Category: CRCPOLICY

IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP

christopherpeter Christopher Peter, CRC REVIEW, CRCPOLICY, IMPEACHMENT, NNN2K5, President Donald Trump, Speaker Nancy Pelosi Comments Off on IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP

The impeachment of President Donald Trump is neither surprising nor shocking. Since November 9, 2016, the American public expected the Democratic Party would seek the removal of President Donald Trump from office at their first opportunity. At the time, the only questions were whether they would get the opportunity and how reasoned their case would be. Society plagued with a high level of political division might not handle partisan political ploys well. The hunt for power creates the justifications for means in the minds of the party seeking control. 
No person or entity is above the law. Regardless of party affiliation, political ideology, or record of achievement. Corruption or direct violations of law is not offset by level of accomplishment or success. Just raises the stakes for the accusers. The political leanings of the process must be considered as well. Our criminal justice system cannot be used to reverse the will of fair and free elections for partisan endeavors. 
THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT: 
Along party lines, the House of Representatives formally accused President Donald Trump of two crimes. Abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Two week of public hearings preceded the adoption of changes filled with high levels of political sensationalism. House leaders promised irrefutable and overwhelming charges. As always, they under-delivered. 
The abuse of power is a common accusation against Presidents of both parties from their opposition. In this charge, Democrats accused President Trump of using his power as president to assist his possible political outcomes by seeking to attain damaging information on a potential political opponent. This related to a call and inquiry into actions occurring in Ukraine while Biden was Vice President. The initial talking points for this was deeming it a quid pro quo, which is not always illegal, but frequently used. Polling showed bribery was a more attractive word for prospective voters. 
There was not enough evidence to push forward with a bribery charge. From the public hearings, there was little evidence provided to connect delays in funding with request for investigations. There was little evidence to show funds were materially delayed. Much of the testimony was from people without direct knowledge or memory. The only bombshell also provided the refutation of a quid pro quo actually existing. 
In the second article of impeachment, Democrats accused President Trump of obstructing Congress. The charge was a result of President Trump deeming the House investigation as a political witch-hunt and not allowing staff to cooperate. The charge is a far less serious one than obstruction of justice. In reality, every modern-day president could face an obstruction of Congress charge, as every recent presidential administration has withheld information or testimony sought by Congress. Congress frequently decries this behaviors as it impedes its constitutional role and limits its authority to oversee the actions of the other branches, including the executive branch. 
REASONABILITY: 
The Constitution affords Congress the authority for impeachment and removal of a President for committing of high crimes and misdemeanors. There is not a clear definition of what these high crimes entail. But, many people reasonably crimes like murder, treason, mutiny, or crimes like that reach that level. Our history with impeachment demonstrates that Congress rarely worries about standard. All our past impeachments were highly political, and Trump’s was no exception. 
Democrats want to use the appearance of a crime as enough reason to remove a political opponent. Anger, disappointment, and power grabs are not sufficient reason to remove a sitting President. For two years, every person across every political spectrum knew Democrats would pursue impeachment. Even after failing with the Russia collusion narrative, they did not seem to craft a strong case. This was case built on desperation. 
RESULTS: 
The outcome in the United States Senate was not much of a surprise for many reasons. The GOP controlled Senate had the votes for acquittal. There was little to no evidence presented by House Democrats to change pre-existing opinions. As expected, the United States Senate, controlled by the GOP, voted to acquit President Donald Trump on both articles of impeachment. 
There was a great level of political hysteria infused in the process. In our constitution, the House of Representatives is tasked with investigating the offending government official and passing articles of impeachment to go to the Senate. The Senate is tasked with holding trial for that official, with Chief Justice presiding over a presidential impeachment. The Senate is not tasked with opening its own investigation or building on the charges presented to it. That is against our accepted system of justice. 
Again, the appearance of a crime is not the same thing as a crime actually existing. In the Russia collusion investigation, Democrats used evidence they had a role in funding as the basis for investigating Trump. With Ukraine, they used hearsay evidence to pursue impeachment and cover possible corruption by then Vice President Joe Biden. Some question whether impeachment was legitimate or a partisan ploy. It appears to be clearly a partisan ploy.


THE GOVERNMENT OPTION

christopherpeter ALL-STAR GAMES, BERNIE SANDERS, bloomberg, Christopher Peter, CORONAVIRUS, CRC REVIEW, CRCPOLICY, Government, NNN2K5, POLITICAL EXTREMISM, TRUMP Comments Off on THE GOVERNMENT OPTION

THE GOVERNMENT OPTION

The proper role of government is a never-ending debate taking place in our political forum. For quite some time, the narrative was the depth of government’s involvement in our daily lives, legislating decision best made within the confines of one’s home. Now, the main point of contention is government’s role as a market participant in industries politicians deem of national importance. The main question remains whether government is the best provider for many of these goods and services. Historically, it proven unable to handle similar responsibilities.

For more, please click above to experience the Government Option Podcast. 


POWER AND RESTRAINT

christopherpeter CHANNEL, China, Christopher Peter, CRC REVIEW, CRCPOLICY, Diplomacy, FOREIGN POLICY, IRAN, Military Engagement, NNN2K5, NORTH KOREA, President Donald Trump, REVIEW, Russia, Syria Comments Off on POWER AND RESTRAINT


In this podcast, I discuss the need for a strong national security balanced with effective diplomacy that utilizes tariffs and trade. 

FALSE PROMISES: THE FALLACY OF PROGRESSIVE POLITICS

christopherpeter CHANNEL, CHRISTOPHERPETER, CPCRC, CPSHOW, CRC REVIEW, CRCBC, CRCPOLICY, CRCRVW, Democratic Party, Liberalism, NNN2K5, Progressive Politics, REVIEW, Social Progress Comments Off on FALSE PROMISES: THE FALLACY OF PROGRESSIVE POLITICS


A person not moving forward is said to be moving backwards. Stagnation allows those around them to progress past them over time. The same principle applies to societies. If nations are unable to progress forward, competing nations will surpass their economic production, national skill set, and other important metrics nations used to evaluate societal progress. Societies must change to move forward but change for change sake or recreating the wheel only harms the potential for growth. 
The desire for our policymakers to hold forward thinking viewpoints should not be partisan. Good public policy positions a nation to best compete socially, diplomatically, and economically against competitors abroad. For instance, forward thinking social policy can help expand freedom and civil liberties throughout society. Forward thinking economic policy could foster innovation and growth, expanding opportunities to more and more in society. Policymakers can help maintain social greatness by anticipating future needs and finding effective and efficient solutions to address them. 
There is great fervor among some to embrace the ideals of progressivism, notably on the far left. Many in that camp believe progressive liberal candidates embody greater social innovation and forward-thinking policies. The reason is many modern-day progressive candidates campaign on messaging pushing the “newness” of their ideas. Under President Barack Obama, he frequently campaigned promising a new economy and new America. Current candidates describe the ideas in the same context as well. 
The problem with many of the modern-day progressives is their ideas are not authentically new, simply rethreads of policies implemented elsewhere. Therefore, the public and political opposition enjoy real world examples to judge the efficacy of their ideas. For instance, the single payer health system that capture the eye of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party is available in many European nations. While the perceived coverage benefits is what catches the eye, the quality issues, including lack of access to new medical technology and treatments, which may be costly, is commonly ignored. Other issues like appointment scheduling is overlooked as well. 
Many nations have socialist economies, like the one being proposed by Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, and other socialist backers. Many nations in South America, like Venezuela, embraced socialism as an economic distribution system. Now, those nations are plagued with economic and social strife, as millions upon millions live in abject poverty and suffer corruption and violence from the same socialist government. The thousands of migrants that seek illegal entrance into the United States and other free market economies more likely than not come from these socialist economies. While capitalism has its challenges, rational Americans should not fall for the false hopes and power grabs of socialist economics. 
The proponents of modern-day progressivism cannot fathom the fact that free thinking people will reject their ideas. Proponents will label their detractors as people opposed to change. There are legitimately some people that will stand against any change from what they consider normal. But there are many who rightfully stand against proven ineffective policy proposals and ideals that fundamentally regress our common shared values. There are valid questions concerning the driving factors of many proposals of modern-day progressives. Change in the form of power grabs or government oppression is not change society should believe in. 
The argument for change needs to consider outcomes, potential side effects, and alternative approaches. The political record for progressive agenda is not a desirable one. In addition to the notable issues above, our first attempt with addressing issues plaguing health care was an abject failure, requiring a fresh approach. Many nations are moving away from government control of industries towards greater free market capitalist principles. The outcomes increases the freedom and well being of society and greater efficiency and choice for their economies. 
The argument for change needs to also consider whether the action is moving society forward or regressing it backwards. If one looks at the actions taken against cashless stores by progressive state and local leaders, this move clearly is a step backwards. The movement forces small businesses to incur the risks and costs of dealing with cash. While the change was to theoretically protect access for the impoverished, there are many providers of similar products and services available for cash paying customers. The forward-thinking approach would be supporting efforts to expand access to banking to those currently unable to attain checking or savings account. 
Many progressive ideas are pure contradiction to common sense. Progressive leaders work to create greater social acceptance of public marijuana usage while traditional cigarettes receive the cold shoulder. Although the lung cancer risk are disparate, both still have health risk and create equal annoyance to those around them. The sanctuary laws imposed by these politicians not only increase risks and cost to communities, but it provides taxpayer funded shelter to violators of federal law. Proposed solutions to the opioid crisis creates situations where taxpayers funds will be used to support drug use, rather than reduce it. 
Social change can be good for society, if it expands our freedom, civil liberties, and opportunity. Change can be good if it helps our economy produce high paying jobs or improves our national security. Change for change sake that simply strengthens government’s power over the people is not change any one wants to believe in.

CORPORATISM, COMPETITION, CHOICE: FIXING THE TRUE ISSUE WITH CAPITALISM

christopherpeter CHANNEL, CHRISTOPHERPETER, Corporatism, CPCRC, CPSHOW, CRC REVIEW, CRCBC, CRCPOLICY, CRCRVW, Free Enterprise, Free Markets, Income Inequality, Income Mobility, Mergers, NNN2K5, REVIEW, Socialism Comments Off on CORPORATISM, COMPETITION, CHOICE: FIXING THE TRUE ISSUE WITH CAPITALISM


The solution to our economic issues is never a system that consolidates market and social power. Rather our economy greater competition and choice. Many critics of capitalism emote anger in misleading manner, backing an increased presence of an entity driving many of the issues. A major issue with our economy is consolidated market power with lack viability for small business. A more appropriate path forward is reducing the effect of corporatism by encouraging greater competition and new market entrants. 

Corporatism is the idea that corporations have more than their fair share of influence on our society, economy, and public policy. Corporations around the world play a major role in societies, employing mass amounts of people, creating wealth, and providing products that directly improve the quality of life of many. Issues can arise when policymakers, who rely on corporate donations for election funding, implement policies that insulate corporate giants from competition and responsibility for actions and externalities. The self-regulating function of free market systems become null and void when consumers lack viable alternatives. Much of the issue are direct results of public policy. 

Government relies on market players to aid in shaping regulations and rules of behaviors. Not a partisan practice, but a needed one because of the insight and reach of these organizations. At times, regulations meant to protect consumers can help isolate the firm from competition, as those in the market will already have the infrastructure and compliance in place. Consider the difficulties in competing with public utilities, airlines, or health systems. The barriers of entry keep competition out and eventually raise prices on consumers. 

The presence of difficult economic environments also helps drive the problem as market consolidation occurs. During the Obama Era, there was a great level of market consolidation as firms combined to gain scale in search of profitability. Unfortunately, few new entrants came into these markets as little financial incentives existed. The famous rule of three came much faster than anticipated, which states that mature markets eventually become dominated by three participants. 
The consolidation of markets, whether through natural monopolies or socialism, is not optimal for positive economic outcomes. Many of the proponents of socialist economic principles overlook the proven flaws of single payer or single provider markets. Instead, they focus one potential short-term benefits, which rarely stand the test of time. Monopolistic industries can produce efficiency through economies of scale. The savings are not always transferred to the consumer, or in the case of public operators, passed on to the citizens. 

There are many examples of monopolistic markets in the United States, many of which were purposely created through public policy. For instance, operators of certain forms of transportation are generally protected from competition. Until recently, many public utilities operate in protected markets, providing consumers with one option. If socialist backers were right, these entities would provide consumers with affordable and high-quality services. Instead, customers of government provided services typically face higher prices in the long run, service outages, and lack of freedom to change. 
The answer to addressing corporatism is not shifting influence from corporate boardrooms to government bureaucrats. Americans do not desire resource rations, abject poverty, or denial of service, but opportunity and self-determination. Instead, policymakers can combat corporatism and income inequality through implementing policies that expand market competition and choice for consumers and workers. Creating environments where small and medium sized businesses can compete for customers and spread out distribution of profits and income is good for the economy. Consumers benefit from greater choices and enhanced market power. 

Consider the impact of market disruptions, especially in the case of companies like Uber. In many metropolitan markets, few taxicab companies dominate markets due to regulatory structures that prevent open competition, leaving many people paying a great deal of money for service they dislike. When Uber and Lyft disrupting the transportation ecosystem in many of these markets, the new competition forced these taxi companies to rethink their operations and the customer service to compete to earn business from consumers. Initially, many of these companies used their influence with policymakers to blunt growth of Uber and Lyft, but consumer demand was high enough to counter the effect. Companies should not utilize closeness with government to protect profitability, which is essential in socialist economies, but compete for consumer dollars by providing value. 

The expansion of choice helped provided new opportunities for scholars in public education and higher education. The United States has the most expensive public education system in the world, which is in a constant state of decline. While higher education has greater competition, regulation, and public financing shield leaders from truly competing on a cost basis. The presence of charter and private schools as well as lower cost for-profit institutions create forces for change and better cost propositions. There are some needs to address, but expanding choice helps provide certain students avenues for achieving their educational needs and economic outcomes. 

Choice and competition are essential to reducing the impact of corporatism and helping fight income inequality. Public policy that overtly restricts entry to certain markets need to be reviewed to improve access to markets. Quality standards are important, but many regulations are heavily influenced by large market providers. Some protect the market share of these large corporations without any real benefit to consumers. There may be more opportunities to provide temporary exemptions to allow small and medium size businesses to compete. 

Government should not decide winners or losers in markets, but, if incentives are needed, these deals should go to entities that need it. Which is fairer? Low tax environments for all businesses or high tax environment with sweetheart tax deals for select businesses? Obviously, the one with that treats all the same. If tax incentives are needed, it should go to small and medium sized businesses to help ensure market competition. 
Promoting competition expand choice and consumer market power. The market is more effective in providing customized affordable goods and services than government bureaucrats. In any market, producers will target select customer bases in order to maximize profitability. Not all producers can meet all the needs of customers and customers might not find all market offerings as equal substitutes. Generally, the more choices consumers have the greater likelihood each individual is able to find solutions that meet the needs of their households. 
Proponents of single payer health system believe society will be better off is power is shifted from private insurance providers to a centralized government entity. These people are wrong. A one size fit all plan may benefit the government coffers in the short term but will provide great market inefficiencies in the long term. Instead, policymakers should reduce geographic barriers that elevate price and focus on greater transparency and education among patient. There are many areas where health systems provide unnecessary services simply to generate revenue but does not directly improve patient care outcomes. 

Corporations do have more than their fair share of influence in our society. That power needs to go back to the people, not shifted to government bureaucrats, who too have too much power. Our vibrant private sector and free market economy provide more opportunity and created more innovation than any government program. Government has its role in society. Let’s keep it limited to what it can do well.