Uranium

The concern over the 1000 pounds of 60% uranium that Iran has is somewhat bewildering. Russia, their ally holds 680 tons of 90% enriched uranium and could easily send some to Iran. Russia controls 44% of the world’s supply of bomb grade uranium. Would the US risk the lives of American soldiers to retrieve the uranium if it could be quickly replaced?

GM

There was a time in the US when tariffs could have benefited the country. The big auto companies led by GM were unionized and had defined pension benefit plans. In 1980 these plans were enhanced to include the 30 year and out feature. This meant you could start at age 18 and received retirement benefits at age 48. By the time Japanese imports became popular in the 1980’s, GM had 210,000 retirees that was costing about $1,500 per car. By 2003 that number had risen to 460,000. Toyota came to the US and built non union plants with no retirement cost because it would be many years before any of their employees were eligible for retirement. Their plants were new and more efficient meaning more productive so their profits were higher. This was the time the company could afford a tariff and make for more fair competition with American companies. These retirement costs were a major factor in the 2009 GM bankruptcy. For many the Toyota’s were a better-quality car which was a management failure at GM.

Hostages

It is often said that Trump doesn’t act presidential and that stems from the fact that he is not a politician. This can be seen in his Iran policy. All presidents since 1979 have pushed the Iran problem down the road and into the lap of the next president. This was the safe thing to do politically but Trump, of course, is different. Some today ask the question, would Trump do the same if he could back up 6 weeks and many say the answer is yes. They repeat the news that for more than four-decades, Trump has called for invading Iran, seizing its oil, and preventing it from gaining a nuclear weapon. In an interview with NBC in 1979 he said that the Iran hostage crisis was a sign that America no longer commanded international respect. When asked if the US should invade and bring the hostages home, he said, “I absolutely feel that, yes”. Now, in retrospect, some feel that invading Iran over the hostage situation might have solved a problem before it became one but that is just conjecture. The what if game is rarely productive.

Exit tax

As states like Washington, Minnesota, California, Massachusetts, New York and Illinois adopt different types of wealth taxes, they find companies and individuals leaving their states and moving to lower tax states like Texas, Florida and Tennessee. They are responding by installing exit taxes, meaning when you leave the state you will have all of your assets evaluated and pay an exit tax on the total. Some assets like stocks and bonds can be easily assessed but others like personal property are more difficult. This will lead to moving assets out of state before moving while using other methods to avoid counting assets. The income gap is wider today than any time in the past hundred years so this is the time to tax the rich. Combine this with higher paying jobs as manufacturing comes back home and it would be a way to reduce the gap.

Using nukes

The concern over Iran getting a nuclear weapon is not that they would send an ICBM over New York but that it would prompt other countries, particularly in the Middle East, to acquire nukes. With Iran’s long-time pledge to irradicate Israel, the clock would be ticking for the next all-out nuclear war. The US would not fear Iran anymore than North Korea. North Korea is aware that if they fired off a missile toward the US, before it landed, two hundred nuclear weapons fired from an Ohio class submarine a few miles off the coast would hit with an average power of 300 kilotons each, more than 15 times larger than the bombs used in WW 2. This would mean the destruction of the 200 largest cities in North Korea in less than 30 minutes. They use their nukes to keep from being attacked not to use offensively against the US. Iran is a different story for some experts see them as willing to lose their country to achieve their objective of destroying Israel. This is based on their religious beliefs. This is from Google AI: The ruling elite of Iran’s Islamic regime, guided by a Shiite apocalyptic vision, believes that destroying Israel is a theological imperative to hasten the return of their messiah, the Twelfth Imam (Mahdi)

Wars and more wars

The news is out and once again America loses a war but the good news is that the US is losing faster. The Korea War lasted 3 years and 35,000 American soldiers died but North Korea was still standing. Vietnam cost 50,000 lives and lasted 19 years and North Vietnam was still standing. Afghanistan lasted 20 years with the loss of 2,400 soldiers and the Taliban remained. The second Gulf War lasted 8 years and 4,500 US soldiers died and it spawned ISIS. Finally, the Iran War lasted 6 weeks and 13 soldiers died. The trend is clear, the US is getting better at losing. The last war that American won was WW 2 and the major difference was the killing of civilians with fire bombing cities and the use of two nuclear bombs. This change in tactics was prompted by the rules of war as laid out in the 1949 Geneva Convention. Following these rules means there will always be losers in war but not winners. The winners win when they rise from the rubble and say we’re still here. Even the 45-year cold war ended when the USSR changed its name to Russia and the same leadership remained. Strange as it may seem this has to be considered progress when it comes to war. In mankind’s relentless search for self-destruction the world will have to wait until the next combatants go after each other with nuclear weapons, which will not be able to segregate the civilians from the soldiers and there will finally be a real winner again. Will Iran rise like the phoenix from the ashes to start the long-anticipated WW 3?

Candidates

The candidates that run for political office who have the best chance to win are those who run for a purpose and lay out a plan to achieve that goal. Many democratic candidates are missing this concept. Instead of laying out plans on how they will accomplish their objectives, they are wasting time attacking Trump. A winning candidate will have a strong internal commitment to lower taxes on middle income groups, to provide safe neighborhoods and to improve test scores. It cannot be some goals that evolve from polling but must come from the heart. This is what authenticity is all about. A burning desire built around specific goals will allow the person to inspire voters. Does this fit the profile of any of the potential 2028 hopefuls?