretend it is a real picture for now. Start at the top with the capital and work your way down. After the reflection pool, you can make out five chunks of crowd, marked in red below. Each of those chunks is a field (well that first one is one and a half). The last chunk ends right about at the big Smithsonian red castle building on the right. If you look at the marking in green, it outlines road barriers that barely touch the field. After that is a mostly empty field. Then the next field has all those white tents, and there is one more empty green field after that before we get to the Washington Monument.

In other words, if the Reuters picture is to be believed, Trump had two fields that were nearly empty, and one field had press tents, while Obama had all those fields filled with nothing but people.

Trump, however, experienced the view from the front. For this, I'll turn to one of the most awesome pictures I've ever seen in my life. The resolution in this picture is so great that when you zoom in, you can see amazing detail. If you haven't done so already, go to this link right now and prepare to be amazed:

http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/trump-inauguration-gigapixel/

I'll start off with an amazingly clear picture of Trump giving his speech. There is no way this picture is faked. Just click the picture to see it larger.

Here's one of my son's favorite zooms. 1000 Mel-o-rama points if you can find it!

Okay, let's take a look at the crowd as Trump would have seen it:

Impressive! Isn't it. It looks like it goes all the way back to the Washington Monument. Look at all those red hats! What a beautiful sight!

But wait a minute. Doesn't this picture contradict the Reuters photo? Does this mean that the first photo is fake? There's no way the CNN picture is fake. Perhaps Spicer was correct in threatening to take action against the media and hold them accountable for spreading false news.

Why don't we take a closer look? I'll zoom in past the reflecting pool, and let's see what there is to see. I invite you to expand this picture so you can see my markings, and also follow along on the CNN site.

Just like the Reuters' picture, I can see certain features here. I can see five chunks of audience marked in red (where the first chunk is one and a half fields). In green near the back, you can see the Smithsonian road barrier. And what are these areas I've circled in yellow? They are empty spaces! What?! Where did those come from? I invite you to zoom to all three areas on the CNN picture and check for yourself. You will then find that each of the empty spaces match the same empty spaces in the Reuters picture. The largest being the one in the very back. Let's zoom in as close as we can.

Adjusting for effects of perspective, that empty space in the back is easily one full field's length. Compare with the width of the last chunk of audience.

As far as I can tell, this awesome CNN picture corroborates 100% the Reuters picture. Unfortunately we can't see past the media tent in this picture, but why would anyone stand behind it when they could stand in the empty spaces in front?

It turns out the Reuters picture is real news and is entirely consistent with the awesome CNN picture.

Wow!

Now, just like the hidden arrow in the FedEx logo, once it has been seen, it cannot be unseen.

Hopefully going forward, Trump will do the right thing and lay off the media. Let Trump do his own thing, and let the media do what they will, but please, LET'S HAVE THE TRUTH! It is beyond easy to see through most of Trump's lies and he's not fooling any of his opponents.

As a fiscal conservative, I'm excited for what Trump can do for our economy, but if he's going to lie to us at every corner and turn around to punish the press for telling the truth, then we might as well be living in 1984 where "alternative facts" are reality.

What can we do to combat this? In the very least, refuse to be manipulated. Say it with me. I REFUSE TO BE MANIPULATED! I REFUSE TO BE MANIPULATED! Don't be the Parson who falls in line with everyone else when chocolate rations fall. Be just as Winston, and hold on to the memories of what is true.

Predicting Trump's First Term

It really happened. We elected a man with absolutely no experience into the highest office in our nation. What's going to happen next would be anyone's guess.

If you ask left-leaning folks, Trump will destroy our nation and become the next Hitler.

If you ask right-leaning folks, Trump will work miracles and Make America Great Again (TM).

Before I make my predictions, let me give a quick background about myself so you may understand where I'm coming from. I was raised a Democrat, but turned to Republican when I learned sound economic ideals. However, when it was clear that Trump was to be the Republican representative last January, I had my name removed off the Republican rolls and declared myself as Nonaffiliated. I generally hold to conservative economic ideals, and lean a little left of center on social issues. I almost consider myself now to be Libertarian, but I'm not quite there yet.

Okay. Now the predictions.

Since Trump has no experience, and has been both Democrat and Republican in the past, it's difficult to predict what will happen. The only thing I can predict with certainty is that the next four years will be interesting. Anyhow, I will do my best.

On social issues, I don't think Trump will be as bad as many of my left-leaning friends fear. For starters, Trump has already said that he's not going after gay marriage. I think four years from now, everyone's marriage will continue to be recognized in all 50 states. On the other hand, I wouldn't expect any further advancement in general gay rights. I don't think the LGBT community will lose ground, but I do think there will be a movement to help preserve the religious freedoms of those who do not agree with gay marriage.

Obamacare is as good as dead, but Trump has indicated that Congress will not repeal without a replacement. This will undoubtably be dubbed Trumpcare, thanks to Obama's suggestion. I personally hope they will remove both the mandate (tax) and the requirement for employers to provide/pay. I also expect that they will keep out the preexisting conditions exclusion. Should even one group of people lose coverage with the change that's going to happen, it would kindle so much negative press that I predict that we have nothing to worry about on this topic.

Will true medical expenses decrease? We'll have to wait to see what the replacement is. My overall prediction is that the good parts of Obamacare will remain, and the bad parts will be replaced by things that may or may not work better. There will be at least one aspect that will prove to be disastrous.

We can expect that something will happen in the area of immigration. Undoubtedly, enforcement will be increased. I'm not too opposed to this, but get ready for prices in general to rise when US citizens refuse to work at the low wages illegal aliens are currently working for. I doubt that Trump will get his full wall, but for certain a portion of it will be made more robust. The Border Patrol will work with Trump and educate him on which holes need the most work.

I see no scenario where Mexico outright pays for the wall upgrades. The only way this can happen would be to institute tariffs that get a portion of the money back indirectly.

I fully expect to see H1-B visas become more restricted, if not repealed. Then we will watch good talent leave our country to the benefit of foreign countries.

The chances of a Muslim registry is near zero. I like to remind people that it was a reporter, and not Trump who came up with the idea.

However, there is talk of reviving the House Un-American Activities Committee to help combat Muslim terrorism. I'd put chances of this happening at about 10% in the next four years, and if it happens, our children will have the privilege of watching a real witch hunt. It's been a while since we've had a good one.

Trump has already backed off the idea of banning Muslims from entering the country, though he may push for banning certain countries from entering, similar to what Carter did.

I struggle to find anything Trump has said that can be considered racist toward black people, but I do have a concern that Trump's tendency to promote violence has and may continue to be interpreted as racism. We could see race relations become exacerbated, and see more protests similar to Black Lives Matter. There will be more highway protests and more protests in general.

Will Trump become a full-out Hitler, complete with concentration camps and thought police? I will predict with a confident 99% chance that this will not happen. I see no evidence that Trump is what one may call evil. Rather, I see that his controversial announcements are usually based on ignorance and not being afraid to say what's on his mind. I do predict that Trump will usher in a disaster from his ignorance, but he will be nothing compared to Hitler (or any other dictator for that matter).

Trump will try to silence his opponents, such as certain news outlets, but I predict that he will have zero effect. Oh, he'll successfully get people to condemn specific outlets (Buzzfeed -- you did it to yourselves), but any attempt to remove anyone's first amendment rights will fail. We may witness checks and balances counteracting the ignorance of Trump.

There may be a move to control the Federal Reserve. It's unclear to me exactly how much power Congress has, but I predict that the Fed will remain an independent power no matter what transpires.

I predict that corporations will flourish in the next four years. The stock market has already indicated that Trump is good for business. For the first time in decades, the corporate tax rate will decrease. Hopefully this will be counteracted by a raise in the capital gains tax back to what it was pre-Bush. This will be a move in the right direction, leading to a fairer tax structure. Hopefully it will lead to more employment and higher wages as well.

The part that concerns me the most is the area of foreign relations. Here, I believe we are screwed. Trump has no experience at all in this area, and yet he says that because of his big brain, he knows more about foreign matters than do experts already in the field. He also refuses to attend daily briefings on national security.

Obama has gone eight years without having a single foreign terrorist attack on our soil. (All terrorist attacks during that time have been from US citizens becoming radicalized, or otherwise emotionally disturbed individuals.) With Trump, however, I believe the chances of a foreign attack on our soil increase dramatically, especially after we lose our allies in the war against ISIS. We will see one, if not two attacks.

I am very concerned about Russia. I know Putin is planning something, and I know that he and his country have meddled with our past election, mainly through helping to barrage our social media with fake news articles against Hillary Clinton. Romney was laughed at four years ago when he said Russia was our number one threat, but I think we have yet to see what's in store for us. The election of Trump is a very good outcome for Russia, and it is very likely that Trump will fall into Putin's trap, and we will find ourselves as "allies" in a very undesirable situation. I would give this about two years until we realize too late who we've gotten in bed with.

Finally, I'd like to touch on the idea of unity in our nation. Over the past eight-plus years, I have witnessed the dividing of our country. Even as nice a guy Obama is, he unwittingly helped to further divide the nation with his rhetoric. We are desperately in need of unification of the people. Yes, we are conservatives and liberals who disagree on many topics, but we need help to realize that we're all still Americans. We can work together to find solutions that benefit all people. Obama failed miserably in this effort.

I sincerely believe that Trump has the power and gift to bring people together. He could use his wheeling-and-dealing talents to help both sides get what they want. He could really bring synergy into our government, and stuff can really get done. But will he do it? If his tweets are any indication, then we're in for another rough four years. Perhaps we just need to take away his Twitter account. Either way, the more Trump berates his opponents and does his one-up thing, the more he will push that divide -- and I'm not sure how much more divided our nation can become. It could be the last straw that leads to a civil war of the likes we've never ever seen.

These are my predictions. Hopefully I'll be around four years from now to do a round of backtesting. What do you think will happen?

Reviewing Obama's Last Four Years

Four years ago, I made a series of predictions as to what was going happen during Obama's second term. As I do a little backtesting, I'm happy to see that the more disastrous of these predictions did not come to pass, while other not-so-bad predictions did. Overall, I was impressed with how mature Obama became, especially during his last year in office. But at the same time, I'm a little disappointed that the old divisive Obama came out even just a couple of weeks ago when he urged Democrats not to help Republicans in replacing Obamacare.

Okay, before I further diverge, let's take these point by point. I invite you to open my earlier post and follow along. We'll see if we can have a good laugh.

I'm going to claim a partial win for my predictions on Obamacare. It was nowhere near as bad as I said it was going to be, but there are definite pains. The "full force" implementation was delayed a year or two to help businesses get ready to pay, which helped smooth things out, and possibly avoided a recession. As many predicted, many businesses (mainly in the fast-food industry) did indeed take the route of cutting hours to avoid providing insurance. In fact, my son asked if he could work 40 hours this coming summer to save up for college, and was told "no" due to insurance concerns. His maximum is 30 hours.

Many people are still uninsured -- mainly those who are poor, but not poor enough to get subsidies. For these people caught in the middle, it really is cheaper to pay the $2,000 "tax."

Insurance companies were not forced to keep rates low, which is good, but it resulted in much higher premiums for everyone. Many are quick to blame the insurance companies, but the simple fact is that Obamacare did very little to reduce actual medical costs. If anything, it increased costs.

As for Atlas Shrugged sales, I can't seem to find conclusive evidence, but it seems its sales peaked around 2009, and its popularity seems to have declined since then. So, I was wrong there.

Unemployment: I'll give myself a big loss for that prediction. I still maintain that Obama delayed the recovery of our economy, and that it came back despite Obama's policies. But one thing that didn't happen was that he didn't come after corporations during his second term, so there were no real disasters, and no Triple Dip recession.

Of course, some of my friends will tell me that unemployment is still a bad problem (some people have stopped looking), and that I should claim a win. But no ... I said unemployment could possibly top 11% again, and that didn't happen. No matter how you spin it, we are definitely in a better position today than we were four years ago. Romney was also wrong on this point.



Deficit spending: I'll give myself a win. Obama prides himself in helping to bring down the deficit, but there has been only one year (2015) where our nation's deficit was lower than Bush's highest in 2008. People still debate whether the $1.4 trillion of 2009 belongs to Bush or Obama, but even if we give that year to Bush, we can see that Obama has still maintained record deficits over his entire eight years in office.

Thankfully, the Fed has acted responsibly in the last four years, ending Quantitative Easing and even raising interest rates in reaction to a better economy. Now, if only we can get that government spending down!

Military concerns: I honestly can't decide whether to give myself a win or loss. I think it was a mistake to pull out our troops so soon out of Iraq and Afghanistan. It may have been appropriate to reduce our presence, but our withdrawal probably helped ISIS to gain power.

Does Iran have nukes now? The official words seems to be "no," though they seem to have the capability and materials. I would call the evaluation of my prediction inconclusive. At least we're all still alive, and that's good.

Last but not least, there are all the social issues. Obama did get his tax hike on the rich. Yet, I have yet to see any benefit to me as a middle-class earner. My taxes didn't go down even one dollar, and my wages have hardly gone up. I'm also not benefiting from any new cool government programs. I'm still struggling to see how we middle-class families are benefiting. If anything, taxes on the poor have increased thanks to the new "I can't afford insurance" tax.

Immigration is exactly what it was four years ago. Obama tried an executive order, but that was shut down by the judicial branch.

I didn't mention anything about race issues four years ago, but I am unhappy to report that race relations seem to have deteriorated under Obama. His divisive rhetoric and praise of established criminals seems to have increased both white-on-black and black-on-white racism, and I fear we may live to see race riots. What I find very interesting is the fact that some black people are disappointed in what Obama failed to accomplish, as evidenced by a nice black woman who explained to me why she voted for Trump.

My biggest incorrect prediction was the one on gay marriage. Now, four years later, we may not have a federal law supporting gay marriage, but we do have a ruling from the judicial side that supports it. It's unclear how much Obama had to do with it, but gay people are happy and Obama is more than willing to take credit for it.

I'll try to end on a high note. I will truly miss Obama. Even though I disagree with most of his policies, I like who he became toward the end. I came to learn that he was always sincere on all human rights issues. He just went about things the wrong way. During the rise of Trump, Obama repeatedly stood up for religious freedoms (I know -- surprised?) and anti-discrimination. Most conservatives blasted him for his wise words, even though those words echoed that of another famous conservative, Lincoln.

Obama had good intentions. He tried to fix issues that he saw. Though he often went about it the wrong way, and caused other unintended consequences, he gave it his best shot. He had some success among the failures, and we survived. Obama remains a person I'd like to visit and just converse with for an hour (I don't drink beer). In the long run, I think he will be remembered for his good intentions and his good speeches.

Trying to Like Trump

I tried it for a whole week. Much to the dismay to my facebook friends and my coworkers, I pretended to like Trump. I talked him up. I tried to identify all his good qualities, trying to understand why so many people like him. After all, he really could be our next president.

My Trump supporters friends praised my experiment, and my Trump-disliker friends sent me private messages trying to convert me back to their side, or they figured I was laying on the sarcasm. I felt a little bad, but I let them know that it was only a fun experiment.

The best part came at the end of my week when I was asked to take down all my Trump pictures at work, as there was a concern I might be offending Trump supporters.

Anyhow, what did I learn?

Trump supporters are not idiots. Yes, I know that exit polls show that less-educated people tend to vote for Trump, while college-educated people tend to vote for anyone else, but if you stop and listen to what they say, it makes sense. Instead of dismissing them as violent rednecks, you could learn something from them.

Trump can bring in more jobs. This might possibly be the only place I agree with Trump, and is one area where he may be successful, but what he says is nothing new among Republicans. Instead of trying to force corporations to create jobs through punitive measures, the government can help to create an environment that will encourage corporations to bring the jobs back to America. This can be done by closing special-interest loopholes and lowering the corporate tax rate.

Trump is an excellent dealer. Sure, Trump has made some major mistakes in life, but on the most part, he's turned a million dollars into billions. He may possibly be able to win over the establishment Republicans and Democrats, and help them work together -- if he tones down his ego.

Ironically, many people think that Trump is "anti-establishment," but as my wife and others like to point out: His wheeling and dealing would help him feel right at home in office. He'd do all the back-door deals that establishment politicians do all the time. In fact, Trump has already played the corporate side of politics, which basically makes him "establishment" from the other side.

Trump is not racist to black people. Maybe he is, and maybe he isn't, but all I've been able to find is circumstantial evidence. Sure, there are plenty of video clips of black people being treated poorly at Trump rallies, but then again, the "Black Lives Matter" group protests everything and everyone. When a majority of protesters are black at a Trump rally, then that's who's going to be roughed up. If you watch carefully, you'll see that Trump treats white protesters the same way. So, yeah. Trump is equal-opportunity when it comes to that.

More Republicans like Trump than they do any other one Republican candidate. The numbers don't lie. Most Republicans hate Trump, but they refuse to rally behind just one alternative. Cruz is too radical for many conservatives. Kasich seems too unknown. Rubio would have been nice, but he needs a few more years to grow up. Trump can rally the troops and get them out to vote. He also seems to execute effective campaign strategy.

I still don't like Trump. Part of me hopes that if Trump becomes president, all the good things I listed would come out, and the bad things would tone down considerably, but the realistic side of me seriously doubt this will happen. Even after a week of considering his good traits, I still see that my concerns about him far outweigh the good. Does that mean that I failed in my experiment?

Trump still shows he would perform terribly in regards to foreign relations. He still wants to build a wall across the whole geographic border against Mexico, which even the Border Control leaders themselves say is unnecessary. He wants to apply religious tests on immigrants in the name of safety, which goes against fundamental American principles. He still agrees with the idea of requiring ID badges for Muslims, that we should use waterboarding and worse kinds of torture, and that we should kill the innocent family members of terrorists. I fear that if he's elected, he would push away our Muslim allies in the fight against terrorism, and ISIS would become much stronger, making us much less safe.

I think Trump would make a terrible leader, worse than Obama in his first term. His big ego would likely cause Democrats to close up such that it would be their turn to be the obstinate party in Congress. The way he disrespects opponents is childish, unnecessary, and nonproductive. Could you imagine him getting into a pissing match with Putin or Kim Jong Un?

And I still see that Trump incites violence at his rallies in two ways. He directly encourages supporters to hit protesters, saying he'd pay the legal fees, which in turn incites a violent response from his opponents. Luckily, this has been toned down considerably, but I think these protests may become more numerous if he actually becomes president. It would all depend on what he actually does once in office.

Finally, I'd like to point out that there is no "silent majority," but rather an "angry minority." Trump supporters are still outnumbered, but they are very loud, and very supportive. They have a real chance at winning.

As for me, I don't seem to have a candidate who I feel represents my beliefs. Cruz is close, but he's not as moderate as I would like. Trump definitely would not represent me. In fact, I've already left the Republican Party to become an independent, in anticipation of the Republicans allowing Trump to win.

Oh well, at least it was a fun experiment, and it will be fun to watch what happens next.

We Need a Moderate President -- Always

The following is an article I wrote in Feb., 2016, but forgot to publish. Even though some of the information is dated, I believe the concepts are timeless. 

Our nation is falling apart. All you have to do is take a look at your facebook news feed and you'll see multiple graphics that try to explain why Republicans or Democrats are wrong. Then there are the comments as people fall in line with what they're taught to say. Republicans hate the poor. Democrats take money away and give it to lazy people. Republicans don't create jobs. Democrats don't create jobs. Etc. Etc.

It all makes me wonder. Why do most of us feel that we must choose one side and believe everything that party stands for? Why are we all taught to hate the other party so much and accept the norm of vilifying them? Why are other "third" parties created whose main platform seems to be to hate the main two parties? ("There both wrong, choose us instead.")

The funny thing is, it's perfectly healthy to have opposing viewpoints. It's only unhealthy to hate each other. I'll come back to this in a moment.

A few years ago I read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. You can read my whole review here, where I complain that the characters are too binary. (For those of you who are reading the book right now, you may want to skip a few paragraphs, as I'm going to spoil the end.) The characters fall into two camps:

• The Camp of Dagny (The Republicans): Noble people who believe that we should be rewarded according to our works. These people stand by their word as they earn an honest buck.
• The Camp of James (The Democrats): Corrupt shifty-eyed people who try to earn money where there is no work. They try to take money from the rich and give to the poor.

You can tell which side Ayn Rand takes. As for me, I hated Dagny, and I hated James. I hated John Galt, and I hated the idea of taking all of Earth's best and brightest and collecting them into a secret society away from everyone else. That was really the only way to save the world?

My favorite character is one you've probably long forgotten. His name is Mr. Thompson, the "President" of the government. He's often called the most boring and nondescript mediocre character, but I think he was the only one in the entire book who had the proper perspective. He knew that Dagny's camp had warnings that needed to be heeded, but he also knew that their ideals would hurt a lot of people. He wanted to save the entire world, and he saw the solution as incorporating ideas from both camps.

Dagny's solution was much like what both the Republicans and Democrats say today: "Stay out of our way! Let us do everything our way. No compromise. You guys are losers. We know the right way to do things. Just go away and let us do our job." In the end, Dagny, and John Galt, et al, withdrew to their secret society and let the rest of the world crash, even though it would mean innocent deaths and poverty everywhere.

That's an awful ending. It's short sighted, arrogant, and selfish.

With all that said, I thought Ayn Rand had some really good ideas in there, but if we were to adopt her ideals 100%, it would destroy our government. It's just unsustainable over time.

Coming back to reality (all you Atlas Shrugged readers can come back now), I think the same is true with any one party. If we were to follow any one party's ideals 100%, it would become unsustainable. A Democrat world would kill the American Dream and lead us to mediocre socialism. A Republican world would favor the rich, use up world resources, and lead us to a corporate-run government. Still, both parties have great ideas. The government we have today is a merging of good ideas from both parties. That's what makes our country so great.

Stephen Covey's 7 Habits mentions something called synergy. This is something higher than compromise. When you have two competing ideas, compromise involves each side sacrificing something for the common good. Both sides are a little better off, but still a little unhappy. Covey says that when you compromise, one plus one adds up to something less than two.

Synergy, on the other hand, is a process where two opposing sides work together to find some third solution that satisfies both parties. This is where people explain their concerns, listen to their opponents and decide what is really important, and then coming to realize what solutions meet the most concerns. Then you end up where one plus one adds up to something much more than two, perhaps even more than ten.

A good president should be able to facilitate this process. How many times have you heard a candidate say, "I will work across the aisle"? If they're sincere, then they are the president you want in office. In history, the most successful presidents tend to be moderate in nature. That is, they may be left-leaning Republican or right-leaning Democrat.

Think about it. If we were to vote in an ultra-left candidate like Bernie Sanders, what do you think his chances are of working with the Republicans? And if we were to vote in an ultra-right candidate like Ted Cruz, how well could he work with the Democrats?

Our current president, Obama, has tried several times to push forward bipartisan efforts, which is noble, but unfortunately, he has been quick to condemn Republicans in his rhetoric, which only serves to close up communication and end all chances of synergy (or even just compromise). W Bush and Clinton seemed to enjoy much better success reaching "across the aisle."

However, even if Obama were more successful, he'd still be a Democrat. There will always be people in parties that see anyone from an opposing party as an enemy, thus lowering chances of synergizing. That's why I'd like to propose a new party just for executive branch offices: The Moderate Party. Or perhaps a more exciting name: The Synergy Party.

Most "third" parties have their distinguishing platforms. The Green Party wants to save the world. Libertarians want more freedoms across the board. The Tea Party wants less government and seems to like Ayn Rand, but with religion added.

The Synergy Party would have no distinguishing platform except for this: It would stand for bringing together ideas of other parties, and facilitating a process of synergy, to actually get work done, and to maximize the happiness of all constituents.

Now, isn't that the type of president you'd like to vote for?

P. S. For an example of synergy, I invite you to check out this tax plan that I put together with the help of several different actuaries via an online message board, where we are roughly 50/50 Republican vs. Democrat. It combines ideas from both major parties, and I think it ends up being a fairer and simpler tax across the board.

Article Update: In hindsight, I see that I had intentionally left out the candidate who ultimately won. It's no secret that I never wanted Trump to become president, but the funny thing is, he may have been the best candidate to achieve my moderate dream, considering both his Republican and Democratic views in the past, and his potential to help make deals that benefit the most people.

While I believe he has this potential, he definitely has a long ways to go. After his first 100 days, Democrats (and even some Republicans) remain scared to death of him and his more questionable ideas. As much as Trump would like Democrats and everyone else to step in line with his vision, it is really up to him to find a way to reach out, resolve concerns, and unify the nation. No one else can do this but the President himself.

If Trump can find a way to humble himself, stop blasting his opponents, stay off of his Twitter account, and all around act presidential, then I believe he could pull this off and be a great leader. If he can't do this, then we'll just have to wait another four years, and hope that we can survive that much longer.

The Prius Tax -- Seriously??

North Carolina is currently considering levying a tax on hybrid and electric cars.  Virginia and Washington already have similar taxes, and more states may follow.

The idea is that the owners of hybrid and electric cars consume less gas, and end up paying less in gas taxes than their neighbors.  So, to recoup the missing taxes, North Carolina would like to tax an extra $50 a year on hybrids and $100 a year on electric cars.

As a Prius owner, I am surprised at this idea of a misplaced tax.  Why create a disincentive to drive a fuel-efficient car?  Stephen Colbert had the following to say (starting at around time 2:20) ...



As a concerned citizen, I resolved to write a letter to my local representatives.  Here is the letter that I sent ...

Dear <representative>:

As you work to finalize the 2013-2015 state budget, I hope you would seriously reconsider removing and keeping out the “Prius tax” … that is the proposed annual $50 registration tax for hybrid cars and $100 for electric cars.  I believe this is an unfair tax – one that penalizes rather than one that makes things “fair.”

I understand the underlying concept behind the proposed tax.  The idea is that owners of fuel-efficient cars consume less gallons of gas and pay less in total gas taxes each year.  But at the same time, they drive the same number of miles as other drivers, and cause the same wear-and-tear on the roads.  So, the less efficient car owners end up subsidizing the owners of more efficient cars.  The idea is to make things “fair” by charging an extra flat fee on hybrid and electric car owners.

Let’s do some quick math.  Assume a car travels 10,000 miles a year.  A hybrid gets an average of 45 MPG, and a conventional car gets 25 MPG.  The hybrid owner uses 222 gallons during the year and pays (around 37 cents a gallon) $82 in taxes.  The conventional car uses 400 gallons and pays $148 in taxes.  At first this doesn’t seem fair, as the conventional car owner is paying $66 more in taxes than the hybrid car owner.

To make things fair (according to the idea behind the proposed Prius Tax), the hybrid owner pays an extra $50, so as to bring him up to $132 for the year … much closer to what the lower-gas-mileage car owner paid.  And then everyone would be paying their “fair share.”

However, there are some other factors to consider – the sum of which demonstrates how the Prius Tax would shift an unfair burden of taxes and punish a consumer for trying to save money through obtaining higher fuel efficiency.

Incentives Against Fuel Efficiency

When I first heard of the “Prius Tax,” my first gut reaction was, “Why in the world would my elected representatives institute a disincentive against fuel efficiency?  Why would they reward the gas hogs?”

During a time when Republicans and Democrats alike are promoting fuel efficiency, it’s a surprise that anyone would consider any disincentive such as the Prius Tax.  A consumer considering whether to buy a hybrid/electric car vs. a conventional engine car may choose to buy the conventional car to avoid paying an extra annual tax.  This would slow down the sales of hybrids/electrics and would increase fuel consumption and our reliance on foreign oil.  This situation would be against the urgings of both President Obama and former President Bush.

Similarly, because of the recent economic downturn, many families have “hunkered down” and have become more efficient in their general spending.  They have given up eating out and have learned to cook their own food.  They have given up buying luxury items.  They now make existing items last longer.  These families end up paying less in sales taxes, thus being subsidized by the other families who haven’t cut spending.

Would it then be correct to reward our frugal families with a “frugal tax” so as to get them to pay their “fair share” of the sales taxes?  It should be clear that the answer should be no.  If the family were charged an extra tax, then perhaps they would have been better off not being frugal … thus an incentive is created to be wasteful.

If one can see the ill-placed incentives and/or harmfulness of levying a “frugal tax” then hopefully one can also see the similar ill-placed incentives and harmfulness in levying a “Prius Tax.”

Most hybrids (and some electric cars) are purchased by middle class families hoping to save money in the long run through paying less in gas consumption, while at the same time doing their own part to help conserve gas and cut down on pollution.  Is this the constituency you really want to hit with an extra punitive tax?

Hybrid and Electric Car Owners Pay More in Other Taxes

Additionally, while hybrid/electric car owners pay less in gas taxes annually, they pay more in other taxes, which helps make up most of the difference.

Hybrids and electric cars cost more to make.  A consumer considering to buy a car will find that hybrids cost on average around $3,500 more than a comparable conventional engine car.  The premium for an electric car is much higher … around $15,000.

When cars are first registered, North Carolina charges a one-time Highway Use Tax of 3%.  The hybrid owner pays an extra $105 more than a conventional car owner.  The electric car owner pays an extra $450 … most of which goes into improving North Carolina roads.  Assuming a person owns a car for ten years, this would translate into a $10 annual tax on hybrids and $45 for electric car owners.

North Carolina residents also pay annual property taxes to their local city and county governments.  These moneys go into local public services, including the upkeep of local non-state roads.  (And it so happens that most drivers drive most of their miles on non-state roads.)  With an average rate of 1%, the hybrid owner will pay an extra $35 a year in property taxes, and the electric car owner will pay an extra $150 a year.

Electric car owners pay a further tax on the extra electricity they use in charging their cars.

Revisiting the original scenario, the conventional car owner still pays $148 taxes a year in gas taxes.  However, the hybrid owner is now up to paying $127 in gas taxes (including the other additional taxes on the hybrid car premium).  The electric car owner is now paying $195 a year in additional taxes on the electric car premium (not even including taxes on the extra electricity they consume).  The hybrid owner’s total gas bill is now much closer to everyone else.  And the electric car owner is actually paying more.

If we were to add the Prius Tax, the hybrid owner would then pay $177 a year (more than the conventional car driver), and the electric car owner would be paying $295 a year, which is double of what the conventional car owner pays.

State Gas Taxes Cover More than Wear-and-Tear on the Roads

North Carolina has one of the highest state gas taxes in the nation.  As of 2012, North Carolina ranked 8^th with around 37 cents.  This isn’t far behind New York, the 1^st state, with around 50 cents.  It’s remarkably higher than Alaska, the last state, with around 8 cents.

The taxes are so high partly because funds from North Carolina’s gas taxes are allowed go to other expenditures other than those related to transportation.  For example, funds are allowed to transfer from the Highway Trust Fund and Highway Fund into the state’s General Fund.  Governor McCrory’s proposed budget calls for the transfer of 6.63% of transportation funds into “Other State Agencies,” which is much more than the anticipated gain from the Prius Tax.

If funds are really lacking for the purposes of repairing wear and tear, then in my opinion, the North Carolina legislature should first disallow transfers from the transportation funds before they even consider asking for the Prius Tax.

Incidentally, Governor McCrory’s proposed budget does not include a Prius Tax, and even goes so far as to say one goal is for “no new taxes” (on page xvi “Highlights of the 2013-15 Budget”).

Not All Cars Are Created Equal

Finally, please consider these last considerations.

Hybrids and electric cars are not the only fuel-efficient cars on the road.  There are several conventional-engine and diesel cars that have higher MPG ratings than do some hybrids.  For example, the diesel engine 2013 Volkswagen Passat averages 37 MPG, while the hybrid engine 2013 Lexus LS 600h averages only 21 MPG.

Without the Prius Tax, the hybrid Lexus is “subsidizing” the Passat.  Would it be fair to levy a $50 tax on the Lexus who is already paying more in gas taxes than the Passat?

If anything, North Carolina should consider using the car’s MPG rating in deciding whether to levy this new tax (rather than based on whether or not it’s a hybrid).

And if paying the fair share of “wear and tear” is really an issue, then the Prius Tax fails to recognize the extra damage caused by trucks.  These huge 18-wheeled vehicles cause much more damage to our roads in proportion to the gas taxes the drivers pay.  If we were to continue the logic behind the Prius Tax, then we would also need to levy a Truck Tax, so as to make sure everyone pays their “fair share.”

With all these factors under consideration, I hope you can see how unfair and misplaced the Prius Tax is.  It would unfairly target a specific type of car that may or may not have better fuel economy than the average conventional car, while ignoring eighteen-wheelers, which cause much more damage to the roads.  The tax would primarily hurt middle class families who are trying to conserve fuel and save money in the long run.  It would create an incentive against buying fuel-efficient cars.  And it already is fuel for comedians, as evidenced by Stephen Colbert when he recently said, “I think North Carolina should go after all freeloader transportation that uses public roads but doesn’t pay into the system. Pedestrians should be hit with a walking tax. Bicyclists should be hit with a bicycle tax.”

Alternatives to the Prius Tax

There are several alternatives to the Prius Tax that would help North Carolina receive the funds it needs while also matching taxes more fairly with expenditures.

#1) Increase gas taxes: This would be easier to levy while maintaining proper incentives for everyone to not use as much gas.

#2) Repeal the gas tax entirely and levy a higher flat registration fee on all vehicles equally.  That is, if the legislature believes $100 is a fair tax to levy on electric cars that use no gas at all, then it should be equally fair to not charge anyone gas taxes and instead increase everyone’s annual registration fee by $100.

#3) Instead of being repealed, the gas tax could be reduced, and a flat extra registration fee levied on all vehicles.  This would maintain some income still coming from out of state.

#4) Increase the Highway Use Tax for everyone … after all, isn’t that what the tax is created for?

#5) Replace the gas tax with a miles-driven tax for every vehicle.  There are several ways to determine/estimate miles driven in a year.

#6) Tax tires more.  The use of tires is somewhat proportional to miles driven.

#7) Increase other taxes so that funds going to “Other State Agencies” would come from the appropriate taxing vehicles instead of from the transportation funds.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my concerns.  I wish you luck in settling the budget as soon as possible, but I also hope that you will do so while considering what is the most fair.  Please do not institute the Prius Tax.

Sincerely,

Mel Windham

Nate Isn't That Great

The election is over, and for some strange reason, Nate Silver's prediction achievements are being lauded--almost as if we have some new Einstein in our midst.

After all, Nate correctly predicted the outcomes of all 50 states.  Do you know what the chances of that happening are?

It turns out to be much higher than what one might expect.  Nate was not the only one to predict all 50 states correctly, but he's the only one you'll hear about, because he's the one who works for a major newspaper.

You see, Nate used something called a Monte Carlo simulation.  These are neat models where you input some "known" variables and allow random fluctuations to change the outcomes.  You run thousands of election simulations through the random generator, and you study the outcomes.  If a majority of the simulations show Obama winning, then overall, you expect Obama to win.

If you go to Nate's site and scroll down to the graph that shows "Electoral Vote Distribution" you can see the outcomes of each of the individual simulations.  It appears that a couple had Obama winning only 200 electoral votes at one extreme and as high as 370 at the other extreme.  The higher the line on that chart, the more simulations there were that resulted in that electoral count outcome.

The highest line is at 332.  20% of the simulations showed this count.  This is EXACTLY the count that Obama got.  Wowzers!  The second highest line is at 303, which basically gives Florida to Romney.  That outcome occurred in 16% if the simulations.  If you take the average of all the outcomes, that gives the expected outcome of 313.

This is all neat and all, but one problem with Monte Carlo simulations is that the mode or mean (depending on how you set it up) is already set BEFORE you run the simulations.  That is, it will be determined by the non-random inputs you put into the model.

The biggest inputs into Nate's model were poll results.  As each newer poll gave more up-to-date information, Nate updated his model.  And guess what!  The mode (highest point) of his simulation outcomes MATCHED the polls.

In other words, it wasn't Nate Silver who predicted the outcome, but it was the POLLS.  Nate only compiled the information with neat bells and whistles, and passed that information to us, the consumers.

Now, as a mathematician, I totally ate up Nate's predictions.  I love the stats that he compiled, and how he showed which states had the biggest probability of switching to the other side, and how much sway each individual voter had on the election.  That's all cool stuff.  Yet, that's not what he's getting press about.  Rather, it's the fact that he correctly predicted all 50 states.

But he didn't do that.  I'll say it again ... it was the POLLS.

If you don't believe me, follow this simple exercise.

First go to Nate's site and scroll down to the map.  Look at his predictions.

Next go to CNN (or your favorite news source) to check out the actual results.  Compare the maps and say, "Ooh Ahh!" over Nate's predictions as you confirm that every single one of the states matches.

Next go and view CNN's own projections from a couple of weeks before the election.  These are predictions from using poll data plus whatever cool math tricks they use.  Just in case the link is broken, I'll point out that their projection excludes eight "battleground" states: NV, CO, IA, WI, OH, VA, FL, NH.  Now, if you compare CNN's projections in the remaining 42 states, you'll see that they accurately predict each one.

And finally, visit my newly found actuary friend's site.  His name is Patrick.  At the top, you'll see his projections.  All fifty states matched perfectly.  Not only that, scroll down to his histogram, and you'll see that it's very similar to Nate's.  The mode is 332.  Next comes 347 (most likely giving NC to Obama) and in third place comes 303 (giving FL to Romney).

I've been enjoying my friend's site and eating up his stats and comparing to Nate's stats.  But while Nate's in the spotlight, my friend (who doesn't work for a major newspaper) isn't.

Now that you've compared the results of three different projections, what do all three of these have in common?

Amazing accuracy to predict the actual outcome, and the reliance on POLLS.

While Nate and Patrick and others should continue to do what they do and produce cool stats, let's give credit where credit is due and let's acknowledge where the true predictive power comes from: the POLLS.

Update 11/12/2012:  After having seen videos of Nate Silver after the election and seeing that he is not gloating, I would like to add that Nate appears to be a wonderful person and a professional mathematician.  Please note that I do not believe that Nate made any errors in his projections, and neither did he use faulty methods.  

It's just that the one feat of predicting the point estimate of each of the 50 states was actually the easiest thing to predict, as the polls already had this covered.  Anyone could have taken the average of the latest major polls in each state, add up the electoral votes, and arrive at the same "correct" prediction.  That part isn't particularly impressive.

But if you haven't already, I invite you to dig into Nate's blog and look at all the other cool stats.  It's very difficult to gauge the accuracy of what "could have been" but you can be impressed with all the complexity and coolness.

And then visit my friend Patrick's blog, whose model isn't quite as complex, but is still nonetheless pretty cool.

I'm Willing to Give Obama Another Try

With four years of gridlock and stagnant economic growth, Obama somehow pulled it off.  He won reelection, and now he will be our leader for another four years.

I stayed up late to listen to Romney's concession speech.  He gave a speech similar to John McCain's four years ago.  A few excerpts ...

The nation, as you know, is at a critical point. At a time like this, we can’t risk partisan bickering and political posturing. Our leaders have to reach across the aisle to do the people’s work.

... We look to job creators of all kinds. We’re counting on you to invest, to hire, to step forward.

And we look to Democrats and Republicans in government at all levels to put the people before the politics.

I believe in America. I believe in the people of America.

It's basically a call to support the elected leader.  Work together to form mutual solutions to benefit the people.

And then Obama gave his acceptance speech.  The words he read are good and full of promises that would lead our country in the right direction.  Especially promising are his ideas of working together.  A few excerpts ...

I just spoke with Governor Romney and I congratulated him and Paul Ryan on a hard-fought campaign.

We may have battled fiercely, but it’s only because we love this country deeply and we care so strongly about its future. From George to Lenore to their son Mitt, the Romney family has chosen to give back to America through public service and that is the legacy that we honor and applaud tonight.

In the weeks ahead, I also look forward to sitting down with Governor Romney to talk about where we can work together to move this country forward.

... Now, we will disagree, sometimes fiercely, about how to get there. As it has for more than two centuries, progress will come in fits and starts. It’s not always a straight line. It’s not always a smooth path.

By itself, the recognition that we have common hopes and dreams won’t end all the gridlock or solve all our problems or substitute for the painstaking work of building consensus and making the difficult compromises needed to move this country forward.

But that common bond is where we must begin. Our economy is recovering. A decade of war is ending. A long campaign is now over.

And whether I earned your vote or not, I have listened to you, I have learned from you, and you’ve made me a better president. And with your stories and your struggles, I return to the White House more determined and more inspired than ever about the work there is to do and the future that lies ahead. 

I really hope that Obama has become that "better president," as if he remains the same, the predictions I spelled out earlier will play out.  If instead, Obama reaches out across the aisle as he promises, then some of those losses can be mitigated.

Since Obama seems sincere, I'm willing to have hope that he will do what it takes.  Perhaps we'll all survive these next four years.  But then again ...

Four years ago, Obama gave a similar acceptance speech.  A few excerpts ...

I just received a very gracious call from Sen. McCain.  He fought long and hard in this campaign, and he’s fought even longer and harder for the country he loves.  He has endured sacrifices for America that most of us cannot begin to imagine, and we are better off for the service rendered by this brave and selfless leader. I congratulate him and Gov. Palin for all they have achieved, and I look forward to working with them to renew this nation’s promise in the months ahead.

... Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long. Let us remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House –- a party founded on the values of self-reliance, individual liberty, and national unity. 

Those are values we all share, and while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress.  As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, “We are not enemies, but friends…though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection.” And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn -– I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your president too.

These are great, yet very familiar words.  If anything, I sense a little more passion in his 2008 speech.  At first, I liked Obama, and I believed him when he said he was going to usher in a new age of bipartisanship.  I had hope. 

And yet, I'm scratching my head as to why Obama seemed to do the exact opposite over the last four years.  As soon as he got in office, he told the Republicans, "I won, you lost."  He continued blaming Bush with everything under the sun, and attempted to discredit Republican-leaning establishments, and needlessly vilified several parties (including the US Supreme Court during his first State of the Union address). 

Was Obama lying about bipartisanship in his 2008 speech?

Then there was hope again in early 2010 when a special election gave us Scott Brown, the 41st Republican Senator.  With this election, Health Care Reform appeared to be dead in the water because of the likelihood of a filibuster in the Senate.  For a brief instant, Obama looked sincerely humbled as he announced that he was going to have to work with the Republicans to get Health Care passed.

But that's not what happened.  Nancy Pelosi and others convinced Obama to allow them to take a different path and to bypass Republicans entirely through the reconciliation process.  Again, it appears Obama was lying about wanting to reach across the aisle.

After the fact, Obama "listened" to Republicans and vowed to pursue health care tort reform.  And last I heard, we're still waiting for anything to come of it.  I guess that's what you call "listen and ignore."

So, how does the saying go?  Once burned, twice shy?  I hear the words coming out of Obama's mouth in his 2012 acceptance speech, and again I'm hoping that he'll really follow those words this time, but I'm not so optimistic as before.  This time, words alone won't cut it.  I'd like to see some real action this time.  Show us some real bipartisanship.

For example, if Obama is listening to the public, he'd notice that in the CNN exit polls, 49% of those polled believe that the 2010 Health Care Reform Law should be repealed either in part or in its entirety; while 44% believe it should stay the same or be expanded.  If Obama is truly listening to his constituents, then he'd realize that the Law at least needs to be revisited.  If Obama and Congress would do this, then that would show me that Obama really means what he says about bipartisanship.

But let's see how Obama's doing so far after winning the election (talking about wanting to raise taxes on the rich)...

"On Tuesday night, we found out that the majority of Americans agree with my approach and that includes Democrats, independents and a lot of Republicans across the country..."

Ouch!  I really hope we're not in for four more years.  Obama--prove me wrong!

Obama's Going to Win and We're Screwed

With Obama almost certain to gain a victory, I'd like to take this time to make a few predictions as to what we're likely to see over the next four years.  And also to broadcast why I'm not voting for Obama, and why I'm not jumping on the bandwagon that will contribute to what's about to happen.

Four years ago, Obama made a lot of promises.  Now in 2012, many people are still out of work.  People are still paying high taxes.  They are still paying high costs for healthcare, or still not able to afford it.  A lot of people are disappointed.

In the current election, Obama is making the same promises and then some.  It's as if he's doubling down on his promises, and for some strange reason, it appears to be working.  There are millions are people saying, "The last four years have been disappointing, but I'm voting for Obama again anyway."

This sentiment is echoed in yesterday's idiotic endorsement from the Economist.  Even though they admit that Romney gave a spark of hope of being that better president in the first debate, they'd rather "stick with the devil" they know and reelect him.  I really don't understand this.

So, what's going to happen over the next four years?  More of the same, only worse.

Obamacare is going to do the most damage.  When it goes into full force in 2014 (only a year and two months away), people are finally going to understand what's in this plan, and they're going to be screaming.

The poor who make just enough money to be ineligible for subsidies are going to say, "You mean we have to pay for it?  We can't afford it."  Some will elect to take the annual tax (it's not a fine as per the Supreme Court) because it'll be cheaper.

Businesses are going to cut jobs and/or cut down employee hours to be below 30 hours to get around the requirement to provide healthcare.  There are already businesses seriously considering this TODAY.  When this actually begins to be a common practice, Obama will then begin an initiative to punish any businesses engaging in these "evil" practices and all hell will break loose, while sales of Atlas Shrugged will go through the roof.

Insurance companies will be forced to keep their rates at an artificially low level--so low that in a few years, the cash flow coming in will be insufficient to pay out claims.  These companies will either choose to stop writing health insurance, or just go insolvent.  Since future insurance bailouts are a definite no-go, this will ensure the introduction of the public option, which will eventually become the ONLY option, and the national anthem will be officially changed to be "O America."

 

Unemployment is going to continue to be a big issue.  It's going down now due to natural economic forces despite Obama's anti-corporation policies.  It may even get down to around 6% in 2013, but with Obamacare and higher taxes on the rich and small businesses on the docket, I expect unemployment to creep up again, and wouldn't be surprised to see it top out over 11% before 2016.

It's going to be called a Triple Dip recession.  I consider myself to be very fortunate to have kept my job during these tough times, but I have actual fears that I may not survive the next dip.  A vote for Obama could be voting me out of work.

Obama remains the King of Deficit Spending.  Keynes would have been proud of of his accomplishments.  The graph above shows the federal government's budget surplus or deficit through the years (unadjusted for inflation).  The biggest surplus happened during the Clinton years.  Bush had a pretty sizable deficit.  But see that big dip down to 1.4 Trillion?  That's Obama.  He didn't just "inherit" such a large deficit.  He CREATED it.  And Obama's nonchalant attitude on the Letterman show when asked about the deficit is very disturbing.  He said he didn't know what the national debt was and that "we don't have to worry about it in the short term."

What will happen in the next four years?  Will he continue not caring?  Are we to be the next Greece?  Some experts say our debt is actually healthy, but I don't know.  If we had to handle that large a debt by percent personally, we'd probably have to declare bankruptcy.

The Feds can print as much money as they need.  Print too much and the dollar becomes worthless.  Hyperinflation could become a reality.  In such an environment, we would have to be paid daily and spend that money immediately or lose it.  People would burn dollar bills just to stay warm.  Exciting!

Fortunately, experts predict the Feds will step in and not let this happen.  It definitely wouldn't happen in the next four years.  But what this does mean is that there will come a time where the US can no longer do any "Quantitative Easing" and there will be no further recourse to delay our debts.  This will invariably lead to higher taxes.

Iran will get even closer to building nuclear weapons.  Obama says that he's doing enough to stop this from happening, but I'm not convinced.  Romney appeared to much more concerned about this than was Obama in the third debate.

Also, as was evidenced in that debate, Obama seems unwilling to handle issues "all over the map."  He wants to handle one issue at a time.  He wants to remove our troops out of Afghanistan by 2014, no matter what.  His business-like approach to accomplish this concerns me, as it doesn't take into account any adverse situations that may arise between then and now.

Obama would rather bring our troops home and put them to work building bridges and schools.  (He actually said this in the third debate, and I'm surprised no one has jumped on it.)

It would be great if we could live in this imaginary world of peace, but unfortunately, the world is in turmoil.  If we withdraw completely, we do so at our own risk.  We can't count on a live and let die approach.  Our enemies will attack no matter what we do, and the question is, are we going to be ready?

There you have it ... my predictions.  In a nutshell, four more years of disappointment.  We will all witness the continuing failures of trickle-down government.

It'll be fun to come back to these predictions in 2016 and see how many came to pass.

And should Romney somehow win WI or PA or OH and squeak out a win, it'll still be fun to see how many of these predictions still come to pass despite how great I think Romney would be.  Or how many things would actually get worse.  But alas, Romney's chances to win wane daily now.

What gets me is, I don't think that these predictions are too hard to see.  I see several different people yelling these concerns as loud as they can, while a majority of the people close their ears and hold their nose while they vote for "more of the same."  I wish they could understand exactly what they're getting before it's too late.  I'd like to avoid this great call to impeach Obama when there exists no impeachable acts that he committed.

So why are so many people voting for Obama despite all these negative indications?  I think the answer comes down to one simple word: greed.  I'm not talking the "Wall Street" type of greed, but rather the "entitlement class" type of greed.  Everyone that's voting for Obama has been promised something.  But yet, when I try to pin down Obama's plan to deliver, it seems like nothing but a bunch of empty promises.

Obama promises to tax the rich more, but is very unclear as exactly how this will benefit the poor.  He mentioned in one of the debates that he already gave the middle class a tax cut, but I do my own taxes, and I didn't get one.  The only new "tax cuts" I can think of were two recent temporary measures: a "Make Work Pay" benefit of $800 a year per household for two years, and a Social Security tax holiday of 2% over the past two years.  If these were tax cuts, then they wouldn't be going away after two years.  Obama's current tax plan does absolutely NOTHING to cut down taxes on the poor and middle-class.  It is simply to increase taxes on the rich.  At least Romney's tax plan would reduce taxes on the poor and middle class, so I'm really at a loss as to why people think they're better off with Obama on this issue.  In four more years we poor and middle class people are going to be paying the SAME taxes (plus the "I can't afford medical insurance" tax I mentioned above), and we are still going to be crunched.

Obama promises that women will be better off with him as president.  These last couple of weeks, he and his ads have been bringing up abortion and equal employment and so on.  But what exactly can Obama deliver?  Abortion is already legal and is here to stay, and the president, whoever he may be, would have little power to change it.  And by the letter of the law, women already have equal employment opportunities.  There is still a question of practice, but again, there is very little a president can do.

Obama now officially supports gay marriage.  He announced this only a couple of days before picking up major contributions from gay donors at an already planned Hollywood fundraiser.  And yet, can anyone name one thing that Obama promises to do for gay people?  Don't they realize they're being played?  They're only going to be irate in four years when there still isn't a federal law enforcing the acceptance of gay marriage.

Obama promises citizenship to illegal immigrants.  This is an unmet promise from 2008.  He did try to get the Dream Act to pass, but that legislation was problematic.  He also gave an executive order giving a small subset of immigrants citizenship in the past couple of months.  How conveniently close to an election!  The funny thing is that Romney has a much more viable plan to provide an easier path to immigration.  Make them legal and make them pay taxes.  Again I'm at a loss as to what Latinos expect Obama will deliver as he was unable to deliver in the last four years.

So, Obama makes a whole series of empty promises, and he does this well, playing on that natural "entitlement" greed we all seem to have.  In some cases, Romney even provides better options, but he doesn't emanate that same sense of hope that Obama's good at doing.

So, yeah.  Obama's going to win, and we're all screwed.