Seriously man.

What the hell are you doing.

I get it.  You're worried about pandering to women.  Well, you either stand on The Rule of Law or you do not.

Clearly, you do not.

Therefore, I am now voting for Cthulhu.

Fuck you.

Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump quickly walked back a statement he made earlier Wednesday that if abortion were illegal in the United States, then women who have the procedure should be punished - saying later that only those who performed the procedure should be punished.

“If Congress were to pass legislation making abortion illegal and the federal courts upheld this legislation, or any state were permitted to ban abortion under state and federal law, the doctor or any other person performing this illegal act upon a woman would be held legally responsible, not the woman,” Trump said in a written statement. “The woman is a victim in this case as is the life in her womb.”

Earlier, at a taped MSNBC town hall to be aired later Wednesday, Trump said if abortions were illegal, women should be held responsible.

Sorry, but no.

Yes, it was a trick question, designed to elicit a "wrong" answer that can then be used for "gotcha."

That doesn't matter.

If abortion is made illegal then everyone conspiring to perform one, which I remind you includes the person who purchased the service, is a co-conspirator and equally guilty under long-standing legal principles.

Put bluntly, should abortion be made illegal on a blanket basis, declared as murder, then anyone who solicits one has put out a "hit" on a human being as a matter of law and must be punished accordingly.

With that said, I happen to believe that the Supreme Court decision Roe .v. Wade, which held that only a first-trimester abortion was unconditionally legal, is defensible on both history and the law.

But.... if that decision is overturned, and there are clear arguments that it should be, then nobody who is involved in the decision to what becomes at that time an act of murder can be excused.

As for both Kascish and Cruz, neither is pro-life or pro-rule of law.  You cannot claim to support the rule of law and excuse those who fund an act of lawbreaking and induce the act of lawbreaking itself through their offer of money.

That's outrageous and anyone who claims otherwise has no business being in the White House.

I'm forced to vote for Cthulhu once again and this, friends, may well be my last comment on this political cycle.

Let's update one of my Tickers from a few years ago.

We're going to use official government figures here, ignoring, for now, the private sector.

The figures of note are the following (figures to the nearest billion), out of a total of $3,688 billion.

Military programs: $563 billion or 15%

Social Security Old Age: $741 billion or 20%

Social Security Disability: $146 billion or 4%

Medicare and Medicaid: $1,297 billion or 35% (Medicaid amounts to $350 billion granted to the States (no breakdown on what part is drugs), Medicare Part D (drugs) is $75 billion; the rest is clinical services for the most part -- hospitals, doctors and similar.  S-CHIP, the children's portion, is $9 billion (insignificant) and administrative expenses are about $14 billion total, which is damned efficient -- only 0.4%.  Incidentally I don't believe that figure, but even if it's three times as much it's still damned impressive.)

VA (Veterans Health) approximately $61 billion or 1.7%

SNAP - food stamps -- is $104 billion and is up from last year, despite so-called "improvements" in the job market.  TANF is a separate line item, $16 billion.  Together, 3.3%.

That's where the money goes.  Conflating Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid is the common horsecrap line run by both parties, but it's intentionally dishonest.  Disability is a fraud-riddled mess, but the "old age" part of Social Security is neither going to bankrupt the nation nor is it an immediate budgetary problem.

But the $1,297 billion in Medicare and Medicaid is.

Now let's look at what Trump is proposing against this.

Price transparency in the pharmaceutical area alone would be a monster.  Let's assume that of the $350 in Medicaid 10% is drugs.  That makes drugs a roughly $110 billion annual federal expense.

What happens if you ban the gouging that is done today across the entire medical industry?

Well, let's remember that Medicare is an 80/20 program.  That is, the government pays 80%, you pay 20%.  If you look at the cost of procedures at the Surgery Center of Oklahoma, which I have posted multiple times, you'll find that many of them are about 1/3rd to 1/5th the price of local hospitals.

In other words a very material percentage -- perhaps as much as 80% -- of Medicare's non-drug spending would disappear and your bill as a Senior would drop by the same amount.

That is, of the $872 billion spent now on non-drug services on Medicare, not Medicaid, and we manage only to cut the cost in half, which just takes us to where socialized medicine manages to get in other G8 nations, $436 billion of spending by the Federal Government would disappear each and every year.

In reality competitive markets outperform socialized ones in virtually every case where there are multiple and diverse providers of products and services.  As a result that 50% decrease is ridiculously conservative; I expect we'd achieve 70%, leaving us with just over $600 billion less in Federal spending every year.

Now take the drug side, which is $110 billion and presume that by leveling prices on an international basis (by ripping down the barriers) we also get a 50% savings there.  That's another $50 billion every year and again, that is probably conservative; the actual drop would likely be higher.

Now let's turn to Medicaid.  If we save half under the same approach, and do not drop any of the poor from the rolls (which we should be able to do for the same reason; some currently on Medicaid with this very large drop in price would be able to pay cash) we'd save another $157 billion.

We just generated $800 billion, or $8 trillion over the usual "10 year" period that is quoted, in spending cuts and not one person had one benefit they currently enjoy from the Federal Government touched in real terms.

What's even better is that we did it in one literal day starting on the first day rather than some mythical Unicorn-style belief of savings a decade hence (that have never materialized, incidentally) that the GOP typically puts out in their "budget projections."

It gets better.  The Federal Government, as noted, spent $1,300 billion last year on medical care (ex the VA.)  The economy as a whole spent about $3,420 billion; the other $2,100 billion or so was spent by the private sector.

These same ratios would apply to the private sector and thus you, as a consumer, would see an approximate 10% immediate and permanent increase in your real purchasing power because you would no longer be spending it on health care, either through "insurance" or directly.  If your "health insurance" is through your job you'd get that 10% in the form of a raise as the cost of said insurance to your employer would drop precipitously.

Even better, the benefit would skew wildly toward those in the lower income but insured income brackets (e.g. full-time middle-class workers) because the percentage of your pay that goes to health insurance is much higher than it is for someone who is making $300,000 a year.

Of course the medical, pharmaceutical and insurance industries will scream.  But there's really nothing to scream about; the claim of "charity care" is nonsense in a world where Obamacare and expanded Medicaid exists; you either have one or the other, right?  As for pharmaceutical companies if they charge $2,000 everywhere for Sovaldi or $1,000 in Pakistan and $80,000 here in the United States they make the same money; what they can't do any more, nor can other nations, is soak the United States, effectively forcing our citizens to fund 100% of the development costs for drugs they then get to use.

If you're middle class these changes would mean you would be able to pay cash for anything routine and normal, and catastrophic insurance against the unthinkable (e.g. cancer, etc) will now cost a tiny fraction, 10-20%, of what it does now.  That in turn means you can afford to buy it on the open (cross-state, in Trump's case) market so if Obamacare is repealed even the modest-income household can pay for said catastrophic coverage and cover the rest in cash.

Even having done so you will still be ahead on purchasing power by about 10% if you're in the middle class and quite-possibly materially more if you're in the lower income brackets and have a chronic illness.  If you're wealthy you'll see a benefit too, but on a percentage basis it will be quite a bit less.

And that's just the direct impact on your personal budget that you will see immediately.

The real benefit is the long-term macro-economic benefit that comes from getting rid of federal deficit spending on an immediate and permanent basis.

Because the United States will now be running a roughly $350 billion a year surplus instead of a deficit we will start to retire the national debt.  Yes, it will take decades; four or five to be exact.  But that $350 billion in debt reduction every year means your purchasing power goes up even more; that is, there are fewer dollars in circulation and so each is worth more in goods and services.

This is the invisible benefit but it will accrue to everyone in the United States equally.  Rich, poor, white, black, yellow, green, young, old, doesn't matter -- everyone will see an exactly identical percentage benefit.

How much?  About 2% a year, every year, until the debt is retired.

That's right -- instead of you suffering inflation of the mythical 2% a year and your purchasing power being destroyed you will instead be able to save for retirement and see a 2% compounded improvement in what that money buys without taking any risk in the stock market or even being paid interest at the bank!

Finally, at the same time all of these really good things happen to you personally and the federal budget, state and local budgets, which are under severe pressure due to these spiraling costs embedded in their pension expenses, will all be immediately and permanently returned to a stable state as well.

Now this is, admittedly, assuming that Trump is actually able to implement his proposal and you can bet that there will be a lot of corporations and pressure groups that are going to do everything they can to derail it, especially when it comes to anything that has to pass through Congress.

But I will remind you that while the Executive (which is the part of the government the President controls) cannot make laws it is the Executive's job to enforce laws and there is a large body of law, specifically 15 USC, that makes felonious any attempt to monopolize a market or fix prices.

The executive is empowered to enforce existing laws without any act of Congress whatsoever.

In fact, barring passing a new law there is absolutely nothing Congress -- or the lobbyists -- can do to stop him or any other President from doing so.

The reason none of the recent Presidents have done so ought to be obvious; they, along with Congress, have all been bought and paid for.

I know, the headline sounds dramatic.

It's true.

Trump has just released his health care reform proposal.  He is the only candidate that has put forward a plan that will force down the cost of medical care by as much as 80%, rendering Obamacare unnecessary along with Medicare.

Require price transparency from all healthcare providers, especially doctors and healthcare organizations like clinics and hospitals. Individuals should be able to shop to find the best prices for procedures, exams or any other medical-related procedure.

....

Remove barriers to entry into free markets for drug providers that offer safe, reliable and cheaper products. Congress will need the courage to step away from the special interests and do what is right for America. Though the pharmaceutical industry is in the private sector, drug companies provide a public service. Allowing consumers access to imported, safe and dependable drugs from overseas will bring more options to consumers.

These two points will cause competition to drive down the cost of medical procedures, and if enforced using already-existing law (15 USC) it will happen.

No new laws need to be passed; the existing body of law is sufficient which means Trump as President can do this immediately, since The Executive is charged with enforcing the law.

It is illegal under 15 USC to take any action when market power exist to conspire to fix prices, restrain trade or harm competition.  Violators are subject to ruinous fines and imprisonment, making the age-old "cost of doing business" game by companies a non-factor.

Trump is the only candidate out of both parties promising to do this.  If he does the federal deficit disappears instantaneously and permanently.  Your cost of living falls.  Your purchasing power increases every single year.  At the same time your cost of medical care will fall precipitously, by as much as 80%.

I've pointed this out repeatedly over the years in these pages including in my only-somewhat tongue-in-cheek piece of "model legislation" from 2012.

If you do not support Trump and do everything in your power to not only make sure he is elected but that he keeps his promise then you will wind up broke, dead or both.

It's that simple, and that important.

This is now a single-issue election, and there is only one candidate with the correct view on the issue.

Donald Trump.

PS: Here's a prime example from this morning's emailbag post this article. A reader's kid needed her usual "annual physical" which included an immunization.  The "insurance company" paid over $300 for this service, ex the shot (which incidentally they paid $120 for and, I remind you, county health departments will administer for free as they're required for school.) 

The very same physical is sold for cash for $25; I know this as do you if you have kids, in that you need said physical in order to play school sports and it is in fact the exact same exam.

This example shows that indeed, if Trump wins office your cost of medical care will drop by 80% or more; in this specific case the drop in cost for that service would be 90%.  If everyone gets a $300 exam once a year that costs $25 when bought for cash everyone with said insurance is being robbed to the tune of $275!

Anyone, even the poor, can manage to come up with $25 and thus for such things you need no coverage at all.

OK folks, time for some truth.

Jeb claims he was a budget hawk and "cut spending" during his time in office from 1999 to 2007.

Really?

Your definition of "cut" must different than mine Jeb:

Incidentally the population of Florida went from 15.76 million to 18.53 million during that time period, or an increase of 18% -- far less than spending increased.

If you want to know why Trump was outright calling Jeb a liar on stage there it is, in numbers.  Jeb is a liar and this sort of crap ought to lead to him being charged and imprisoned for attempted fraud upon the public.

He didn't shrink state spending he basically doubled it.

Now Jeb claims he had a 4.4% economic growth rate.  However, government spending went up at roughly 7%, as anyone with basic knowledge of the Rule of 72 knows is the rate that gets you a doubling in 10 years.

In other words he grew government at a rate almost twice that of the alleged economy, and what's even worse is that he financed a huge part of that on the back of the common Floridian with the housing bubble that blew up right after he left office.

Even the Wall Street Journal admitted to this in July of 2015.

In addition the state's debt went from $15 -> $23 billion, and annual interest payments nearly doubled from $900 million to $1.7 billion.  (Source: Miami Herald)

I lived here the entire time, incidentally.  Jeb's claim that the economy was "booming" was a load of crap.  What we saw during that time was ramping fees and costs, which have not abated (e.g. MidBay Bridge anyone?), massive spending increases and crazy, unconscionable acts by local and county officials (including but not limited to school boards) to try to cover up what they had done -- such as our local system that tried to get the people to pay twice for roof and refrigerator replacements in the schools.  (See, they had not bothered with a sinking fund from tax receipts, so when the inevitable end-of-life came they tried to sucker the people into accepting a sales tax override.  We told them to go screw a goat, and justly so.)

To finance all of this the state encourage and looked the other way while the housing bubble doubled prices on houses, which of course came with ramping real estate taxes -- and all of those houses were built with illegal immigrant labor that paid no taxes and broke the law, yet Jeb's "regulators" in the licensing of said contractors did exactly zero to pull the licenses of all of those builders.

Jeb Bush deserves prison, not the nomination.

Trump was telling the truth last night.  Jeb, on the other hand, was lying through his teeth.

I was here and witnessed all of it, from start to finish, and in any event the math is what it is.

This sort of article is flat-out nauseating.

It starts by claiming to explain, but what it really tries to do is parent.  Yes, parent you.  An adult.  It attempts to claim the mantle of telling you what you should be and in fact are voting for and wanting in a politician.

Really.

Indeed, Trump caught the right wave at the right time – and it has yet to crest.

And feeds the wave with every brazen statement, like this week’s Muslim travel ban.

The fact is, the more his language is over the top, the stronger his position appears to be at the top.

But is this what Republican primary voters really want in their nominee – a brash outsider who takes on anyone and everyone?  Or do they want, as they told us before, a moderate with real results?

The simple truth is, they want to have their cake… eat it, and then shove it in Washington’s face.  Their frustration is borders on rage – and Trump is their megaphone.

But they’re equally desperate for someone who doesn’t just rail against the problems; they want someone who can also solve them.  Our national polls and voter focus groups demonstrate this again and again.

That’s why the true frontrunner is not Donald Trump.

The real frontrunners are – or will ultimately be – Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz.

Oh really?

Neither Rubio or Cruz has the first clue about ISIS and radical Islam.  Neither will call it by its name.  Both have sat idly by while the party machinery went so far as to call Trump unAmerican for proposing an act that Jimmy Carter took a number of years ago without any such calls being made for his head.

Both are convicted internationalists, interventionists and believers in thuggery.  Both are ineligible for the office and of the two Cruz has no excuse of infancy or dependence (not that it legally matters) as he held adult Canadian citizenship, an act that brings to the fore the very reason for our constitutional prohibition on divided loyalties.

Listen to Rubio explain his plan for the innovation economy.  For improving education.  For making career-oriented job training mean something again. Listen to him explain not just the intricacies of his tax plan – but the benefits of it as well.

Listen to Cruz talk about his plan to defeat radical Islamic terror. For reining in wasteful Washington spending. His solutions for American-made energy to create jobs and protect our national security.

Oh really?  What plans are those?  Neither has a plan to do anything about the Health Care debacle, which is a huge problem -- in fact, it's the problem.  "Repeal and replace" sounds great, but replace with what?  Where are the promises of prosecution for the existing acts that by any reasonable definition rise to felony violations of long-standing federal law -- the Sherman, Clayton and Robinson-Patman Acts?

Nowhere, that's where.  Neither of these clownfaces has any sort of cogent plan to deal with any of that, including the most-outrageous and egregious parts of it, the rank violations of the "first sale doctrine" that, were it to be enforced, would instantly force prices to level for drugs to flatten between nations and resolve a large part of the problem.  I remind everyone that college textbook publishers tried to run this same crap recently and were shot down in the courts, so there's plenty of precedent.

Of course the medical scam doesn't end there.  If you fixed it all of the budget problems at the Federal, State and local levels would disappear immediately and permanently without raising a dime in taxes.  The Federal deficit would become a surplus and as a result consumer purchasing power would rise every year instead of falling.  That outcome would be the result of math, by the way, not politics.

Do you think Trump doesn't know, as a businessman who has been writing big checks to this monopoly for decades, that this is a problem?  He most-certainly does.  Now explain to me how Cruz or Rubio has any experience with any of it.  They don't.  I do, because I wrote those checks on behalf of my employees.  Trump does because he has as well.  Rubio and Cruz have evidenced zero understanding of any of it.

Rubio has no idea how to improve education.  No amount of federal involvement will ever do any of it.  Remember that we were told that the Department of Education would be abolished under the "Contract With America."  Was it?  No, that was a lie.  Rubio is also lying and the electorate knows it.

The Republican party is imploding because it is incapable of telling the truth.  It is imploding because of patronizing little shitheads like you, David, who think you can tell us what to think and who to vote for.

You claim that most people don't believe Trump could deport 11+ million illegals.  True, but he doesn't have to.  All he has to do is lock up all of your damned "friends" that employ them and 10.9 million will leave on their own. We can certainly deport the remaining 100,000 that decide that gang membership is a better idea.

And by the way, maybe we should consider you to be part of that gang -- a gang going out of style, and one that's being slowly, but certainly, ejected from the political sphere.