Author: admin

Our current system is called a progressive tax.  An alternative is the flat tax.  Which is better?  Should we change systems?

The essence of a progressive income tax is that the rate of tax increases as income increases. For example, the tax rate on incomes up to $9,700 is 12% while the rate is 32% on income between $160,725 and $204,100.

It is the general consensus that the wealthy should pay more into the system than the poor. In practice, our tax system achieves this goal; the top 1% pay nearly 10 times what those in the lowest quintile pay.

Generally, citizens resent the time and expense of filing under the current system and also suspect that the maze of credits, deductions and exemptions gives a special advantage to the wealthy who can afford expert tax advisers.

A flat tax is a system in which everyone pays the same tax rate regardless of income. For example, with a 10% tax rate, a family with income of $70,000 would pay $7,000 in taxes while income of $7 million would be taxed $700,000.

Flat tax would be imposed on wages/salary only, meaning that there’s no tax on capital gains or investments. This can spur investment, savings and thus long-term economic growth.  Additionally, many economists believe the current tax system, with high rates and discriminatory taxation of saving and investment, reduces growth, punishes job creation and lowers income.

How would a flat tax work for individual taxpayers? Households get only one exemption, an allowance based on family size, and then pay the flat rate on their income.

How would a flat tax work for businesses? All businesses, from the largest multinational to a corner pub, would play by the same rules. Companies would add up their receipts, then subtract their costs (salaries, raw materials, plant operations, marketing, etc.) and pay the flat rate on net income.

The complicated documents, instruction manuals and numerous forms that taxpayers struggle with today would be replaced by a brief set of instructions. Proponents believe the entire tax code could be based on two simple postcard-sized forms.

Currently the IRS has about 75,0000 employees and a budget of $12 billion. In spite of that resourcing, the “tax gap”, the amount of taxes owed that go uncollected, has been averaging $458 billion per year.

There would be an obvious advantage to having a tax system that EVERYONE can understand vs the current system that NOONE can understand. How did we get to where we are today?

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­The current tax code law is about 2600 pages. Then there are an additional 70,000-plus pages of regulations and tax-case history that are in play.

Special interest groups working through politicians have convinced them to insert numerous “tax breaks” into the law thereby creating the impression that the rich and influential have tax privileges.

Can we “fix” the current tax laws and regulations?  No. It is not feasible to believe the Congress could work through 70,000 plus pages of law, regulations and judgements and end up with ground truth and simplicity.  We could conceivably end up with a worse system.  

With a pure flat tax, it is likely the single rate may be punitive to the lower and middle-class taxpayers. Remember, in spite of all the loopholes available to the wealthy, the top 10% still pay about 70% of all income taxes.  Therefore, my recommendation is as follows: 

Scrap the entire 70,000 pages of current law/regulations/legal judgements. Start over and create a simple, stand-alone, flat tax law that is 50 pages or less, explains in great detail exactly the income that is to be taxed, no deductions, no loopholes and can be filled out on one or two forms.

But, instead of having a single tax rate have a graduated flat tax rate. For example, zero tax for those below the official poverty line (About $11,000 single and $24,000 for a family of four).  Then from the poverty line up to $75,000 in income, pay a 15% tax rate.  For $75,001 to $150,000 pay 18% and so on until anything over $500,000 income pays 30%.  The lawmakers need to lay out the graduated scale of income/tax rates and pass it as the new tax code law.  Include in the law that it cannot be amended in any way by “earmark” legislation that is tagged on to an unrelated bill. 

This could be the best merging of flat and progressive tax systems. There are four characteristics of a good tax system, certainty, equity, simplicity and efficiency. The current system gets an “F” in all four.  A graduated flat tax system might be at lease a B+. 

Lieutenant General, US Army retired, Marvin L. Covault is the author of Vision to Execution, a book for leaders.

If you were shadowing Bernie Sanders on the campaign trail, every day you would hear him say, “The United States will join every other major country on earth and guarantee healthcare to all people as a right.” 

The very foundation of our great country is the Bill of Rights, the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution. It spells out Americans’ rights; specifically, freedom of speech, press, and religion and it sets rules for due process of law. Fact check; healthcare is not a “right”.

Bernie will go on to tell you it is, “free at the point of service.” Fact check; nothing provided by the government is free. We the people pay for everything.

Bernie claims, “No networks, no premiums, no deductibles, no copays, no surprise bills”. Fact check, there will be a bill Bernie, it’s called taxes and we, not the millionaire down the street, will be taxed like you cannot believe.  Fact, you cannot imagine how expensive a massive government program can be until it is “free.”

Bernie tells us that, “Medicare coverage will be expanded and improved to include: dental, hearing, vision, and home-based and community-based long-term care, in-patient and out-patient services, mental health and substance abuse treatment, reproductive and maternity care, prescription drugs, and more.” What Bernie has not told us is what the quality of this health care will be and how it will be paid for. 

In the United Kingdom during 2017 a record 4.2 million patients were on National Health Service waiting lists. AFTER having received their diagnosis and referral, 458,000 patients waited longer than four months for treatment.  More than 19% wait 2 months or longer to begin their first URGENT CANCER TREATMENT while 17% wait more than 4 months for brain surgery.

In Canada the median wait-time between diagnosis and seeing a specialist is 10.2 weeks.  Canadians with heart disease wait 3 months for their FIRST TREATMENT. For life-changing orthopedic surgery, like hip or knee replacement, they likely wait 10 months.

In Europe, lower-income and middle-class taxpayers pay an average marginal wage tax rate of 49 percent on income above $37,000 a year, and an average value-added tax (VAT) of 20 percent. Those same U.S. taxpayers face a marginal wage tax of 32 percent and an average sales tax of 6 percent.

European countries tax revenue as a percentage of gross domestic product:  France 46%, Sweden 44%, UK 33%. The US is 27%.

Universal coverage does not mean universal access to quality care; quite the contrary.  FACT, every country that has tried nationalized health care has ended up with fewer quality health care professionals, much higher taxes, longer wait times for care, pain, suffering, permanent disability, forgone wages and in many cases premature death.

Fact, we have had government-run medical care for decades; the Veterans Administration. It has been such a dismal failure the whole process has been under scrutiny and investigation for the past twenty years and is not yet fixed. Forty vets died in Phoenix while waiting for appointments. The inspector general found employees hiding treatment delays at 26 facilities and the system is generally plagued by negligence, falsified records and gross mismanagement. 

The 2021 VA budget request is $243 billion with 395,000 employees serving about 9 million veterans. Let’s do some scary math. Using these numbers and looking ahead proportionally, in order to serve all 331 million US citizens with total health care, the budget would be almost $9 trillion per year with over 14 million employees. Of course, expanding 9 million patients to 331 million would not be exactly proportional but what if these totals are even half right ($4.5 trillion/7 million employees) or one third right ($3 trillion/4.6 million employees)? The entire federal revenue is expected to be only $3.86 trillion in 2021 with an Executive Branch of less than 3 million people. 

Fact:  between 2004 and 2017 “mistakes and improper Medicare and Medicaid payments” averaged $48 billion per year. Do we surmise that all that graft, corruption, mistakes and improper payment will magically disappear? I am much more inclined to believe the $48 billion will grow right along with the expansion of the program. Why? 

The federal government has a clear and remarkable history of failure when it comes to “running” big, national programs.  What do the Postal Service, Social Security, Fannie Mae, Amtrak, and Freddie Mac all have in common?  Two things, they are big bloated federal government programs and they are all broke. And so will the taxpayers be…..broke.

If the government confiscated the entire wealth of the top tier income producers, it would not cover the cost of one year of Bernie’s boondoggle universal health care. 

Marv Covault, Lieutenant General US Army retired, author of Vision to Execution, a book for leaders

Last month Gallup published the results of their Mood of the Nation poll having to do with personal satisfaction with daily life. The results show that 90% of Americans are satisfied with the way things are going, a new high in Gallup’s four-decades of reporting on this particular issue.  Furthermore, Gallup asked a follow-up question to measure the extent to which respondents are “satisfied”; results, 65% are “very satisfied” which is also a new high number. 

Presidential elections are about one thing, change.

Logic would suggest that if we are currently “satisfied” with our personal life, it will take a very special, undeniably remarkable proposition to cause us to want to change.  Having said that, we must also recognize that the concept of change is scary for a lot of folks and a lot of organizations; call it fear of the unknown. 

Niccolo Machiavelli summed up the fear of change rather nicely about 500 years age, saying, “There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things.  Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new.”

Given that campaigns are about change, what are the democrat/socialist candidates offering that meets that extra special criteria that would convince the majority of American voters to change? Let’s perhaps get some insight by going through some of the major issues they are currently peddling. 

MEDICARE FOR ALL: Thomas Sowell summed it up this way: “It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medications somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medications and a government bureaucracy”.  There are zero examples of the US government ever running a huge social operation efficiently or effectively.  Zero. Additionally, is cancelling the private health plans for 180 million Americans who are satisfied with their policy a good idea? 

Medicare for all would probably be the most dramatic social change in our history.  Just for openers, imagine a website created by a government committee with oversight from several government agencies and congressional committees.  This will make the Obamacare website look like a simple weather app.  And, oh-by-the-way, according to the Office of Inspector General, the Obamacare site cost $1.7 billion dollars. And it didn’t work. 

SOCIALISM:  Some years ago, I visited a small socialist village in the Golan Heights, Israel.  The elders took care of the children, everyone else had a job (“From each according to his abilities ….”).  The paychecks all went into one pot; The money was then doled out, “….to each according to his needs.”  It worked there, at that level, but socialism has never succeeded on a large scale anywhere in the world.  Wake up America, it is a failed system and no amount of rhetoric can make it right.  Ask a starving Venezuelan.

GREEN NEW DEAL: Let’s just look at one factor, the US has 15 coal-fired power plants and no plans to build any more.  And Democrat politicians, with their green new deal, want to shut down those 15 plants in order to “save the planet”. In the world’s 8 largest coal-fired power plant countries/areas (China, India, Japan, South Korea, Philippines, South Africa, Turkey and the EU) they have 3,737 on line with 1,892 more planned; total 5629.  China alone is averaging one new plant per week. Talk to me democrats, how does your Green program deal with that reality? 

IMMIGRATION: Their program is amnesty and open borders.  They won’t say those exact words but they explain it this way, “Crossing the border without permission is not an illegal act.”  Also, “Do away with ICE”. It is obvious to the casual observer that the democrat’s long-range plan is to create a permanent voting block of tens of millions of Latinos. Their policies will encourage tens of millions more illegals to flood the US thereby overloading the welfare, medical, judicial and education institutions.  The taxpayers will pay for this and America as we know it today will never exist again.  Period.

SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS.  FREEE COLLEGE TUITION.  CANCEL STUDENT DEBTS, etc. free stuff: There will necessarily be massive tax increases and not just for the rich.  All of the assets of the rich combined will not begin to pay for the tens of trillions of dollars in all of their proposed programs.  Most of the income from the bottom 50% of Americans is not taxed.  The middle class will get hit hard with debilitating tax increases. 

RAISE CORPORATE TAXES:  We have been there, done that and it is a disaster.  Our manufacturers have to compete in a global market.  Corporate tax is an added cost of producing a product which keeps us from successfully competing price-wise. The alternative is for manufacturers to move overseas for cheaper labor as they did by the tens of thousands during the past two decades.  It is just that simple and just that stupid of an idea.  It will undo the massive economic turn-around of the past 36 months. 

WEALTH TAX AND INCOME TAX RATES OF 70, 80, 90%:  Wealthy folks do not put their excess cash under the mattress; they invest it.  That investment capital is the fuel for capitalism.  The economy cannot flourish without it. 

BAN FOR-PROFIT CHARTER SCHOOLS. END ALL FEDERAL FUNDING FOR CHARTERS:  Government education is a national disgrace.  Our ranking in the world is pitiful. Charter schools represent one bright hope but the unions hate them. The democrats have and will continue to pander to the unions irrespective of the negative consequences for America.

SANCTUARY CITIES AND STATES: Favoring hardened criminals over citizens isn’t just radical, it is against the law.  In 2017 ICE arrested more than 127,000 illegal immigrants with criminal convictions or facing charges of breaking our nation’s laws, including nearly 5,000 gang members. How would we deal with these criminals if the whole United States became a “sanctuary” for those who break the law?

A REGULATION NATION (again):  Unstated, but an absolute result of all of the above is a massive federal government.  With that comes massive regulations.  Massive regulations drag down the economy, prohibits innovation and new businesses.

MILITARY READINESS:  The democrat /socialist candidates will not talk about the military because they will take it down; they always do.  President Carter decimated the military in his four years.  Clinton exacerbated the post-Cold War drawdown and left office with a hollow military.  After eight years of Obama we had one, yes ONE fully combat-ready fighting brigade and half our fighter aircraft could not get off the ground. 

That’s change.  Now I would ask you to scroll back up and just read the all-caps headings to the above paragraphs.  This is what the democrat/socialist candidates are proposing.  Ninety percent of Americans today, according to Gallup, are satisfied or very satisfied with their life today.  Is there any of the above items that, when properly analyzed, leads the majority of voters to say, wow that looks so good, makes so much sense, I guess I can withstand the trauma associated with change, sign me up?

More sage advice from Thomas Sowell: “If you have been voting for politicians who promise to give you goodies at someone else’s expense, then you have no right to complain when they take your money and give it to someone else.”  “The assumption that spending more of taxpayer’s money will make things better has survived all kinds of evidence that it has made things worse.”

Conclusions: Change is sometimes inevitable, sometimes necessary, sometimes misguided or even stupid. Change is often difficult, even impossible.  Sometimes, particularly in the business world, it’s change or die.  Whatever the situation, a couple things ring true. The more you like the status quo and/or the direction we are moving the more difficult it will be to change.  The more you dislike the alternatives to the status quo, the more unlikely it will be that change will satisfy you even if you are not completely committed to the status quo.  Be careful what you ask for because change may also sometimes be irreversible.

The current crop of democrat/socialist presidential candidates are all afflicted with the hate virus and they are coughing, sneezing and slobbering into their microphones attempting to create a nation-wide epidemic of hate.  Their intent is to infect voters with the hate virus to the extent that changing the very underpinnings of American society with their radical agenda might seem like a good idea. 

But what they fail to understand is that vast numbers of Americans have, in the past 36 months, been properly “inoculated” against hate.  The serum includes a dose of the most wide-spread and comprehensive positive economic numbers in our history.  Also included is make-sense foreign policy against corrupt countries, plans to get us out of Middle East conflicts, focus on neutering the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism, Iran. Additionally, one of the most dramatic accomplishments has been our new-found energy independence.  For decades our daily livelihood has been directly linked to the flow of Middle East oil to the US.  No longer does any nation hold petroleum leverage over us. 

The democrat/socialist platform may sell well in the Northeast and on the West Coast but remember, there is a big swath in the middle of our country where candidate Trump won 84% of the counties, the heart of America.   

According to Gallup, 90% of Americans got the shot to protect them from the hate virus.  While it may not “take” on all of them, the current group of democrat/socialist candidates, if they want to be successful, may what to re-think their platforms and run FOR some ideas that are aligned with today’s successes rather than just running AGAINST President Trump. 

PS: As we watch the mainstream media report on the presidential campaign, commentators and reporters would lead us to believe that Bernie Sanders has captured the hearts and minds of a majority of young Americans in the 18-34 age bracket.  However, the previously mentioned Gallup poll reported that 92% of that age group is “satisfied” and 62% are “very satisfied” with their current state of life.  Well, perhaps it is the 35-54 age group that are in Bernie’s camp.  Nope, 87% satisfied, 63% very satisfied with the status quo. 

Stay tuned,

Lt Gen Marvin L. Covault, US Army retired. 

For 82 minutes during President Trump’s State of the Union address, 4 February, 2020, Speaker Pelosi shuffled the papers, chewed on her lip, mumbled at lot at Vice President Pence, scowled and mostly kept her seat as the chamber erupted in applause over 100 times. 

Let’s make sure we accurately define the venue.  This was not a republican campaign speech or political debate.  President Trump was there because Section 3, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution requires the President to periodically “give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.”

Of the last 12 Presidents (Eisenhower through Trump) the Speaker of the House was of the opposite political party during 9 of those administrations.  But, they all seemed to find it in their heart to honor the office of the president with a traditional and proper introduction, “Members of Congress, I have the high privilege and distinct honor of presenting to you the President of the United States.”  Speaker Pelosi sent an instant, clear message that civility was out the door with her introduction, “Members of Congress, the President of the United States.” 

Keep in mind the requirement is to, “…. give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union….”  With that in mind the content of the address should, therefore, be factual.  To meet that requirement, the president proceeded to report to us that over the past 36 months:

There are seven million new jobs; lowest average unemployment rate in history; African-American poverty declined to lowest rate ever recorded; women’s unemployment rate lowest in 70 years; last year women filled 72% of all new jobs; veteran unemployment is at a record low; disabled American unemployment at an all-time low; non-high school graduates have lowest unemployment in recorded history; a record number of young Americans are now employed; 7 million Americans have dropped out of food stamps; 10 million have been lifted off of welfare; three and a half million working-age people have joined the workforce; net worth of the lower-half wage earners has increased 47%; lowest income workers have seen a 16% pay increase; median household income is now at the highest level ever recorded; stock markets have soared 70%; $12 trillion added to our nation’s wealth. 401K and pensions increases of 60-100%; wealthy companies are pouring money into needy communities; passed a justice reform law; relentless regulatory reduction campaign; now number one producer of oil and natural gas in the world; now energy independent; under Bush and Obama, 60,000 factories moved overseas, 12,000 have returned to the US; thousands of new plants are planned; new trade deal with Mexico and Canada increasing US productivity (100,000 in auto industry alone); groundbreaking trade deal with China; rebuilt US military; US leading 59-nation diplomatic coalition against Nicolas Maduro, Venezuela; defeated the ISIS califate; NATO members financial input up $400 billion; created Space Force; illegal immigrant crossings are down for the eighth straight month; new border wall is under construction.   Last year ICE arrested more than 120,000 criminal aliens charged with nearly 10,000 burglaries, 5,000 sexual assaults, 45,000 violent assaults, and 2,000 murders.

And so it went for 82 minutes, factual data describing today’s state of the union.

Back to the title question, What is Wrong with Speaker Pelosi?  Since 2007, Pelosi has been either the minority leader in the House or, when in the majority, the Speaker of the House.    

From 2007 through 2016, all of the economic, foreign policy, trade and national security issues enumerated in the long “facts” paragraph above were real problems.  The economy was awful, illegal immigration was out of control, foreign policy was a mess and trade deals were very disadvantageous to the US. This is not to say that those bad old days were Pelosi’s fault but for sure she was not instrumental in adopting solutions to any of them. 

Enter President Trump 36 months ago.  He forced through the changes necessary to rapidly turn all the problems into success stories.  Pelosi’s role during that period has been to lead the “resistance” and by her own recent admission spent 2 ½ years working to impeach the president. 

Special prosecutor Mueller was to take care of getting rid of Trump.  Another failure.  The Ukrainian fiasco was to deal the Trump presidency a lethal blow.  Trump’s overall approval rating is up ten percent since the Pelosi impeachment fiasco began last fall and is higher than President Obama after his first three years in office. 

Given all that, how depressing, frustrating, agonizing must it have been for Pelosi to sit there, behind President Trump, listening to the actual state of the union with millions of Americans watching live as she sat on her hands and chewed her lower lip?  

Nothing is right in Pelosi’s world right now. 

Additionally, during the president’s address she demonstrated to all America how callous and uncaring she can be.  The president’s guest list: 

Tony Rankins a down-and-out drug addict who lost all his worldly goods and his family and is now sober with a good job and reunited with his family.

The touching story of 100-year old Tuskegee Airman, Charles McGee, whose great grandson has a vision to be in the new Space Force.

Fourth grader Janiyah Davis and her single mom, Stephanie, striving to get into a better school.  The president promised her an opportunity scholarship to attend a school of her choice.

Renowned radio host Rush Limbaugh, recently diagnosed with phase-four lung cancer, was awarded, on the spot, the Presidential Medal of Freedom. 

The amazing 2-year old Ellie who was born at 21 weeks and survived was in attendance with her mother Robin.

An illegal immigrant in a sanctuary city in a sanctuary state murdered Rocky Jones, an innocent bystander.  His grieving brother Jody was there as a guest of the president.  

The president honored military spouse Amy Williams and her two young children who were suddenly joined by their husband/father Sergeant First Class Townsend Williams, home from his fourth deployment.    It was the longest and loudest applause of the evening. 

Every story was heart-wrenching, yet Pelosi sat on her hands unsmiling, not looking at those being honored. It was both disgusting and discouraging to watch. 

When President trump finished his address, Speaker Pelosi promptly stood up, ripped her copy of the speech in half and departed the House Chamber.  On her way out a reporter asked her why she had ripped up the speech.  She replied, “It was the courteous thing to do considering the alternatives.”  Courteous? Alternatives?

Pelosi is in a failed state of mind.  While she has spent years in the nation’s senior leadership position (second in line to the presidency) her leadership skills are almost nonexistent.  She is not a leader; she is a person obsessed with power in a leadership position.  A frightening thought considering her position today.  It is her way or the highway. 

There is a serious culture of blame and hate in this country.  Every day in the mainstream media we can see, hear and read the hatemongers throwing gas on the hate fire. 

By most accounts Pelosi is vindictive, power hungry, obsessed with hate and is leading many democrats in exactly the wrong direction. 

Pelosi is a leader only to the extent that her example influences her followers.   Unfortunately, her unforgivable behavior at the State of the Union has further influenced millions of progressive democrat Trump-haters.  She and they are blinded by hate to the positive things going on across our great country. 

She has moments of intelligent good thoughts like last Spring when she said, “Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country…….”.  Unfortunately, a few months later all those thoughts vanished; hatred and obsession took over and doing what is in the best interest of the American people became a distant after-thought. 

Generally speaking, America is fed up with divisiveness. However, going forward we will automatically consider that actions speak louder than words.  If an when she advocates for a bi-partisan approach to some issue, her demonstrative ripping up of the speech at the State of the Union on live TV for all to see will rule the day.  Whatever effectiveness she had following the impeachment debacle, will now certainly be diminished. 

After taking an objective look at the actual State of the Union today, if you are a disciple of Speaker Pelosi, I have two questions for you.  One, can you recite a specific list of positive accomplishments for the nation that Pelosi has advocated for over the past 36 months? Secondly, to you personally, can you find it in your heart to love your country more than you hate President Trump?

Marvin L. Covault, Lt Gen US Army, retired

The hysteria over whether or not President Trump and his National Security Advisor, John Bolton may or may not have had a conversation about withholding weapons shipments to the Ukraine in return for an investigation into Joe and Hunter Biden’s activities, has the hatemongers, mainstream media, democrats in general and the House impeachment managers (Shift and Nadler) absolutely apoplectic.    

The relevant question is, if the conversation between Bolton and Trump did take place is that a crime?  After all, isn’t the ongoing impeachment trial about whether or not President Trump committed a crime? Let’s cut to the bottom line, whether or not that conversation ever took place is, in fact, absolutely irrelevant and immaterial.

Let me illustrate the issues of conversations and plans with what may have been an actual foreign policy occurrence in the Trump White House.  September, 2017 the North Korean Foreign Minister, Ro Yong-ho, in an address before the United Nations, stated, “A North Korean missile strike against the US mainland is inevitable.”  What should the president have done about it, nothing?  Doing nothing would have been irresponsible simply because the president is constitutionally responsible for US foreign policy and, by extension, national security.

Here is what may have happened; at least we should all hope it did.  There would be an emergency meeting of the National Security Council principals, most notably the Secretaries of State and Defense and the National Security Advisor.  Following that meeting they would huddle with the president and there would likely be a press release something like this:

“The National Security Council met today to discuss the reckless assertion by the North Korean Foreign Minister that a strike on the US is inevitable.  The Security Council spokesperson said that in considering a response to such a strike, everything is on the table.”

We have all learned over the years that “everything-is-on-the-table” is Washington speak for, the-entire-spectrum-of-options.  In this case on one end of the spectrum would be a nuclear strike, on the other end do nothing and courses of action in between. 

That is called contingency planning.  Contingency planning is simply the answer to the question, what if?  What if North Korea does make a preemptive strike on the US?  What every prudent leader does in such a case is to cause the options to be put into an actual set of contingency plans.  Why is that the responsible thing to do?  Because if North Korea does strike, we do not want to be caught flat-footed staring at a blank sheet of paper. 

In this scenario, the planning could even include prepositioning special weapons and delivery systems somewhere in the western Pacific region.

Contingency planning, that is what responsible leaders do. Just to finish this thought, let’s say that the conversations the president had in the Oval Office with Secretaries of State and Defense got leaked and the New York Times headline the following day is, US PLANS NUCLEAR STRIKE ON NORTH KOREA.  While the statement is technically correct, it is also completely out of context and extremely damaging to foreign relations.

In the current Washington environment, that type of headline is certainly not beyond the realm of possibilities.  The Trump haters, the mainstream media’s hate mongers, democrats and particularly the democrats in the House of Representative would all be in concert citing abuse of power by the president.  That is not an overstatement, because what is going on right now in the Senate is a perfect case in point. 

What the president talks about with his closest advisors in the Oval Office is not a crime nor is it abuse of power. 

Back to John Bolton.

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that President Trump said to Bolton, “Hold up on the shipment of aid to Ukraine until I get an agreement that they will investigate Joe and Hunter Biden”.  Did the president actually hold the shipment until he got a commitment for an investigation?  Absolutely not.  Did he actually link the shipment and the investigation issues together in a conversation with Ukraine President Zalinski? Absolutely not.  Saying and doing are two entirely different actions.  Is saying it in the Oval Office a crime?  Of course not. 

What in the hell is this impeachment all about?  Where is the crime? Whatever the president and John Bolton talked about (the operative word is “talked”) is irrelevant, immaterial and every lawyer and reasonably-minded adult in the Senate chamber should know that. 

We should not forget to put the Ukraine situation in perspective.  Russia invaded Ukraine; Ukrainians were fighting for their lives and ask the US for help.  Obama sent $1 billion worth of MREs, other soft goods and VP Biden.  Ukraine is the most corrupt nation in Europe.  President Trump is actively working to curb the annual flow of tens of billions of dollars in “aid” to corrupt nations around the world.  Before sending nearly $400 million in additional aid to Ukraine it would be reasonable to assume that he had serious discussions with his senior advisors about Ukraine’s corruption. 

Bottom line, highly classified, sensitive, conversations do take place and must take place every day if the president is to properly do his job.  Labeling leaked conversations we do not agree with as abuse of power is absurd.

The larger issue:  What will future administrations be like if the President is fearful of having sensitive conversations with senior subordinates?  What will the state of our future national security be if we are fearful of performing necessary, detailed, highly classified contingency planning?  For those who see that outcome as acceptable, you can thank Nancy Pelosi.

 Where is the intellectual honesty in the Bolton hysteria in particular and in the overall impeachment monstrosity? 

Marv Covault, Lt Gen, US Army, retired

The US Constitution is arguably the most important, remarkable, document ever written. Those assembled to write it were brilliant visionaries.  Was it perfect, no; that’s why there are 27 amendments. 

The words in the Constitution were carefully chosen during the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, May through September, 1787; presided over by George Washington.  But words, in and of themselves, cannot always convey precisely what the framers of the Constitution intended during their four months of deliberation.

For example, during the ensuing 230-plus years, the Supreme Court has frequently been called upon to render their interpretation of the framers’ intent.

Additionally, precedent has been a powerful factor in determining how the three branches of government operate.  While performing a significant action, if generally accepted, the government thereby sets an example (precedent) for how similar actions should be performed in the future.   This is also called establishing “norms”. 

Adhering to the words in the Constitution, judiciously determining intent and establishing precedent has served this nation well for over 200 years and the US Constitution remains the world’s greatest operational document.

Recently Nancy Pelosi has spoken out about the impeachment of President Trump as follows: 

“The House, she said, was about to cross a very important threshold in American history.”

She followed with, “When someone is impeached, they are always impeached. It cannot be erased.”

I agree 100% with those statements.  I also agree with her pronouncement last spring: “… Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country…….”.  Compelling? Overwhelming? Bipartisan? 

If one studies the literature associated with the Constitutional Convention, there was great discussion and debate as to how to word the impeachment clause so as to avoid a purely partisan act to take down a president.  The intent was clearly for the House of Representatives to identify, “…. Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” 

Pelosi cannot fall back on the expressed words or intent or precedent associated with the Constitution to back up her reckless actions. She has changed the course of this country, perhaps forever. 

How can I make that assertion?  Impeachment has now been redefined as something more akin to a no-confidence vote in the British Parliament and may well be used in the future by a House of Representative that is simply in disagreement with an opposing party president.

To illustrate, by the current standards of impeachment, once President Obama lost the House in 2011, he could have been impeached for Obstruction of Congress and Abuse of Power for the Fast and Furious scandal and for invoking “executive privilege” to justify administration officials’ refusal to testify to Congress.

Also, using a list compiled by the brilliant writer, Victor Davis Hanson, the new impeachment standard would have included:

• Political corruption at the IRS towards conservative groups during the Obama reelection bid.
•  The lies and obstruction about the Benghazi disaster.
• The hot-mic quid pro quo promise Obama made to Russian President Medvedev that resulted in the dismantlement of Eastern Europe missile defense in exchange for Putin’s good behavior to the benefit of Obama’s reelection campaign.
• The abuse of executive orders to nullify federal immigration law.
• The failure to consult Congress on the prisoner swap with the Taliban.
• The lying under oath to Congress by both the CIA director and the Director of National Intelligence.
• Secret monitoring of the communications of Associated Press reporters and Fox’s James Rosen, along with former CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson.
• The deliberate nullification of the constitutional treaty-making prerogative of the Senate during the Iran deal, whose secret accords were never disclosed to the American people.
• The warping of the CIA, DOJ, FBI, and National Security Council respectively, in their unethical and often illegal efforts to mislead the FISA courts, surveil the Trump campaign, unmask and leak the names of U.S. citizens whose communications were tapped, and disrupt a presidential transition.

Before the Pelosi-led impeachment of President Trump, none of these offenses would have been impeachable. Now they all are and everything like them in the future will also be fair game.

The deep-seated and frenetic nature of the culture of hate that has consumed the democrats since the 2016 election of Donald Trump has blinded them to the unimaginable ramifications of taking down a president simply because they detest him.

And to think that by closing her eyes to the words of the Constitution, the intent of the framers and 200 years of precedent, one person alone, Speaker Pelosi, was, while guided by hate and ambition, able to completely orchestrate the impeachment.  And as she said, “It cannot be erased.”

Marv Covault

On January 3^rd we woke up to breaking news that the US had killed Gen Soleimani.  He commanded Iran’s most elite military unit, the Revolutionary Guards Quds Force and was in charge of virtually all Iran-sponsored foreign military terrorist operations, particularly in Syria, Lebanon, Gaza and Iraq.

Retired U.S. General David Petraeus, who commanded American forces during the war in Iraq, once called Soleimani “our most significant and evil adversary in the greater Middle East.” 

The US has been engaged in a world war on terrorism since 9/11, 2001.  General Soleimani is the most senior terrorist leader in the world and therefore a valid target.

One’s initial reaction to the news of his death might simply be, oh my, now there will be a revenge attack on the US mainland and/or against military or civilians stationed overseas.  While that may be true, a simple knee-jerk reaction hardly explains the larger issue and justification for taking him out at this point in time.

To put the Soleimani incident in perspective, it may be helpful to go back in time and review Middle East policy in general and Iran in particular since 9/11 2001. 

President Bush’s policy/strategy in the Middle East post-9/11:  After building a justification for invading Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush Administration’s strategy evolved into one of nation building.  That is, if we can successfully establish two valid and enduring democracies, Iraq to a greater extent and Afghanistan to a lesser extent, they could be the catalyst to transform the Middle East.

Unfortunately, we discovered after trillions of dollars and many American lives, that the Middle East is not up to the task.  They are so deeply entrenched in authoritarian rule that they cannot conceive the concept of freedom as we know it. 

September 27, 2013:President Barack Obama calls Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, marking the highest-level contact between the U.S. and Iran since 1979.

What evolved from that was a strategy towards Iran of, for lack of a better word, appeasement.  That is, you be nice to us and we will be nice to you.  It was essentially a reset of US policy in the Middle East.  It was also blind to the Iranian goal of dominance in the Middle East.

What followed was two years of hard work by Obama, Biden and Secretary State Kerry at the negotiating table with Iran.  The Iran nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, was sealed July 2015. Part of the deal was to offer Tehran billions of dollars in sanctions relief in exchange for agreeing to curb its nuclear program. The agreement was aimed at ensuring that “Iran’s nuclear program will be exclusively peaceful.”

Meanwhile, throughout the two years of negotiations, on any given Friday, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei could be viewed repeating his weekly message, “death to Americana and destruction of Israel”.

During negotiations, Obama/Biden/Kerry gave observers the impression that they would do anything to consummate the agreement.  When completed many believed it was not worth the paper it was written on and in fact it gave Iran the green light to continue their drive toward Middle East domination and development of nuclear weapons and long-range delivery missiles. 

Additionally, during the negotiations, President Obama orchestrated the return of $1.7 billion to Iran. During January 2016 an aircraft carrying $400 million cash in various currencies landed in Tehran. That money purportedly was partial payment of an outstanding claim by Iran for U.S. military equipment that was never delivered. Soon after, $1.3 billion followed.

To put this cash payment in context, Iran is the world’s largest state-sponsor of terrorism.  Since 9/11 one of the most important actions against terrorism has been to shut down their ability to use the services of international banking.  Cash has become the life-blood of terrorism.  There is a lot of American and innocent civilian blood on that cash.  A failed Obama strategy of appeasement. 

May 2018, President Trump pulled out of the nuclear agreement with Iran and since has strangled them with economic sanctions.  Interestingly, since the pullout, Iran admitted to advances in its nuclear weapon development. 

The Trump foreign policy/Middle East Strategy can be summed up as follows: “America First”; we will rebuild our economy and our military while imposing harshest possible economic sanctions against those who wish to do us harm.  We will avoid getting involved in large land wars around the world.  But, be advised, if you strike us, we will strike back and you will not like the results. 

On New Year’s Eve, an Iranian-backed terrorist organization in Iraq, attacked the US Embassy in Bagdad.  Dozens of terrorists breaching the compound, did so in support of Kataeb Hezbollah, which the State Department has designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

General Soleimani had led Iran foreign policy towards the US through an 18-month lead-up to the US Embassy attack.  Following the Iranian rocket attack on Saudi oil fields and the shooting down of a US drone over international waters, the Trump administration demonstrated unusual restraint.  However, President Trump did issue a “red line in the sand” warning to Iran. 

Soleimani flew into Bagdad to become personally involved with the Kataeb Hezbollah terrorist operations, thereby crossing the red line and presented himself as a perfect target of opportunity.

The Trump doctrine does not seek a land war with Iran.  But three loud-and-clear messages have been sent to the Iranian leadership.  One, when we identify a “red line” we mean do not cross it.  The second is an implied message that the next air strike could take out your entire oil refining capability which is your last and only source of revenue.  Finally, the take-down of Soleimani says it all; we know where you are and you might be next. 

Marv Covault

Across urban America we have neighborhoods that are predominantly white or black and the local schools are therefore corresponding mostly white or black. Segregation supports racism and it is about time we fixed both.    

To understand segregation, we need to understand how it came about. The commander of Union forces in the Civil War, General Ulysses S. Grant was a champion of African Americans throughout the war. President Lincoln advocated for abolition of slavery and signed the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1^st, 1863.

During the final days of the Civil War, in 1865, Grant and Lincoln met frequently to discuss what “freedom” should mean for those enslaved. Their plan included the right to own property, to vote, hold office and have access to all schools, public transportation and commercial activities. 

Five days after Lee surrendered to Grant, President Lincoln was assassinated. The Lincoln/Grant vision for the freed slaves died with the President. 

During the post- war period, Lincoln’s replacement, Andrew Johnson, sided with the former Confederate states’ politicians to restrict equality for freed slaves.  This, and other factors, led to the rise of Ku Klux Klan racism, threatening the lives and livelihood of all freed slaves.

For 100 years following the Civil War segregation was  a principle pillar of the Democratic party platform. During presidential elections in the 1960s, Democratic candidate Governor George Wallace is best remembered for his segregationist views, “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.”

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 officially ended the 100-years of segregation; sort of.  But, even in passage, only 7% of the Democrats in Congress from the former Confederate States voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act.

Stop for a moment and imagine where this country could be today if the Grant/Lincoln plan had been implemented in 1865 and the democrat party would not have had segregation as their centerpiece policy position for 100 years. 

Racism is America begins with segregation, particularly segregated schools and that is the exact point where we can fix racism; not from some top-down bureaucrat-led federal program but rather from the bottom up.

Fact: black and white babies are not born bigoted or with hatred in their hearts; they learn it from adults. Racism is magnified by school segregation.   

Let’s begin by defining the school segregation problem.  Across this country there are about 25,000 “intensively segregated schools”, defined as schools with at least 90% non-white students.  Intensively segregated minority schools overwhelmingly tend to have lower performance and fewer educational opportunities. 

One reason they are lower performing is that many of them have lower quality teachers.  There are two reasons for this.  First, every profession, be it medical, legal, military or teachers, have some individuals who are just not good at what they do.  Low-performing teachers should be asked to find another vocation.  But the teachers’ union contracts make it nearly impossible to fire a teacher so they just hang on dragging down the quality of the instruction. 

Secondly, everyone likes to work for a quality, winning organization and when the minority school ranking is below average, the best and brightest of the teachers voluntarily move on.

Here is an innovative concept that can, in a generation, fix our schools and by extension fix racism from the bottom up.

Clinton Mississippi, population about 25,000, has 5300 students in the public schools.  The racial breakdown is 54% black, 36% white, 6% Asian, 2% Hispanic and 2% other.

In 1970 the district superintendent of schools, Virgil Belue, could see a complete lack of student integration.  He implemented a plan that has been in place since 1971 (see THE WALL STREET JOURNAL article, 24 November, 2019 edition entitled, School Integration Model Lauded). 

For classes beginning in the fall of 1971 Superintendent Belue assigned all the kindergartners and first graders to one school; that school would forever be K-first grade for the entire community. Grades 2 and 3 attended a different school that would forever be grades 2 and 3 only.  This concept continued, two grades per school, encompassing all the school facilities and all grades K-12.

While the students would transfer every 2 years to a different school facility, the integrated classes of students remained together completely integrated all day, every day for 13 years.  The downside, if it is one, is that it requires a little more bussing.  Does it work?  Here is some recent data from Google. 

2018 Mississippi ranking data:

-Clinton High School is ranked #1 in the state in academics.

-Ranked #1 with best teachers. 

-Ranked #2 in best places to teach.

-Ranked #4 in best school district.

-Has an overall “A” rating and is ranked #3 overall.

You might want to take a minute to look at these impressive stats one more time.  But for the insight of Superintendent Belue, this school system would likely be a typical underachiever.  But they are ranked at or near the top in every important category.  You can bet teachers are not abandoning this ship. 

This is segregation/racism fixed from the bottom up.  Could any school district do this?  Yes, by applying a few different metrics depending on the student population.  For example, a school district with ten times the numbers of Clinton could divide their area of operation into smaller sections for integration.   

The larger picture of Clinton Mississippi is that, after nearly 50 years, most of the adults in the Clinton community were educated under the Virgil Belue model, resulting in a community that is integrated in mind and spirit.

This concept is about accountability at the point of execution.  It is not about accountability of some nameless, faceless bureaucrat in Washington with billions of appropriated tax dollars to spend on a series of worthless political ideas about how to deal with education, segregation and racism. 

This plan is simple, doable and Clinton Mississippi is proof of concept. School boards do not need permission, just make it happen.  “Bussing” does not have to be a dirty word, a political football or a failed concept. When applied evenly to every family, every student, in every school, every day, it works.   

Merry Christmas,

Marv Covault

On the first day of the open-hearing impeachment inquiry, Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, called his initial two witnesses, career State Department diplomats William Taylor Jr. and George Kent. They were there because of their service in the US embassy in the Ukraine. 

Listening to them testify brought back vivid memories of my two years as deputy for Pacific area policy dealing daily with personnel in most of the US embassies through the Pacific region. 

Our US foreign service officers are highly intelligent, well-educated and comprise the preeminent foreign service in the world.

Having said that, there is one additional, overarching distinguishing feature; they operate in and support a powerful and pervasive culture of elitism. They are nice folks, pleasant to be around but that culture is part of who they are and how they operate.  The purpose of making that point is to amplify my assessment of their congressional testimony during the week of 18 November. 

Far from providing damning evidence of criminal presidential behavior, the State Department personnel mostly confined themselves to four topics:

First, a 20-30-minute opening statement describing, in agonizing detail, their own sterling résumés and that they know more about how the Ukraine should be treated than anyone on earth. 

Secondly, for the most part they had zero first-hand knowledge of incriminating actions by President Trump. 

Third, their poorly hidden disgust with President Trump’s foreign policy.

And fourth, their disdain for the president’s personal envoy, Rudy Giuliani.

Based on my experiences with the State Department, none of the these surprised me; let me elaborate on 3 and 4. 

Constitutionally, the president is charged with defining US foreign policy, not the State Department.  The State Department executes.  But what happens is that Ambassadors and their staffs become fixated on “their country”, begin to believe they know what is best for “their country” regardless of how it may or may not “fit” into the President’s global policy, regional policy or specific policy for that particular country. 

One of the most important pieces of the Trump foreign policy is an ongoing effort to re-think our decades-old policies on foreign assistance which is normally about $50 billion per year. The problem is that much of that assistance goes to countries wherein corruption is endemic and where a significant portion of the “aid” is routinely syphoned off leaving little actual aid for the intended users. 

A good example, would be a shipment of foodstuffs or MREs (meals ready to eat) to be distributed to a starving populace. It is not unusual to find those products FOR SALE the following day in the local markets. 

The issue in the impeachment hearings is the presence, or absence, of a quid quo pro involving a Biden investigation in return for military aid to Ukraine.

So, now let’s put the military aid to the Ukraine into the context of the President’s new foreign policy on aid to foreign nations.

When a senior leader has to make a decision on a major issue, here is what normally happens.  The staff will put “everything on the table” and develop a number of courses of action (COA) for discussion and eventual decision. 

In the case of aid to Ukraine, the alternatives discussed would likely have included:

COA 1:  following the Trump doctrine, Ukraine (considered to be the most corrupt country in Europe) should not get any aid. 

COA 2:  give them the military aid (they need munitions capable of killing Russian tanks) but make it contingent on tangible efforts to clean up their corruption. That is an example of quid quo pro that is used every day in US embassies; give something, get something.   

COA 3: consider in the offer, VP Biden’s successful bribe to withhold $1 billion in aid to Ukraine unless they fired their corruption prosecutor.  Also consider in this COA Ukraine’s role in our 2016 presidential election.

COA 4: Give them the military weapons, period. 

Also consider that the aid to Ukraine was a multi-agency action; Departments of Defense, State, Energy, the White House, the US embassy in Ukraine and the European Union were all players.  Emails, meetings, phone calls were ongoing for months creating a ripe environment for rumor and innuendo.

Obvious from their testimony, the Ukraine Embassy folks felt left out and believed they should have been in charge. 

Presidential envoys to foreign nations to consult, negotiate and investigate have been common throughout our history. As the president’s personal envoy to assess corruption, Rudy Giuliani did not need to check-in, check-out or inform the embassy of his mission or findings.  Obvious from their attitude and testimony, this was very disconcerting. 

After days of, “I assumed, I thought, I understood, my impression was, my feelings were, I’ve never met the president, I have never talked to the president”, finally our ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondlund, testified that he looked President Trump in the eye and asked him, “Mr. President, what do you want from the Ukraine”?  The president replied, “nothing, nothing”.  Course of action #4. 

By the way Ambassador Sondland had failed to include that critical episode in his lengthy self-aggrandizing opening statement.  

 Marvin L. Covault

WEALTH TAX, RIGHT OR WRONG FOR AMERICA

What is a wealth tax?  Today, wealthy Americans pay taxes on things like superyachts and fine art when they purchase them, but not after. A wealth tax would make them pay taxes on their assets every year. Elizabeth Warren would apply an annual asset tax of 2% on households worth more than $50 million and 6% of worth greater than $1 billion.

There are some significant downsides to the wealth tax that the progressive/socialist candidates fail to mention while campaigning. 

First: Rich folks do not put their excess cash under a mattress; they invest it and pay taxes on the interest and dividends.  The wealth tax takes money out of the hands of those who invest and provide the continuous flow of capital which, of course, is the fuel for capitalism.

Second: The wealth tax would apply to an estimated 75,000 households. There are already 73,500 full time IRS employees.  How many more thousands of employees would they need to expertly administer the wealth tax?  Big government getting bigger.  

Third:  Wealthy people have very competent tax lawyers who know how to apply tax avoidance measures. The only way to prevent this is to rewrite the tax code and eliminate the loopholes, which is unlikely to happen.  Additionally, the wealthy can move assets to trusts and family foundations or shift property among generations; and they will do so.

Fourth:  The wealth tax is a proven failed system.  In 1990, a dozen nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development imposed wealth taxes. By last year, it was down to three.  France was the latest casualty. 

Fifth:  A significant amount of wealth held by the rich is in hard-to-value assets, such as art.  Will the valuation be accomplished in 75,000 households by thousands of contract experts or by IRS amateurs? How will the taxpayers appeal contested valuations? Thousands of households could end up in litigation for months or years. 

Sixth, a scenario: A 40-year-old entrepreneur is worth $500 million dollars and therefore required to pay a wealth tax.  His 2% wealth tax due is $10 million. Because he consistently invests excess cash and after paying state and federal income taxes, he is short of cash to pay the wealth tax.  Not to worry, Ms. Warren says, “l have a plan.”  Rather than force the taxpayer to sell resources and pay cash, he can tender a portion of his non-liquid assists to the government.  Now he has a new business partner who may well be some nameless, faceless, possibly incompetent bureaucrat in Washington. Extend this over the next 20 or 30 years, 2% every year, and what does he have remaining?  Then he dies and his estate pays a 40% death tax on the remaining assets. This is a nightmare scenario that would play out across the country. 

Seventh:  Because of the downside reasons 1-6 above, rich people figure out how to move their wealth abroad.  It isthe principle reason other countries dropped the wealth tax. 

Eighth:  Ms. Warren has developed the wealth tax issue in response to questions about how she proposes to pay for Medicare for All.  And she sells this new tax revenue stream as if it is all that will be needed.  Wrong, really wrong. Warren’s estimates, which some liberal economists consider too optimistic, that the wealth tax on personal fortunes exceeding $50 million would raise $3.75 trillion over the next decade, ($375 billion per year).  That $375 billion would provide about 13% of what is required for one year of Medicare for All.  Will the middle class pick up the remaining 87%?

As if the above numbers are not misleading enough, Warren also claims Medicare for All will actually save money because of economies of scale for a government-run program. There is zero data to support such an outrageous claim but there are numerous examples of the incompetence of government whenever it is charged with running a large operation.  Cases in point:

In FY18 FEDEX reported a net profit of $2.97 billion and UPS had $4.79 billion while the US Postal Service had a net loss of $3.9 billion.  This is the norm and happens every year.

Government-run Amtrak has reported operating losses every year since its inception in 1971, averaging $900 million per year with 93% of its routes unprofitable. The per-ticket taxpayer subsidy over the past 5 years has been $51 per Amtrak ticket sold. 

The best relevant comparison of how Medicare for All will succeed is to look at the current Veterans Administration which has been a disaster for decades.  It is a bureaucratic, bloated, money pit that has left sick veterans to die while waiting for care.  Medicare for all would attempt to service 18 times the number of those who rely on the VA. Lots of luck saving money.  Check out the disastrous government-run medicine in the UK and Canada. 

Wake up America, it’s time to look at the whole Medicare for All story. And while you are at it, look at Ms. Warren’s list of 56 other new programs that will require more funding, more government control, more bureaucracy and more regulation. 

Marv Covault