Religious Freedom Restoration and the Iowa Caucuses

Recently we saw a volcanic eruption over the passage of laws by the Indianan and Arkansas state legislatures. These "Religious Freedom Restoration Laws" would allow any business to refuse service to customers who offend the religious principles and beliefs of the company owners.

In examining these laws we find that service would probably not be denied to people with disabilities. Neither would short people, fat people, women, people with a suntan, nor probably blacks and Latino's be refused service. There are specific laws that prohibit racial discrimination.

So, the conclusion is that service would be denied mostly to LGBT - gays and lesbians - because that's the beef some conservative Christians have with behavior that is sinful to them.

The problem is that in 2015 Americans have become more tolerant of gays and lesbians. The other problem is that state (government) intrusion in people's lives is dangerous. Where will it end? Will liberals have their own values that they will impose when in power? Or, are liberals (California) already ramming their principles down the throats of everyone?

So, supporters of this legislation apparently felt that protests against these laws would come from gays and lesbians and that could be dismissed and brushed off.

Indeed, before governor Mike Pence of Indianan signed the bill into law there were protests from the LGBT community and its supporters. In Arkansas these protests started even before governor Asa Hutchinson had signed the bill which he decided to send back to the legislature without a signature. 

BUT, the unexpected eruption of opposition to the law came from the business community. Many large and important corporations and the NCAA expressed their concern. Many even threatened to yank their companies from Indiana and some prohibited travel by their employees to Indiana. In Arkansas the largest company Walmart voiced its concern even before the governor had a chance to sign the bill. (In 2019 California prohibited travel by government employees (including professors) to Iowa because the state removed medical treatment and services for LGBTQ persons.)

So how are IOWA Republicans responding to this challenge? One prominent Republican was  almost HYSTERICAL about the long term consequences to the Republican Party "brand." That reflects the views of Whit Ayres, a Republican political consultant who has been quoted as saying gay rights and same sex marriage is not at the top of the list of issues that most Republicans want to press in 2016. Hes said,  “The biggest issues among candidates will be the ones among voters, which are the economy, health care, education, ISIS, national security and so on.”

In Iowa the owners of Gortz Haus, a florist, gift shop and wedding reception facilty, refused to book same sex weddings because homosexuality is against their faith. HOWEVER, Iowa law prohibits such discrimination. they were interviewed on TV and they clearly would wish Iowa would pass a law such as Indiana and Arkansas. Fourth District Congressman Steve King was also upset that the Governors of Indiana  and Arkansas  decided to amend the laws to prohibit discrimination against gays. He said the people had spoken and members of the House and Senate of both states passed the laws and they should be implemented.

Texas Senator Ted Cruz, in Iowa to launch his presidential campaign also strongly supported these laws saying that religious freedom was a funding principle of the United States. Of course it's not clear that if a gay couple walks into a bakery and wants to order a cake they are also forcing the owners of the bakery to endorse homosexuality. They probably just want to buy a cake. On the flip side, if two people of the opposite sex who are not married and are sinful fornicators having extra marital sex come into a flower shop will the owners ask them if they are sinners and refuse service?

Most Republicans running for president supported the laws even before they were signed and then "unsigned" by the two governors. Jeb Bush quickly backpedaled when he saw that conservative, Republican, corporate executives objected to the laws.

Some Republicans believe that these laws are like an IED that is very dangerous for the existing GOP rift between religious and social conservative Republicans who are opposed to gay rights and " ... the pro-business wing of the party that sees economic peril in the fight."

When Walmart says "NO!" and the social conservative wing says "YES!" to this legislation you know there is some serious "thinking" in to be done by the GOP. Give in on your values and yield to growing opinion or stick to your principles?

The 2020 primaries and caucuses will be the most tense but interesting in modern history.

Never has there been a president like Donald Trump. Not since the late 60's has there been such a deep division in the Democratic Party between left and right. Rarely has there been a world in greater threat (climate change) and disruption (the Middle east, North Korea, the Chinese challenge.)

I will follow these events diligently. I have been analyzing American politics since 1969. I have seen a lot. I am scared about what lies ahead for us this time around. The 2020 caucuses, primaries and election in November will be epic. Hopefully in a good way.

Radio celebrity Arnie Arnesen created a huge stir in the Democratic caucuses & primaries. In my interview with her (I do her radio show The Attitude every week) she said that Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders should retire from the 2020 campaign (and retire period!) She also excoriated Sanders for being a "Democrat of convenience" so to speak. He has run as a Dem but after losing the 2016 nomination he abandoned the Democrats, did not encourage his supporters to vote for Clinton, and generally reverted to being a Socialist.

Seattle police, businesses prepped for May Day violence

Mayhem! Violence! Riots! And Donald Trump is nowhere near Seattle!
The media forgets.
When the demonstrators blocked Trump in California the media said "Well, it's his fault. He has been spewing divisive language and attacking immigrants."
What did the City of Seattle do to deserve the May 1 demonstrations?

• Globalization. 
• Racism.
• Corporate America.
• LGBTQ discrimination.
• Micro aggression.

Dr Politics - CTV News Channel 'The race goes on' U S primary CTV News

How Bush Super PAC Frittered Away All the Money.

Read this article. My focus groups said, "Now voters can truly say, "Thank GOD Bush dropped out! If this is how his people think money should be spent then think of how they would have spent taxpayer money!"

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/politics/jeb-bush-campaign.html

$88,000 on "branding" Mr. Bush. These brilliant people used JEB! with that exclamation point as the original "brand." Had they ever heard of the last candidate who tried an exclamation mark and a red and black checkered shirt as his brand. You can look that up and see how well he did. (Oh, all right. It was LAMAR! Alexander Senator from Tennessee. Ever hear of President Alexander? It was made fun of and because a huge JOKE! Why the hell would Bush's people go there?

94,000.00 "clubbing" to rise money.  "Instead of spending last winter on the hustings of Iowa and New Hampshire, Mr. Bush held off, using the first half of 2015 to raise money in places like New York, Chicago, Texas and Florida." HELLO! Ever hear of the "ground game?"

$8.3 Million  - ".. he and the group supporting him built one of the largest organizations of any candidate in either party."   ... "Parasites no doubt!" as I heard a famous consultant shout on a talk show.

#10 million on consultants. "his team paid consulting fees to around 140 different companies or individuals,"How'd that work out? These people get paid, lose and then move on, get paid and lose again. I read somewhere that it was the same folks who got Mitt Romney elected to the White House .. Oh wait!!

NPR January 29 2016

We are on NPR today for a long segment Here & Now (starts at 1pm Iowa Public radio) HOUR 2, 20 past the hour. Listen to a passionate show.

Most media has been shallow and sensational. I bitched to NPR about that.

Other media have covered minutia that NO ONE CARES ABOUT!

My Lecture at the Clinton Presidential Library

The University of Arkansas Clinton School of Public Service selected Dr. Steffen Schmidt, University Professor in Iowa State’s political science department, to speak as a William J. Clinton Distinguished Lecturer in their upcoming focus on the Iowa Caucus.

Schmidt, also known as “Dr. Politics,” was selected based on his international reputation as an expert in American politics, especially the caucus process. He joins other distinguished lecturers such as President Paul Kagame of Rwanda; former Prime Minister of Canada Kim Campbell; former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger; Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer; civil rights icon Ruby Bridges; Nobel Laureates Muhammad Yunus, Wangari Maathai; and Leymah Gbowee; presidential advisers Harriett Miers; Karl Rove; and President and Secretary Clinton.

“When I received the invitation to speak at the Clinton School of Public Service at the University of Arkansas,” said Schmidt, “I thought – any time I get a gig where Karl Rove, James Carville, Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger have previously talked, I know I’ve died and went to Political Science Heaven!”

The first school in the nation to offer a Master of Public Service (MPS) degree, the University of Arkansas Clinton School of Public Service gives students the knowledge and experience to further their careers in the areas of nonprofit, governmental, volunteer or private sector service.

In addition to being recognized as a foremost expert on Iowa caucuses, Schmidt is also a global expert on politics. Dr. Schmidt regularly reports on American politics for the largest Venezuelan newspaper, is contracted by Turner Broadcasting for regular election commentary for CNN en Espanol, and consults international media such as Agence France; Press, EFE, the largest news agency in Spain; the BBC; and Deutsche Welle radio. He is also Chief Political Correspondent for InsiderIowa.com and maintains multiple blogs.

Schmidt coauthored American Government and Politics Today, which became the most widely adopted American Government college textbook in the United States. Now in its 18th edition, it was one of the first e-books on American government, and soon expanded to include Internet toolkits for students and instructors.

Integrating online technology and research in distance education strategies, Dr. Schmidt launched the first ISU Massive Open Online Course (MOOC), about the Iowa Presidential Caucuses, on Sept. 1, 2015. The course analyzes Iowa’s first-in-the-nation caucus presidential candidate selection process, the role of the media, and the future of Iowa Presidential Caucus.

JOIN me in my free, online course on the Iowa caucuses. http://www.iowacaucusesmooc.org

Dr Politics. Neil Cavuto Fox interview

US History of Exclusion and Deportation

-->

Donald Trump has shaken the news media with his suggestion that we should bar Muslims from coming to the United States. Here is a short history. This does not include the discrimination against every new wave of immigrants.

 

US History

1882. The Chinese Exclusion Act signed by US President Chester Arthur May 6, 1882 not repealed until repealed by the Magnuson Act on December 17, 1943.

1942. Japanese internment. President Roosevelt ordered the Incarceration of Japanese Americans during World War II Executive Order 9066. Feb 19, 1942.

1936. Rejecting Jewish refugees fleeing Germany from Nazi Germany. July 1938, a poll by Fortune magazine fewer than 5 percent of Americans supported raising the quotas for political refugees mostly Jews. 67% said "we should try to keep them out."

1954. Deporting Mexicans by Pres. Eisenhower in the “Operation Wetback” Bracero program. 

2015. On December 7, Republican Presidential Candidate Donald Trump suggests that no Muslims should be allowed into the United States.

 Don't be surprised at Trump's suggestion. It has its roots in many previous American policies. In times of panic and crisis (we are in such a moment now) people always become fearful of foreigners even if it is irrational and Constitutionally illegal. 

We should also be aware that anti immigration politicians have been gaining ground in Europe especially France where Marine Le Pen and her National Front Party may win the next election. The right is also growing in other European countries. 

AND, France, the cradle of democracy is closing three mosques! (USA Today: "French authorities announced Wednesday they  shut down three mosques for an alleged "pattern of radicalization.") 

Cruz Carpetbaggers Coming to Iowa From Texas?

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2015/12/04/cruz-campaign-rents-des-moines-apartments/76778004/

Headline: Cruz campaign rents Des Moines apartments
"The Ted Cruz campaign is renting apartments in Des Moines to house volunteers it is importing from outside of Iowa ahead of the Feb. 1 caucuses. Called a ..." 

So, it says 500 volunteers from Texas will come to Iowa and work for Cruz.

"Iowa HATES carpetbaggers, Steffen" texted my friend a prominent, smart ,Republican campaign expert. "The question is, he doesn't have enough actual "real" Iowans to canvass and campaign for him?" queried a Republican legislator who was a great student of mine at ISU about 16 years ago. "Stef, this is an easy bulls eye for Marco Rubio or Trump because "busing in people to Iowa" is the WORST thing a candidate can do - remember the Ames Straw Poll!? LOL!" - Hmm I agree.

I texted back, "of course some of these people running against Cruz don't know Iowa politics and political culture enough to understand the implications of this new development. SO they may not see the strategic opportunity. Rubio needs to hire IOWANS, get yard signs out, distribute bumper stickers, and do face to face with ORDINARY Iowans."

Also it's shocking that Trump has not asked Cruz for his actual official, government birth certificate. That will be an endless drip drip, drip because Cruz will NOT make it public - it's a CANADIAN birth certificate!



Steffen Schmidt
University Professor of Political Science Iowa State

Sent from my iPad SynkLink via my iPhone
https://www.iowacaucusesmooc.org Free Caucuses short course. Join me. Last one rolls out in January just before the caucuses. Fasten your seat belts!

An Armed Planned Parenthood?

After the Colorado Planned Parenthood shooting there is now serious consideration given to training and arming Planned Parenthood workers.

The NRA always says gun free zones alike schools are the target of choice of shooters because they know there is no risk to them. Planned Parenthood, a very liberal group most of whose members are anti gun and unarmed is the perfect target.

I heard today that they are actually now planning to train key front line employees in the use of firearms, issue them body armor and high powered weapons. They have decided that police protection comes too late and they are a bulls eye for anti abortion activists as well as persons like the Colorado shooter who, as others have done before with PP, take matters into their own hands.

Liberals are opposed to the NRA and guns. In the United States that means they are the best target because, as I said there is no risk. The Colorado shooting may be the straw that breaks the camel's back on that questions. I can't imagine heavily armed liberals. Maybe that's the problem.

Iowa Presidential Caucuses: WHY is Donald Trump in Fourth Place in Iowa?

Iowa Presidential Caucuses: WHY is Donald Trump in Fourth Place in Iowa?: How Good are Political Polls in 2016? Steffen Schmidt Modern polling has move from the telephone to the Internet...

WHY is Donald Trump in Fourth Place in Iowa?

How Good are Political Polls in 2016?

Steffen Schmidt

Modern polling has move from the telephone to the Internet.

The reason is that many people no longer have telephones. The second is that even when called on their landline or cell phones, a huge percentage (as high as 80% and above) are no longer willing to answer polls.

Since a huge percentage of Americans have Internet access and are on the many social media as well as voluntarily answer online polls, Internet polling has become a significant and more relevant piece of the modern political polling.

Internet polling also allows for a much quicker cycle of tracking polls at lower cost.  For example, the Paris terrorist attack overnight required new polling on 2016 presidential contenders since it was probably a “game changer.”

Some of the best Internet polls actual use samples from panels of carefully screened respondents.

One very interesting development regards Donald Trump. Pollster Nate Cohn suggested that 

.

“ … online polls favor one candidate. Ever since Mr. Trump rose in the polls, he has fared best in the online ones — sometimes by as much as 10 points better than live-interview telephone surveys conducted over the same period.

There are a number of possible explanations for Mr. Trump’s strength in online polling, which was first noted by Jonathan Robinson, an analyst for Catalist, a data firm associated with the Democratic Party.

One is that voters are likelier to acknowledge their support for Mr. Trump in an anonymous online survey than in an interview with a real person. Plenty of research suggests that the social acceptability of an opinion shapes the willingness of poll respondents to divulge it, and it’s imaginable that voters would be reluctant to acknowledge support for a controversial figure like Mr. Trump.”

 .

In the Iowa State University "traditional" scientific poll Donald Trump comes in fourth after "Undecided." Ben Carson has support from 27.2 percent, Marco Rubio is second with 16.7 percent; undecided voters are third, making up 16.2 percent; and Donald Trump is fourth with only 14.7 percent

It is true that online polls under represent minorities and lower income and education voters. However these groups are also much less likely to vote so the accuracy of the Internet polls such as SurveyMonkey, Reuters/Ipsos, Morning Consult, YouGov/CBS News may be a life saver for the declining traditional polling by phone or with clipboards at the mall. 

 .

Internet polling is still young and it will take several political cycles before the validity of these surveys is demonstrated. It will also take a few more years for the methodology and sampling algorithms to be refined. In the meantime we should watch polling results with care and be “critical consumers.” Remember that is a poll says 34% say they would support Donald Trump and 52% Hillary Clinton we cannot refute the validity of those polls until the caucuses results are in on the night of February 1. Also remember that surveys are most accurate minutes after they are completed. Most polls have a very short shelf life. 

Steffen Schmidt is University Professor of Political Science at Iowa State University and CEO of SEAS LLC Consulting.

Iowa Presidential Caucuses: Paris Terrorist Attack: A Game Changer for 2016 El...

Iowa Presidential Caucuses: Paris Terrorist Attack: A Game Changer for 2016 El...: Dr Steffen Schmidt: posted in Washington Post 

 The Paris massacre is a game changer for the Iowa caucuses and the 2016 US presidential e...

Paris Terrorist Attack: A Game Changer for 2016 Elections

Dr Steffen Schmidt: posted in Washington Post 



The Paris massacre is a game changer for the Iowa caucuses and the 2016 US presidential elections.



Cut the US federal budget? REALLY! And how the hell does the United States "arm up" and defend the democratic western world?


Rand Paul is finished. So is Bernie Sanders. The priorities have just totally changed.

All the issues will be inverted.

The Des Moines Presidential debate will be completely different today as a result of this terrorist attack. 



Who will benefit?

Hillary and one of the GOP hawks. Probably someone with some "real" experience.

This is the end of the 2016 debates and campaign "circus."

US presidential elections are not a clown act. They are also not a sermon.



I imagine that Carson, Firorina, and Trump will drop in the polls. NO ONE wants to turn over their lives and the security of their families to inexperienced people. 



Biden (and Chafee) Are out of the race

Vice President Joseph Biden’s decision not to run for the White House is a game changer. His earlier unsuccessful attempts were in 1988 and 2008.

The Democratic field had been in suspended animation even while Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders built their campaign and raised money.

However, lurking behind the two front-runners was Joe Biden. He has been sucking away 15 percent plus or minus and his approval rating was very high.

Speculation that he would wait until after the Benghazi hearings to see if Clinton would be badly damaged proved idle. He had agonized after the death of his son and did not want his family to be dragged through the grueling task of a campaign.

This is not the first time a powerful contender has agonized over running. As the New York Times reminded us, “Gov. Mario Cuomo of New York left a plane bound for New Hampshire idling on a tarmac in 1991 as he fretted over whether to run for president.”

The specter of Biden created several distractions to the entire 2015-16 race to the nomination.

First, for the Democrats it delayed the decision by many powerful check writers. Their anxiety over Hillary Clinton’s email and Benghazi problems made them nervous and Biden seemed like a potential alternative. Now they can make those commitments to either Sanders or Clinton with most analysts giving the bulk of that new revenue stream to Clinton.

Second, the consolidation of voters in coming polls will strengthen the field for the Democrats. Here in Iowa I met literally hundreds of Democrats who were very interested in Biden and hoping he would run. Now they will need to pivot to one of the other candidates. Some may actually look at former Baltimore mayor and Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley. Most will distribute themselves between Clinton and Sanders.

Third, the Republicans are very disappointed. I spoke to and emailed with several of my best GOP connections and they were very excited about a Democratic Party split three ways. That would weaken the front-runners and to some extent pit Clinton and Biden against each other. Now the Democrats enjoy the advantage of a small field. Jim Webb and Lincoln Chafee proved unprepared to run in the first Democratic debate and Webb has already dropped out.

Biden will certainly remain a source of irritation for Clinton especially on how to deal with the Republicans. Clinton called them the enemy in the Democratic debate perhaps as a joke but she has certainly been seen as the biggest target of Republicans. Biden thinks Democrats should work across the table with the opposition. There is also irritation over whether Biden supported the raid on Osama bin Laden or not which Hillary Clinton says she fully backed.

Overall the take away is that the Democratic campaigns will now be much more aerodynamic as it were with the turbulence of Biden removed from the flight path.

Is Bobby Jindal Viable?

I follow EVERY news story on election 2016. It is an amazing year and I get up at 4 a.m. every day so I can feed my horses and then get to work trolling the headlines. Iowa farm sunrises in October are FABULOUS so being up early is a real treat.

This week Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has caught my attention.

He is nowhere in the polls and has been part of the "Happy Hour" debate group, the kids at the little table with the happy meals while the adults eat from the regular menu.

Now all of a sudden I see articles that say Jindal is rising in the polls in Iowa. I hear Iowa Christian political leaders say that Jindal is the guy with God on his side so to speak because all of the "brand" of Jindal has been about religion. I see that the Des Moines register plans to "interview" him in their board room. So there is this rising attempt to divert our attention to Jindal from Trump, Carson, Fiorina, Rubio, and Cruz who are floating at the top of the polls.

HOWEVER, if you research Jindal you will find some information that raises serious doubts about Jindal and I'd kike to share those with you.

Headline: "So Long Bobby Jindal?The Louisiana governor is running out of money, and his presidential campaign might be running out of time."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/so-long-bobby-jindal/410854/

More Headlines:

http://www.thenewsstar.com/story/news/local/2015/10/16/state-revenues-topple-danger-lie-ahead/74095306/

"Louisiana State Treasurer John N. Kennedy suggested that Gov. Bobby Jindal should return to Louisiana from his presidential campaigning in Iowa and make plans for budget adjustments now in order to avoid draconian cuts later in the budget year." Louisiana is more broke than the federal government.

From the Times-Picayune: "Eleven out of 15 GOP candidates raised more money than Jindal in the three-month period." Money is smart. They know a losing investment when they see it.

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/10/bobby_jindal_presidential_trou.html

So, is Jindal a viable candidate for 2016? 

He may rise in the polls in Iowa where of 40% or so the GOP is very religious and very conservative his God-centered campaign may do well with them. However he is only at 4% in Iowa today. 

The second state in line for presidential candidates is New Hampshire the second least religious state in the nation. In new Hampshire Jindal is at 0.0% in the latest RCP aggregate poll! He scored 0% in the Gravis, CNN/WMUS, and NBC/WSJ polls. How can anyone look at those numbers and say that Jindal is viable with a straight face!

Jindal is at 0.6 percent nationally which is a ridiculous number and he will be eliminated from the "adult" debates unless he hits 2.5% nationally which is also ridiculously low.

At some point people need to face the political grim reaper and drop out. Jim Webb and Lincoln Chafee need to drop out. Pataki and James Stuart "Jim" Gilmore III need to quit the race. The day is coming closer and closer when Jindal also needs to say goodby and find some honest work.

Donald Trump Says George W Bush was President When 9-11 Happened

The 2016 race to the White House is FABULOUS! 
Never have we had such tension, drama, excitement, odd and interesting candidates, and mud slinging with cruise missile intensity.

The latest is when Donald Trump said:

“When you talk about George Bush – I mean, say what you want, the World Trade Center came down during his time,” Trump said in an interview with Bloomberg Television.

After the host pushed back on the charge, Trump doubled down: “He was president, OK? Blame him or don’t blame him, but he was president. The World Trade Center came down during his reign.

The best posting I’ve seen on Donald Trump’s comment that George W Bush was President when 9-11 happened is the following from the Washington Post:

Here is the brilliant and accurate Washington Post item no doubt posted by an intelligence officer:

“U.S. intelligence officials warned President Bush weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks that Osama bin Laden's terrorist network might hijack American planes.

On Aug. 6, 2001, President George W. Bush received a classified review of the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, Al Qaeda. That morning’s “presidential daily brief” — the top-secret document prepared by America’s intelligence agencies — featured the now-infamous heading: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” A few weeks later, on 9/11, Al Qaeda accomplished that goal.

In a memo from the Phoenix FBI to headquarters, the agents recommended an urgent nationwide review of flight schools "for any information that supports Phoenix's suspicions" of a terrorist connection. The memo reportedly cited Osama bin Laden by name.

And the C.I.A. repeated the warnings in the briefs that followed.

Could the 9/11 attack have been stopped, had the Bush team reacted with urgency to the warnings contained in all of those daily briefs?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=91651&page=1

High Taxes and High Prosperity

The grueling debate about taxes seems to be ignoring the historical record.

The greatest period of American prosperity which was after WWII top marginal  taxes for really rich people was:

(1951), 91.0% income above $1,766,108

(1961) 91.0% income above $3,071,492

(1976) 70.0% for income above $807,009

And the tax loopholes for the rich were very minimal so revenue could actually flow to the many important projects and functions that were the underpinning of the general prosperity.

In that period the United States built roads, bridges, a great military, fabulous education system, great universities, funded medical and science research which resulted in historic breakthroughs, and NASA went to the moon.

American companies flourished and inventions, patents, and great new products were the envy of the world. 

American workers made good wages and good products. People had pensions and most jobs came with benefits.

YOU decide what all this means.

I for one conclude that high taxes didn't hurt the rich, they were still very rich. I was going to the university in 1964-68 in New York City and believe me the brownstones and penthouses on the toniest streets in the Big Apple were FABULOUS. The Hamptons were alive with the rich and famous. I've never seen more limousines and fancy-dressed doormen. The Four Season's was always overbooked and who could afford those great meals and wines!

High taxes did not discourage investment and the creation of industries and jobs. In fact, it was the zenith of American prosperity. So why are we not looking back at that "golden age."

That was before "free trade" agreements and super sophisticated schemes for hiding corporate and private income in offshore companies and numbered accounts in Ireland and the Cayman Islands? There were few to no "hedge funds" and much less predatory manipulation of capital.

A few super rich do not a prosperous nation make. And in elections huge money was much less influential while today we see headlines in the New York Times such as, "From Only 158 Families, Half the Cash for 2016 Race." (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/11/us/politics/2016-presidential-election-super-pac-donors.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news)

And it should be clear that during these glorious years there was very little accusation that all of this was "socialism" and Republicans as well as Democrats supported this model of governance.

YOU can research income taxes at the official web site:
http://taxfoundation.org/article/us-federal-individual-income-tax-rates-history-1913-2013-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets

Ch 5 WOI Analysis

Stay tuned to my more frequent analysis for the new channel 5 WOI TV political analyses and programs. We will be covering the debates and the interesting struggle to find a Speaker of the House.