Author: admin

A

Now that the Muller investigation is completed, there is still a great deal of unfinished business with respect to the 2016-2018 timeframe.  Much of it centers around the leadership of the FBI, the Department of Justice and the intelligence community. 

As much as I hate to say this, we need another Special Prosecutor.  Having said that, this country should not have to go through another 22 months of point/counter point speculation every day about what the Special Prosecutor is or is not doing.

Attorney General Barr should appoint a Special Prosecutor immediately and organize the members into a number of lawyer/investigator teams.  Each team will have a narrow, specific area to investigate.  For example, did FBI Director Comey obstruct justice in the Clinton investigation? 

Through weekly in-progress-reviews from each team leader, the Special Prosecutor will be able to “see” the whole picture as it emerges.  The Special Prosecutor can then, for example, tell Team 3 that they need to collaborate and merge finding with Team 5, etc. Additionally, the Special Prosecutor will have stood up a Grand Jury. 

Here is the key to success.  Every team is instructed that in 90 days they need to produce a draft report, draw conclusions and make a recommendation as to whether or not their information should be given to a Grand Jury to consider indictments.  Period.

If the Grand Jury votes to indict, so be it.  If not, the case is closed. 

 Is 90 days enough time?  Yes, it is and here is an example of why.  As Director of the FBI, James Comey investigated the Hillary Clinton email issue for over a year involving (his words) over 100 FBI agents.  There is no new news; take that investigation report, as is, go through it and come to some conclusions about what should be done to Clinton and/or Comey. In the Clinton/Comey case, here is what the Special Prosecutor’s team will find. 

On July 5, 2016 FBI Director Comey announced, in a public address, that he was NOT going to recommend filing charges over Clinton’s use of a private email server. “There is insufficient evidence to show Clinton had malicious INTENT”. Remember that word, intent.

Comey: “Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on her personal system in violation of a federal statute making it a felony t mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way.”

Comment: The mission statement was perfect. 

The law, 18 U.S. Code 793(f): “Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document…… relating to the national defense, through GROSS NEGLIGENCE (note, remember those two words) permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, …. and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer…… shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”

Comment:  The law is clear as a bell.  I spent years of my service with classified documents in my possession. When one gets any security clearance you must meet with documents experts who clearly define what you can and cannot do. Then they require you to sign a document, in their presence, stating that you understand it all. Hillary would have signed such a document. It is designed to scare the hell out of you and it does just that.  Bottom line, screw up and you go to jail, period. People do screw up and they do go to jail. 

Comey: “Secretary Clinton used several different servers while Secretary of State and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mails.” 

Comment: An indisputable piece of evidence, and none of these pieces of equipment were secure.

Coney: from the group of 30,000 e-mails….110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent.”

Comment:  There it is, damaging information that routinely sends mere mortals to jail. Period. But it gets worse.  Later in his statement Comey said:

“Seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.”

Comment:  Special Access Programs have special requirements. You are “read in” by a member of that particular program. It is so sensitive there may be only a half dozen individuals in a program. Discussions are never transmitted by any means that is subject to interception. There is no greater crime associated with US Code 793(f) than this violation. When Special Access information is carelessly released, innocent people can and do die.

Comey: “Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.”

Comment:  This is as far beyond “gross negligence” as one could possibly get.

Comey: “Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

Comment: The following day, July 6th, law professors and prosecutors across the country were being interviewed. Generally, they were astonished and confused because their consensus was that this would be a slam-dunk conviction. 

Comey: “Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent.” 

Comment: first of all, Comey is not a prosecutor and secondly THE CODE DOES NOT REQUIRE THE PROSECUTORS TO EVEN CONSIDER INTENT.  The reason is, if someone clearly “intends” to put highly classified information in the wind, they fall into an entirely different category of offences; they are conducting treasonous actions.  US Code 793(f) is about negligence.

My conclusions: Comey was wrong on the law and he chose to ignore blatant, irrefutable evidence no matter how potentially damaging her actions were. Comey set himself up as investigator, prosecutor, judge and jury. President Obama should have fired Comey the afternoon of July 5th, 2016 for dereliction of duty.

Is 90 days enough for a team to put together an indictment for a Grand Jury?  In this case 90 hours would probably be enough.

What might have happened during the 2016-2018 time period involving senior government officials could end up to be the greatest injustice perpetrated by a small group of people inside the government in the history of this nation.  There is a lot of smoke, we need to know if there is, in fact, a fire. 

Marv Covault

B

Since we are already well into the 2020 presidential campaign season, you will hear the Democrat/Liberal/Progressive/Socialist candidates describe President Trumps Tax Reform Law as, “a tax cut for the rich.”  Over and over and over.

A very simple and ingenious cartoon was produced by Johnston Grocke, Accountants and Financial Planners. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BomQxCG5VG4

It is worth your time to watch the cartoon.  My intent is to describe it to you in print so that you can better absorb all the numbers and think about how grossly wrong “a tax cut for the rich” actually is.

The cartoon goes like this: Once a week 10 gentlemen assemble at a bar to drink beer.  The bar tender sets out $100 worth of beer.  One way of divvying up the bill would be for each to pay $10.  But the low-income guys couldn’t afford $10 a week. So, they decided to use the existing 2016 Tax Code to determine shares. In this cartoon the bar tab ($100) is synonymous with total federal income tax receipts. 

The group of ten men represent the income spectrum from very poor to wealthy; person #1 is the poorest, and each succeeding beer drinker, #2 through #10 makes more money than the person preceding him.

Scenario # 1, 2016, pre-tax reform: At the end of the evening they paid in accordance with where their income fell in the 2016 Federal Tax Code tables. 

Person:

# 1 thru 4 paid $0.

#5 paid $1

#6 paid $3

#7 paid $7

#8 paid $12

#9 paid $18

#10 paid $59

  Total $100

My conclusions:  those who cannot afford to pay the bar tab/taxes, don’t. The more income you have the more bar tab/taxes you pay. Those with the largest income pay the lion’s share of the bar tab/US federal taxes. 

Everyone was happy with the payment system until…….

Scenario # 2, tax year 2018, Trump tax reform:  The bar keeper announced that he would only charge them $80 instead of $100.

#1 thru 4 stay the same and drink for free

But how should # 5 thru 10 divide up the $20 windfall?  Dividing $20 by the 6 remaining men would equal $3.33 less each week than what they paid in Scenario #1.  That would be the FAIR SHARE methodology.

But, if they reduced each by $3.33, #5 and #6 would actually GET PAID to drink beer.  So, “fair share” is not really fair.

The bar tender suggested they continue with the same concept as in Scenario #1;  except pay in accordance with the new Trump tax.

Scenario #2 compared to Scenario #1:

#1 thru #4 still paid $0

#5 joins #1-4 and now also paid $0, a saving of 100% (over the previous payment of $1)

#6 paid $2 instead of $3, a saving of 33%

#7 paid $5 instead of $7, a saving of 28%

#8 paid $9 instead of $12, a saving of 25%

#9 paid $14 instead of $18, a saving of 22%

#10 paid $49 instead of $59, a saving of 16%

Total $80

KEY POINT #1:  WITH THE NEW TAX PLAN/BAR TAB EVERERYONE PAID ZERO OR LESS TAX. But, when #1 thru #9 departed the bar, they began to compare their “savings” ($80-tab vs $100-tab).   #5 says, “Why did I only get $1 saving while #10 got $10? “ #7 says, “I only got a $2 saving and he got $10, the wealthy get all the breaks.”  #1 thru #4 yelled in unison, “We didn’t get anything at all; the new tax system exploits the poor.

KEY POINT #2: The wealthy will always “SAVE” MORE DOLLARS because they put exponentially MORE DOLLARS IN. But all the lower tax brackets get a GREATERE PERCENTAGE SAVED. 

KEY POINT #3: WITH THE LOWER TAX/BAR TAB THE RICH FOLKS “SHARE” ACTUALLY INCREASED FROM 59% TO 61%. 

KEY POINT #4: “PRESIDENT TRUMP’S TAX LAW IS JUST A TAX BREAK FOR THE WEALTHY” IS ABSOLUTELY A FALSE STATEMENT.

Scenario #3: The next week when they assembled to drink beer, #10 didn’t show up. When it came time to pay the tab, they had $30 (#1 thru #5 were free, #6 paid $2, #7 paid $5, #8 paid $9, #9 paid $14) far less than half what they needed. 

KEY POINT #5: WAKE UP AMERICA, it is possible to tax the rich to the point they actually take their money and go away.  Yes, it can happen.  Study the tax/economic situation in France, many rich people are gone.  They found a place to live where they are not disincentivized. 

KEY POINT #6: THERE IS A FALSE NARRATIVE IN THE DEMOCRAT/PROGRESSIVE/LIBERAL/SOCIALIST AGENDA. DON’T BELIEVE IT BECAUSE IT IS NOT TRUE. 

Marv Covault

“

“Trump is a racist”.  Well at least that is what “they” are saying. Who are “they”?  I watch a lot of news and it seems to me “they” includes every democrat/progressive/liberal/socialist who has something derogatory to say about President Trump normally calls him a racist.

Calling anyone a racist is about as ugly a thing one can do. My point is, a person who does that should be sure of their facts. 

With tens of millions of Americans calling President Trump a racist and national media daily venting their emotional outrage over his racism, perhaps it is time to look at some FACTS. 

Other than Hillary calling Candidate Trump (and all of his supporters} racist with zero evidence, my research tells me the genesis of the current Trump racist movement was the riots in Charlottesville, VA on 11-12 August, 2017. 

Several factions of right-wing extremists were in Charlottesville including White Supremacist, KKK and Neo-Nazi. Right-wing organizers arrived with stated goals of unifying the American white nationalist movement and to oppose removing a statue of Robert E. Lee from Charlottesville’s Emancipation Park. 

FACT: About 2 hours after James Fields killed Heather Heyer with his vehicle, President Trump spoke on camera saying, “We all must be united and condemn all that hate stands for. There is no place for this kind of violence in America. Let’s come together as one. We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides.” Isn’t that what one would expect the President to say?

But, “……ON MANY SIDES.”  There it is, those last three words alone have generated a national outcry,  “Trump is a racist.”  Why?  Several reasons. 

First, a FACT: Many of the protestors were local residents and UVA students.  HOWEVER, ANTIFA WAS ALSO THERE!  The Antifa movement is a conglomeration of left-wing groups.  The principal feature of antifa is their tactics; property damage, physical violence and harassment against those on the far right. There you have it. Two groups of ignorant thugs from the far right and left who are not acknowledged by any reasonable individuals or groups as anything but scum of the earth bigots.

Second:  Virginia politicians and the main-stream media went absolutely off the rails. The day following the rally, Charlottesville mayor Michael Signer, addressed the rally participants: “You are not wanted in this great commonwealth.” Signer faulted President Donald Trump for inflaming racial tensions during his 2016 campaign, stating: “I’m not going to make any bones about it.  I place the blame for what you’re seeing in America today right at the doorstep of the White House and the people around the president.”

Third: The media soundly criticized President Trump for blaming “both sides” and for not specifically naming each individual right-wing group that was in Charlottesville that day.  By not naming all of the right-wing groups, the President was presumed to be a supporter of the right-wing groups.

The medias’ meltdown prompted the White House to issue an addendum to his initial remarks: “The President said very strongly in his statement yesterday that he condemns all forms of violence, bigotry, and hatred. Of course, that includes White Supremacists, KKK Neo-Nazi and all extremist groups. He called for national unity and bringing all Americans together.”

Notwithstanding the democrat’s and media’s biased conclusions, a poll by Economist You Gov showed that, when asked “which group is more likely to use violence,” 45% of those polled said both sides were “equally likely”.

Keep in mind that three months prior to this incident, a Harvard study found that 88-93% of daily reporting from ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, CNN, New York Times and Washington Post reporting on President Trump was negative.  Fox News was 50/50 positive/negative. Recurring polling shows that the negative reporting percentages continue today.

What we do not hear about are decades of Trump’s positive relations with minorities. He sued the city of Palm Beach for excluding African Americans and Jews from social clubs. He was praised by Jesse Jackson for support to Jackson’s Rainbow/PUSH Coalition which pressured corporations to hire and promote Black employees. Trump has actively supported the NAACP. He made campaign contributions to Black political candidates. The list is long; Google it up.    

Most individuals who routinely call the President a racist cannot give a reason why they believe that.  Those who can give a reason usually say, “Charlottesville” but cannot recall exactly what the President said that day. This is a perfect example of intellectual honesty being clouded by hate.  Better check your FACTS.

Here is a question for those Americans who just like to casually refer to President Trump as a racist……If you had an opportunity to look President Trump in the eye and call him a racist, would you do it?  And if he said back to you, why do you think I’m a racist?  Your response would probably be,  “Well, everyone says you are so it must be true.”  Is that the best you can do?

There is a good and valid question floating around today, CAN YOU LOVE YOUR COUNTRY MORE THAN YOU HATE YOUR PRESIDENT?  Think about it.

Marv Covault

W

The purpose of this article is to discuss one aspect of the national debate on abortion.  This is NOT about Roe v. Wade, a “women’s right to choose”, “life begins at conception” or the religious issues associated with abortion. 

On 28 January, 2019, in the Virginia House of Delegates, a committee heard testimony from Delegate Kathy Tran as she defended a proposed new abortion law, HB 2491.  There was a very meaningful, telling, disgusting exchange between democrat Delegate Tram and republican Delegate Todd Gilbert. 

The Bill HB2491 seeks to repeal the state’s current restrictions on late-term abortions.  If passed, the measure will do away with the state’s requirement that second and third trimester abortions be performed ONLY to preserve the health or life of the woman.  Currently, three physicians must conclude that a third-trimester abortion is NECESSARY to preserve the health or life of the woman. Under the new law, those requirements are stripped away. 

The exchange between Delegates Gilbert and Tram: 

Gilbert: “How late in the third trimester could a physician perform an abortion if he indicated it would impair the mental health of the woman?” 

Tran: “So, I mean, through the third trimester. The third trimester goes all the way up to 40 weeks.”

Gilbert: “Okay? But to the end of the third trimester?”

Tran: “Yep. I don’t think we have a limit in the bill.

Gilbert: “Where it’s obvious that a woman is about to give birth. She has physical signs that she is about to give birth. Would that still be a point at which she could request an abortion if she was so-certified?” (long pause) Gilbert goes on to say, “she’s dilating,”.

After another long pause, Tram replies: “Mr. Chairman, that would be a decision that the doctor, the physician and the woman would make at that point.”

“I understand that,” Gilbert replied. “I’m asking if your bill allows that.”

Tran replied: “My bill would allow that, yes.”

We cannot discount this as testimony from Tram as some deranged radical.  This proposal has received support from Virginia democrat Gov. Ralph Northam as well as a number of democrat lawmakers.

Family Foundation President Victoria Cobb commented, “This bill creates abortion, virtually on demand, up until the point of birth.”

Last week, New York democrat Governor Andrew Cuomo celebrated, with great fanfare, the alteration of their existing abortion law to allow NON-DOCTORS to conduct abortions until the mother’s due date if the woman’s HEALTH (not LIFE) is endangered.  Comment:  By the very nature of childbirth, isn’t there always a risk to the woman’s health?  Google it up, it’s a long list of bad things that can/do go wrong.  The wording in that law gives every pregnant woman in New York the “go” signal for an abortion at any time, right up to the last minute. 

Time to look at a couple definitions: First-degree murder is any intentional murder that is willful and premeditated.  Second-degree murder is any intentional murder but is not premeditated or planned in advance.

Way to go New York and possibly soon-to-be Virginia!  You have now given every young female the right to commit, at least second if not first degree, murder with only a few minutes thought and walk away free. Given a scenario wherein a healthy woman can decide, within a few minutes of her baby taking his/her first breath, to have that baby killed is beyond barbaric. 

Then confound that murder with the possibility of immediate action to harvest healthy, vital organs and perhaps sell them.  Well. you say, that could never happen in America.  Take off your rose-colored glasses, go back to the 2014-15 time-frame and review the live interviews that were conducted clandestinely with Planned Parenthood physicians. Those interviews were refuted, of course, by Planned Parenthood organization but never proven to be false.

This is not about Row v. Wade.  This is not about the question of when life begins.  This is about seriously looking for an answer to the question, what have we become?  How do the tens of millions of Americans who are celebrating these new monstrous laws believe this is goodness?  How do you look into the future and see that, because of this, we will arrive at a better place?

Marv Covault

S

In SOCIALISM PART I last week I attempted to make four points

Point # 1, DISINCENTIVATION: with it there is no way for the nation to move forward.

Point # 2, WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION: Obama said his overall intention, if elected President, is wealth redistribution.  There is a second and very different method of redistributing wealth.

Point #3, IT WON’T PENCIL: Senator Bernie Sanders and his protégé, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are passionate about their version of socialism for the US, but the real question is, did they fail 4^th grade math?  It would appear so. 

Part 4, BOTTOM LINE:  we cannot afford socialism.

The centerpiece for the Democrat/Liberal/Progressive/ Socialist agenda for the next 22 months leading up to the 2020 presidential election will be health care; whether it is a One-Payer System, Medicare For All or some other National Health Care system.

Notwithstanding that Socialism has no virtues, why are Democrats/Liberals/Socialists/Progressives moving so far left?  Socialism is all about “free” and “free” buys votes.  More “free” buys more votes and lots more “free” buys lots more votes.  And when their constituency is various identity groups, they can craft a “free” program that will appeal to every group.  It may be good politics but it will eventually end badly for America for a number of reasons and not being able to afford it may be the least of our worries.

On 3 November 2018, Scott W. Atlas, MD, —a Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and a member of Hoover Institution’s Working Group on Health Care Policy— wrote a detailed and insightful article for the Wall Street Journal, entitled The False Promise of Medicare for All.

The purpose of this paper is to draw from his research and get you ready for the socialist barrage of untrue, unsupported BS they are going to use to convince their identity groups that “free health care” can become a viable, popular, fair reality. 

Obama promised a better health care system, Affordable Health Care which has proven to be just the opposite, unaffordable. As if Obama Care is not bad enough, there is a strong possibility that Single Payer, although a simple, catchy title, could be even worse.

Atlas points out that in the five years of ObamaCare, insurance premiums have doubled for individuals and risen 140% for families while deductibles have increased substantially.  Additionally, a record pace of consolidations among hospitals and physician practices, will raise health care prices as fewer hospitals compete for payers. 

For California alone, Single Payer Health Care will cost an estimated $400 billion a year, more than twice their current health care annual budget.  Nationwide, Medicare For All will cost more than $32 trillion over its first decade.  DOUBLING federal personal income and corporate taxes will not be enough to pay for it. 

Around the world, in the past half century, nationalized health care programs have consistently failed to provide timely, high quality medical care compared with the U.S. system.  The consequences are pain, suffering, death, personal disability and forgone wages. 

Last year a record 4.2 million patients were on England’s National Health Service waiting lists; with 362,600 patients waited longer than four months for treatment while 95,252 waited longer than 6 months.  All that waiting was after having received their diagnosis and referral.

In Canada last year, the median wait time between seeing a general practitioner and following up with a specialist was 10.2 weeks.  Wait time between seeing that specialist and beginning treatment was about 5 months.

In nationalized health care systems, even patients referred for URGENT TREATMENT often wait months.  In Britain, 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.

Canadians with heart disease wait 3 months for their FIRST TREATMENT.  If you need life-changing orthopedic surgery in Canada—like hip or knee replacement—you likely wait 10 months.

In contrast to England and Canada, most US patients face little or no wait for urgent care.

A Single Payer program is no promise of access to quality medical care.  If brought to the US the only reliable promise would be worse health care and higher taxes.  America’s poor and middle class would suffer the most because—let’s face reality—rich folks don’t need health insurance of any type, they can just write a check and probably move to the front of the line or join a quality private-practice health care group. 

Whatever nationalized health system it is, WAKE THE HELL UP AMERICA, it will NOT be “free”.  You will pay like your have never paid before. There is a saying going around that you will never believe how expensive medical care can be until it is “free”.  Some years ago, the British Liberal Party sold their people on a national healthcare concept as “free” and their resulting taxes rank right up there among the highest in the world

FACT, every country that has tried nationalized health care has ended up with less quality health care professionals, much higher taxes, longer wait times for care, pain, suffering, permanent disability, forgone wages and in many cases premature death.  This is not an overstatement. 

But, you say, we are not the UK or Canada, the US can do it better. You are certainly entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.  The fact is we have had government-run medical care in this country for decades; it’s called The Veterans Administration and it has been such a dismal failure that the whole process has been under scrutiny for the past several years and is not fixed yet. It is clearly documented that veterans have died waiting for an appointment or treatment.

Currently, less than one third of Americans are enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid.  Fact:  between 2004 and 2017 “mistakes and improper Medicare and Medicaid payments” averaged $48 billion per year.  $48 BILLION.  Does that support making Medicare available for all?  Do we therefor 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 times-three expansion of the program.  Why? 

Answer.  What makes you believe for one minute that the federal government can effectively and efficiently “run” any new big program?  The federal government has a pretty clear and remarkable history when it comes to “running” big, national programs.  What do the Postal Service established 1775, Social Security 1935, Fannie Mae 1938, War on Poverty 1964, Medicare and Medicaid 1965, and Freddie Mac 1970 all have in common?  Two things, they are big federal government programs run by the government and they are all broke.  And the Democrats/Liberals/Socialists/Progressives all expect you to believe them when they call it “free” and that it will be successful!

Question for the Democrats out there.  Which of the facts above don’t you understand?  You are part of an intelligent electorate; how can you possibly be sucked in to this scam?  Just listen to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez talking to America about how we will pay for One Payer or Medicare For All.  She begns with cuts in Defense. 

Ok, Alexandria, I will “ see” your “cut” in Defense spending and raise you to completely disbanding  the military; take the Defense budget to zero for the next four years.  That “saving” will still fall short of what the government needs to support Medicare For All for ONE year.  It’s 4^th grade math Alexandria and you just don’t get it. 

Having said all of the above, the bottom line is not about dollars, it is about something bigger, something much more important, something that IS America.  Too often we use a shorthand to define our Democracy as simply a system of free elections and we leave it at that.

As stated by Isaiah Berlin more that 30 years ago, “The defining proposition of democracy is that it mandates means (elections, parliaments, markets) but not ends.  Democracy leaves the goals of life entirely up to the individual.  Where the totalitarian, socialistic states decree life’s purposes. 

Furthermore, the late, brilliant writer Charles Krauthammer put it more succinctly—I paraphrase, “we must fight for a vision of limited government that, while providing for the helpless, is committed above all to guaranteeing individual liberty and pursuit of one’s own ends.”

The Democratic party has moved so far left in an effort to be heard above the shouts of the “free” radical left and socialists, they have forgotten about America. They have betrayed the party of FDR, of Harry Truman, of JFK. They are willing to bet America’s future on winning an election. They are willing to go forward— leaning so far to the left— with a single-minded mission of bringing down the current administration out of a pure passion of hate. 

I’m disgusted, dismayed, but mostly just disappointed in part of my America.

Marv Covault

R

First, Pelosi tells the House Democratic caucus they cannot go home because they may need to be in Washington to vote on re-opening the government. Meanwhile she schedules herself to be out of the country on a Congressional Delegation overseas visit. 

The itinerary:  Brussels, Egypt, Afghanistan……. why these three?

BRUSSELS:  The only reason to visit Brussels is NATO.  For decades US presidents have complained about members not living up to the membership requirement……devote 2% of your GDP to defense spending.  They never paid any attention until President Trump looked them in the eye and demanded they get with the program; the US taxpayers are tired of footing 70% of the NATO bill.  A significant number of the member nations are complying.  Do any of you believe for a minute that Nancy is going there to tell them how much she is pleased with what President Trump has done?  Not in this lifetime.  Whatever she does/says will be disruptive and completely out of her lane. 

EGYPT:  Only reason to go to Egypt at this point in time is because last week Secretary of State, Pompeo was there to deliver a major foreign policy speech concerning terrorism in particular and the Middle East in general.  If you didn’t hear it, it is worth your time to read it.  In effect, he said we, the US, are here for you in the world-wide fight against Islamic terrorism but when the feces hits the rotary, you better be ready to pony-up, play a big-time role and pay your own way.  Foreign policy is the purview of the Executive Branch and Nancy has no business sticking her nose into it.  But she doesn’t care.    

AFGHANISTAN, a war zone:  She will, of course, be treated according to her office and given the full briefing.  However, I’m afraid of what she is going to say when she returns and how much damage it may do. 

The bottom line; there is no limit to how dangerous a power-hungry person like her can be.  She is on a one-mission campaign…..destroy the Trump presidency. She is a power freak in a power position and cares nothing about how the American electorate feels about the major issues of the day…….internal security, the economy, foreign affairs.

Her only concern is her personal legacy……..I brought him down.  Not what she was able to accomplish for America.  A powerful, dangerous, shadow-president, her Democratic caucus appears powerless to challenge her while she is simultaneously buoyed by the daily support of the main-stream media. 

It’s going to be a tough couple of years of pure unadulterated RESISTANCE.  

One thing that could be done is to take every nonsensical piece of legislation that comes out of the House and immediately put it to a vote in the Senate.  Let the people see what every Representative and Senator is voting for and against.  Show America the resistance.  Show America what the Democratic/Liberal/Socialist/Progressive agenda actually looks like and let them judge for themselves. 

Unfortunately, the problem with that course of action is Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnel.  To date, his inclination is to table everything “that will not pass the Senate.”  Bad move. 

Marv Covault

S

Point # 1, DISINCENTIVATION: As you read on, keep in mind this one word, disincentivization

Point # 2, WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION: Late in his 2008 presidential campaign, Obama was caught unawares on an open-mike and during a discussion with “Joe the Plumber”, Obama said his overall intention, if elected President, is wealth redistribution. 

Point #3, IT WON’T PENCIL: Senator Bernie Sanders and his protégé, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are passionate about their version of socialism for the US, but the real question is, did they fail 4^th grade math?  It would appear so. 

Part 4, BOTTOM LINE:  we cannot afford socialism.

One thing many Republicans have wrong about Bernie/Alexandria, is that the United States may end up looking like Venezuela.  Venezuela’s President Maduro is a combination of socialism and extreme ignorance. Probably not where the US is headed. 

What Bernie/Alexandria are advocating for is actually the European model of socialism.  For the past few decades most of the European nations and their Social Democratic political parties (or Democratic Socialists, a slight distinction between the two) have adopted many socialist underpinnings.

This is France today: tax the rich, big centralized government, stifling regulation, weak military capability, nationalized programs with health care as the centerpiece, welfare state, extreme labor unions, a 35-hour work week and policies that discourage incentive/initiative.  Thank you, Barak Obama. We hear you Bernie.  Welcome aboard Alexandria. Not Venezuela, not Cuba, not the defunct Soviet Union, Obama/Bernie/Alexandria, although unstated, advocate for this French model. 

France optimizes the results of years of European political movement to the far left.  France has arrived; they are the poster child.  And they are in BIG trouble on all fronts because that socialist chicken has finally come home to roost. 

Conversely, capitalism works.  It works amazingly well especially when combined with a democratic form of government.  That’s where we are today.  Leader of the world.  Envoy of the world.  Hundreds of millions want to immigrate here.  Why? To work hard and strive for the American dream. 

My description of French socialism, three paragraphs up, and its failure, can be summarized by one word.  Disincentive.  There is no part of socialism that makes you jump out of bed in the morning, wanting to get to work as quickly as possible and make things happen.  Innovate—willingly work hard—produce—prosper—achieve—become a model, a mentor and live the dream. That is exactly what is happening all over America today and we should change all that to a one-word description of our future; Point # 1, DISINCENTIVIZED?  Yes, according to Bernie and Alexandria, we should. 

The Wall Street Journal recently had a graph showing nations’ tax burden as a percent of its Gross Domestic Product, GDP.  This is a valid way to illustrate the comparative tax burden among nations.  France is # 1 on that list because 48% of the goods and services the individuals produce goes back to the government as taxes.  By comparison the US tax burden relative to GDP is only 27%.  The top twelve nations in terms of the extreme tax burden are Social Democratic European nations. 

There are, unfortunately, tens of millions of American Democrats/Liberals/Socialists/Progressives (take your pick) who are willing to take that risk and shift to socialism.  Why not, they argue, maybe it is a good idea. We will get a “free” college education, “free health care”, some nice government bureaucrat to oversee our largest corporations, some government committee will select the Boards of Directors for our large, successful, profitable corporations.  The list is long.  The government will “run” things so we don’t have to worry about doing it.  We can just sit back and enjoy the fruits, not of our labor, but the fruit the government chooses to give us.

Capitalism works.  We didn’t just invent the idea a few decades ago.  It is what this county IS and always has been.  Is it a nice comfortable straight line slightly tilted upward forever?  No, capitalism can be a bumpy ride but in the end initiative, ingenuity, grit and confidence ALWAYS wins out.  Not sometimes, ALWAYS.  Post-Obama confidence in the economy and in the country are high, there is a surge in new small businesses, wages are up, new jobs are up and former welfare junkies are back in the marketplace competing for good-paying jobs.

Let’s take a look at those rich folks, who Democrats/Liberals/Socialists/Progressives are asking to pick up the socialist tab.  Generally speaking, other than a few trust-fund kids, the rich folks work very hard.  They are risk-takers because no one tells them they can’t.  They don’t always win but they learn and move on and move up. And up. And up. And then they have more money than they can spend.  They have become part of the “top one percent.” What to do, put their excess money under the mattress?  No, they invest it. 

Capitalism doesn’t just “happen”.  It has to be continuously fed and nurtured. the fuel for capitalism is, quite naturally, capital; principally money.

Let’s say you are the proud owner of a growing, so far successful, company because you can be. No one, including the government, is telling you that you cannot or that you should not or that you must get permission; “Mother, may I?” It’s just you with a good idea, initiative, ingenuity, know-how and good energized employees.  This is the antithesis of disincentivized.

You have your company in position to expand, be bigger, be better; you have everything except capital.  What a bummer.  You could go to the bank but they are generally pretty conservative with their money and your plan has some risk involved.  Also, there are those darned interest payments always coming due.  So, instead of borrowing from a bank, you print some paper stock certificates and sell them. On the certificate is a serial number and a “value” which is really the “price”.  This piece of paper comes with no guarantees of success.  Also, no interest due and no due date for redemption.

Who, in God’s name, would ever buy such a thing?  Aha, someone who has more money than they need.  Those rich guys and gals; those “one per centers.” They take a look at you and your company and, in reality, bet on the come.  They buy your pieces of paper with absolutely no guarantee of a dime in return.  You say thanks and tell them you promise to work hard, be smart, and do everything you can to make a lot of money.  And when you do, out of gratitude, you will pay dividends and, oh by the way that $100 piece of paper might someday be worth $1000 or $10,000 and you didn’t have to lift a finger.

Ain’t that a great story?  Bernie and Alexandria would call it a fairytale.  We call it capitalism at its best.  We call it the American way.  We call it success, we call it our future.

That brings us back to the beginning and Point # 2, WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION.  There are two vastly different ways to go about wealth redistribution.  People and corporations produce goods and services which equals a nation’s gross domestic product, GDP.  People and corporations are then heavily taxed by the government and the money is redistributed back into the welfare state; socialism. 

An alternative is to keep corporate and individual taxes as low as possible and let the rich folks “redistribute” their wealth in order to “feed” corporate growth.  When corporations grow, the economy grows which promotes higher employment, more high-paying jobs and higher wages (exactly what is happening today).  Ultimately, this formula can generate even greater tax revenue for the government.  But instead of using the revenue to support welfare, it can be used for positive purposes. 

Back to the Bernie/Alexandria model of government, paying for everything, free tuition, health care, etc. etc. etc.

Let’s begin with Bernie/Alexandria idea to tax the rich at or above 70% like the French do and see how that might work out.  In the US in 1920 the top marginal tax rate was 73%, 90% during the 1950s and 69% in 1981. It may have seemed like a good idea at the time but it wasn’t.  It went away because it didn’t work.  It did not generate the trillions of dollars Bernie/Alexandria need to finance their pipe dreams. 

Bernie/Alexandria talk continuously about taxing the top one percent, the wealthiest folks in the US, to pay for all their “free” programs.   If you define the “top 1%ers as the top 1% in annual income earned, that would be about 1,275,000 households earning an AVERAGE of $440,000 a year totaling about $560 billion dollars.  Fully taxed at 70% provides tax revenue of about $392 billion. The cost of the socialist’s government-run “Single Payer Health Care plan (free health care for all) is estimated to average about $3 trillion a year for the first ten years.  Sorry Alexandria, the 1%ers come up about $2.6 trillion short just for the one program (if their entire income was fully taxed at 70% which, of course, it would not be).   As they say in Montana, Point #3. “IT WON’T PENCIL”. 

What does “free” mean when applied to programs that support the entire population, such as free health care for all.  One thing that is not free is your freedom.  You want a free education, free health care, a guaranteed monthly stipend?  We could try it but there is ALWAYS a price.  Bernie’s/Alexandria’s price is your freedom.  Freedom to “be all you can be”.  Give up your freedom and you will be all the government tells you you can be and no more.  What is the incentive to even go to work?  What is the incentive to think of a better way?  What is the incentive to work harder? Under socialism, “free” equals disincentivization of the entire society. 

Come on America, WAKE THE HELL UP!  Do you want to be in the streets every weekend with your yellow vest like the French are, protesting against everything their government has become and what it has done to that one-proud and prosperous nation? 

In a few months, yes months, the democrats/Liberals/Socialist/Progressive party will hold its first 2020 Presidential Campaign debate.  Mark my words, what we are going to hear is how one candidate can “out-free” the others.  You will not be able to recognize the real Democratic party, it’s gone.  WAKE THE HELL UP AMERICA.

Point #4, BOTTOM LINE.  Notwithstanding what has been said above, Socialism is, at its core, about economics, not politics.  That begs the question, if Bernie/Alexandria, et al believe socialism is so great, why don’t we see any economists in the US writing or speaking about is virtues?  Answer, because it has no virtues. 

Please stay tuned for SOCIALISM, PART II, perhaps next week

Marv Covault

We all keep our front door closed as a deterrent.  It makes us feel safe and secure. (Our personal “Wall”)

We are caring people and the most benevolent society in the world.  If someone who is “in need” knocks on your door, you will open it and probably find a way to help out.  (Processing 800,000 asylum claims)

If they knock down the door or sneak into your house, you call 911.  (Border Patrol/ICE)

It’s that simple. 

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT:

On 3 January, President Trump invited Congressional leaders to the White House to hear a briefing from Secretary Nielsen, Home Land Security.  The democrats present kept interrupting (decorum?) to the point that she was unable to complete the briefing.  So, on 4 January, the President sent a signed letter to every member of Congress with the following facts (rounded numbers) from Nielsen’s briefing:  

In FY 2018, 17,000 adults with existing criminal records were arrested while attempting to illegally cross the border.

In FY 17/18 ICE officers arrested 235,000 illegal aliens on criminal charges within the US.   (Yes, what a good idea, let’s do away with ICE); 100,000 for assault, 30,000 for sex crimes, 4000 for homicides. 

We are now averaging 60,000 illegal aliens a month on the US/Mexican border.  

Last month alone, 20,000 minors were smuggled into the US.

The immigration court backlog is 800,000 cases. 

There has been a 2,000% increase in asylum claims in the past 5 years.  About 90% are rejected by the asylum courts. During the months-long process, the immigrants have been necessarily released into our society.  Thereafter, they fail to report for their court hearing and become illegal aliens. 

In FY17, 3800 known or suspected terrorists were prevented from entering the US.

In FY17, 6000 gang members were apprehended at the Southern Border and removed by ICE. 

In FY18, 60,000 unaccompanied children illegally crossed the Southern Border.

In FY17, 135,000 illegal and inadmissible family units arrived in the US. 98% of family units and unaccompanied alien children are never removed. In FY18 the number skyrocketed to 161,000.

So far, in the first 4+ months of FY 2019, we have seen a 280% increase in family units over what we experienced in FY18.

Every week 300 Americans are killed from heroin use, 90% of which floods across our Southern Border.  6,500 lbs were seized in FY18, a 22% increase over FY17. 

In FY18 2,400 lbs of fentanyl was seized, a 73% increase over FY17.  That is enough fentanyl to overdose and kill every man, women and child in the US.

In FY 18, 282,000 lbs of cocaine were seized.

From FY 17 to FY 18 there was a 38% increase in methamphetamine smuggling. In FY18, 248,000 lbs were seized at the border.

Many of the migrants are sick; 50 per day are referred to medical providers.

Among the female immigrants traveling to the border, 31% are sexually assaulted in route.

Chuck Schumer, in more sane times said, “Illegal immigration is wrong, plain and simple.  Until the American people are convinced that we will stop future flows of illegal immigration, we will make no progress on dealing with the millions of illegal immigrants who are here now, and are rationalizing our system of legal immigration.  That’s plain and simple and unavoidable.”  A pure, simple, sane description of the problem and what needs to be done.

President Trump: “Illegal immigration is NOT progressive; by every measure, it is unfair, unjust, uncompassionate, and cruel. Senators Obama and Clinton, Schumer and many other democrats in the House and Senate voted for a hard, physical barrier.”

Conclusions from this briefing:

1. Facilities are inadequate (Congressional budgets propose additional cuts), Border Patrol is overwhelmed, technology cannot ever fill all the voids 24/7. 

• A nation that fails to control its borders cannot fulfill its most basic obligations to its citizens—physical safety, economic security, essential public services, and the uniform protection of our laws.

• Loopholes in federal laws prevent removals and provide a magnet for illegal entry. For example, if an illegal minor, or those traveling with a minor, merely set foot on US soil, they cannot be successfully returned home.  This provides the incentive for even more families and unaccompanied children to make the perilous journey to our border.

• Every time Speaker Pelosi gets behind a microphone she says, “a wall is immoral, it is unamerican.”  What IS immoral, is to sustain a failed system that allows 60,000 UNACCOMPANIED CHILDREN to cross that border at their own peril. 

What we have on the border now are all the pieces of a solution—walls, barriers of various configurations, Border Patrol agents, cameras, drones, etc.  But the statistics in President Trump’s letter tell us clearly that they are insufficient now and what is in place will be vastly insufficient going forward to the point of being overwhelmed. 

We do not have sufficient deterrence.  Our closed and locked front door is a deterrent.  Walls deter.  The walls we have currently in place deter. More walls will deter more.  And “more” is what is absolutely essential.  Now!

Every Democrat that ever previously voted for the wall or spoke out in favor of greater deterrence, should be ashamed of their own hypocrisy. Google up what Presidents Clinton and Obama have said publicly with great emotion about securing our southern border. Their point, it is unacceptable to not have complete control of our borders.     

Democrats, what is it about these numbers that you do not understand?

We have a humanitarian and national security crisis. 

TO THE CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATIC CAUCUSES:  I ACTUALLY BELIEVE YOU MUST, INTELLECTUALLY, UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR MORE DETERRENCE. UNFORTUNATELY, YOU ARE OVERCOME WITH THE EMOTION OF POLITICAL RESISTANCE. SHAME ON YOU AS A SOLID CONGRESSIONAL CAUCUS AND SHAME ON ALL OF YOU INDIVIDUALLY WHO LACK THE COURAGE TO DO SOMETHING ESSENTIAL TO INSURE THE SAFETY AND SECURITY OF OUR NATION AND OUR PEOPLE.   

And where is the main-stream media with respect to President Trump’s overwhelming message?  THE MOST INSIDIOUS POWER THE MEDIA HAS IS THE POWER TO IGNORE.

Marv Covault

G

Vice President Pence is obviously an intelligent, gifted politician who is a loyal advisor to President Trump.  Also, I’m sure he works long hours faithfully serving our nation.  But I would like to suggest that his talents can be used in additional ways.  There is still some swamp to drain and the President does not have the time to lead all of those efforts. 

VP Pence should take on some high-profile tasks commensurate with his abilities and position.  Here is a starter list that should provide his President and the nation tremendous return and value added.

First task, Active Legislative Liaison.  The decades-long adversarial relationship that has festered between the Executive and Legislative Branches is not serving we-the-people well and it needs some in-depth attention.    

If he is not already doing so, Vice President Pence should spend some significant amount of time each week establishing and reinforcing working relationships, one-on-one, with Congressional leaders of both parties. 

He could routinely call on and meet with important committee leaders.  He could seize opportunities to address various caucuses in both the House and Senate.  It would send a positive message if the Vice President met individually with all newly elected Representatives and Senators.

Schedule monthly luncheon meetings with leaders of both parties and both houses so that it becomes business-as-usual rather that a media event.  Be conspicuous on the Hill every week, not just when there is a crisis brewing or a projected tie vote in the Senate.  

Second task, Infrastructure Repair.  President Obama’s trillion dollar “shovel ready” stimulus program turned into a race to the pork barrel by members of Congress without structure or accountability, resulting in untold billions of dollars in fraud, waste, and abuse with little or no overall impact on the economy. It did not lower unemployment as advertised, did not lift millions out of poverty as advertised, and it did not stimulate the overall economy as advertised,

The American Society of Civil Engineers has given the nation’s infrastructure an overall grade of “D”. Fixing deficient bridges, tunnels, dams and sewage-treatment plants, not to mention expanding high-speed Internet and modernizing the electricity grid, should be clear priorities. 

Put Vice President Pence in charge and do something unique in Washington; that is, start with a strategic plan with an end-state and end-dates.  Put the plan in the form of a phased campaign of prioritized projects.  Develop measures of effectiveness to track progress against predetermined completion dates and budget. Do these things and then assess the overall value added to the nation.

Third task, Government Downsizing/Restructuring: A mammoth, sprawling, uncontrollable federal government was never the vision or intent of the founding fathers.  Organizations have a propensity to grow to a point of diminishing returns, to where it ceases to be efficient, effective and no longer performs the functions for which it was created.  At that point a large organization may even have a tendency to look inward and becomes self-perpetuating. Some or all of that could apply to the Departments in the Executive Branch today.  It can be fixed but it will take some strong leadership, attention to detail and months of hard work. 

Two years ago, America voted for change; we have seen a lot of it and it has been positive.  But for any large organization, especially one as large as the Executive Branch, change is hard. Fear of the unknown is a powerful human force. Especially in government, there can be an entrenched, layered bureaucracy that is stiff and stifling.

There are over two million civilian employees in the Executive Branch, excluding the postal service.  Most, I’m sure, are loyal, dedicated government employees who work hard every day.  However, there are also legions of “bureaucrats”, defined in the dictionary as mechanical, unimaginative and inflexible.  These are the ones showing up for “work” with their “rice bowl”, just putting in their time until retirement.  They will vehemently cling to their lifestyle as change agents attack their stronghold.  Change is enemy number one to the bureaucrats. 

Accomplishing real, meaningful change requires a strategic plan and a relentless campaign that is led by someone senior enough to plow through all the obstacles and defeat the bureaucrats. The Executive Branch needs to be analyzed, block by block, and restructured to become more capable.  That process needs someone as senior as Vice President Pence to pull it off.

On the subject of change: it is not the strongest of organizations that survive, nor the most intelligent; the survivor is the organization that is most adaptable to change.  Structure your organization with agility.

How does all this get accomplished? It is a long and tedious process (even explaining it is a long, tedious read) but there are no viable shortcuts to re-thinking, re-designing and re-structuring large organizations and make them be all they can/should be. 

First, Vice President Pence needs to set up a senior task force consisting of the deputies of all the departments, agencies and commissions. They will be the change agents and become the junkyard dogs of Washington.

Secondly, define the end state and end date for the campaign. For example, VP Pence might say, “Over the next six months our task force will look inside every organizational element of the Executive Branch.  We will assess their mission (is it relevant today), their structure (too many or too few people), layering (is it OK or dysfunctional), can the organization integrate (communicate) vertically and horizontally efficiently and effectively on a day-to-day basis and finally, is the organization as a whole agile (able to deal with change as a matter of course)?”

Third, organization charts: The process begins in every department, agency, commission by putting together a very detailed organization chart. That’s the visual and it provides an immediate sense of the size, complexity and layering.  Big government is layer after layer after layer.  Some of the layers produce nothing; they exist just to oversee what is being produced at the layers below.  Why the organization chart?  Because it allows one to begin the analysis and restructure at the bottom of the organization.  You CAN NOT reorganize and restructure top down; to be successful it must be bottom-up. 

Using the Department of Agriculture as an example, there are 65 different organizational elements that come under the headings of departments, agencies, councils, institutes, programs, foundations, services, authorities, offices of, boards and facilities. Inside of them are departments, directorates, branches, sections, cells and individual elements.  Every one of those becomes a “box” in the organization chart.  Each organizational “box” must list the name of the element, number of employees and the grade of the leader, GS 10, 12, 13, whatever.

Within the Department of Agriculture, for example, the deputy Secretary (part of VP Pence’s senior task force) will form his/her own internal departmental task force.  That task force (and this should be happening as well in every department in the Executive Branch) needs to task the leader of every organizational chart “box” to submit (“by tomorrow”) a one-page report to the task force.       

The report format should include, as a minimum:

1. MISSION STATEMENT: in one or two sentences describe what it is that element collectively does.  (for example: responsible for writing, executing and enforcing Department Regulation 135, Beef Export Program, and reporting results quarterly to ………

The task force’ job is to ask itself: do we need Dept Reg 135 any longer?  If so, could this be done with fewer people?  Could the same number of employees also be responsible for Dept Reg 246, Pork Export Program? Do we need the report quarterly?

There are probably tens of thousands of worthless reports written every year by an entrenched bureaucratic mass that lives on forever sucking up tax dollars, stifling initiative and being a roadblock to progress. 

It is inevitable that the task force will find elements that were stood up years or even decades ago to deal with a particular problem.  The problem may no longer exist but the branch or division just keeps cranking out paper.

2. GRADE STRUCTURE OF THE EMPLOYEES:

Is the grade structure commensurate with the degree of complexity of the mission? Could two or more similar “boxes” be combined, perhaps scaled down and led by this same leader (a span of control issue)? Is the leader a “working leader” or just grading the papers of his/her subordinates and passing them up the chain?

3. HOW MANY MEETINGS DO YOU ATTEND PER WEEK? 

This can reveal a lot about an organizational element and its leader.  Many meetings are just to fill up time, or are a daily social coffee clutch, or make the person in charge feel like he/she is actually “leading”.  Many are a colossal waste of time. If employees have time to attend too many meetings, they probably are not very busy to begin with.

4.  WHAT DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS GUIDE YOUR WORK? 

After reviewing the answers to the other questions, it may become apparent that these regulations are no longer necessary.  This is another piece in getting the big organizational picture.

5. PRODUCT.  A LIST, IN SINGLE SENTENCES, OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS:

Task force:  Are the accomplishments in line with the mission or are they just doing “busy work”?

6. A SHORT STATEMENT OF VALUE ADDED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF…..(AGRICULTURE).  That is, “without us the Department would not/could not do the following……….”

Human nature being what it is, some of these “one-page” requirements will become multiple pages from those subordinate leaders who believe their work to too important to be summarized onto one page.  This is where the task force makes it known this is a serious and important initiative.  Reports that do not meet the task force’s standard should, without even being reviewed, be returned with an “F” on it and a note to, “re-do in the proper format and submit by 0800 tomorrow.”  This will get everyone’s attention.   Any leader of an element should be able to produce their one-pager in a few minutes.

Task Force progress:  Having looked at this first layer in the organization chart, the task force will then assess the relevance of the next level; are they adding value or just a pass-through to the next higher?  They will assess span of control issues. This review process may lead the task force to come to an overall conclusion that the Department has too much layering which slows everything down, stifles ingenuity, complicates communications, leads to dysfunction and misunderstanding of assignments. 

Vice President Pence should randomly attend Departmental Task Force sessions every week.  He will be grading their work and progress; are they tough enough, too tough, thorough enough, on the right track?  The VP will also be able to pick up strong points of a Department’s process and pass it along to other Departments as best practices. 

During the process, it is important to not lose sight of the objective.  The objective is NOT to reach some specific lower number of federal employees.  The objective is to rid the government of “boxes” in the organization charts that have no “value added”, they just exist because they have always been there.  The end state is an organization that is leaner, more focused, more efficient, more effective, and agile. 

But, it will take leadership and a trememdous organized effort by someone senior enough to make it happen.  Vice President Pence is the logical choice.

This process may look tedious and time consuming.  Because it is.  But unless you begin at the bottom and unless you include every element, you will never achieve complete success.

Once the task force has worked it way up from the bottom, looking at every element and finally looking at the mission, value added, etc. of a Directorate, then and only then will they be capable of looking back and seeing how many subordinate elements are off track, irrelevant, unnecessary or even counter productive.  Then the task force will be capable of restructuring, re-aligning, re-tasking re-organizing the subordinate elements to create an organization that is more focused, aligned, responsive, innovative, agile and get rid of pockets of resistance.

Why do all of this work?  Two reasons: 1) The most common attempts at downsizing, in my experience used numerous times over the past few decades, have been to declare a hiring freeze or order an across-the-board 10% cut, neither of which makes any sense nor achieves any positive result.  2) What I have described above has never been done before.  We have just allowed the Executive Branch to grow without ever undertaking a necessary pruning process. 

When completed, many positions (perhaps tens of thousands of them) will be eliminated. It will then take a couple years of shuffling the deck by the Office of Personnel Management to get folks reassigned or retired, but it is within the art of the possible and monetarily worth the effort. This could easily result in a 10-20% reduction in the Executive Branch civilian work force.  Every 1% reduction in end-strength equals about a $1.5 billion saving in annual salary plus elimination of long-term retirement pay.

These three efforts by the Vice President will change the look, the feel, the capability and the agility of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government.

Marvin L. Covault, Lieutenant General, US Army, retired. Author of VISION TO EXECUTION, a book for leaders and WETHEPEOPLESPEAKING.COM, a blog on politics, national and international issues.

U

Yep, we sure did, a couple thousand of them and it has stirred up a lot of controversy and absolute apoplectic behavior by the mass media. 

Deb and I were having breakfast this morning and she said, “I don’t completely understand the whole Syria thing.”  I told her what I believe has been, and is, going on and she said, “You get in your office today, type up what you said and put it on your blog; maybe someone else needs to know this.”  After 56 years, I know how to follow orders.  So here goes.    

Hafaz al-Assad, the father, ruled Syria 1971-2000.  Upon his death, the son, Bashr al-Assad, has been in charge; together they represent a brutal dictatorship over Syria for 47 years.  Twenty-seven years ago, following deep-seated discontent, a group of rebels tried to bring down Assad.  They are still trying. 

In the process Assad is responsible for 300-500 thousand dead men, women and children (the exact number will never be known).  Thousands suffered and died from chemical weapon attacks.  The question is, why has al-Assad not been hauled before the world court to be tried for these atrocities like Slobodan Miolsevic (Serbian dictator) was for killing tens of thousands in Bosnia and Kosovo?  But I digress.

With the Syrian civil war raging for years, al-Assad has been desperate for aid; economic, weapons, ammunition and people. Iran to the rescue.  Iran has eyes on dominance over the Middle East and Syria became a willing ally.  Not to be outdone, the Russians, looking to be a long-term influence and player in the Middle East also signed on for aid. 

When the US pulled out of Iraq in 2010, a vacuum was created and it was quickly filled by ISIS.  With no resistance from the US, ISIS, by 2014, created an ISIS-led 35,000 square mile “country” referred to as a “Caliphate”.  They had a governmental headquarters, a leader al-Baghdadi, staff, tax collectors, they were selling oil and financing the rise of ISIS elements in 38 countries around the world. 

The US finally said enough is enough and began air strikes and some ground operations inside the Caliphate, but achieved little success.  The problem was the restrictive rules of engagement imposed by the Obama White House.  You need to recognize that in the Syria/ISIS type scenario, much of the success/progress results from timely attacks on “actionable intelligence” targets of opportunity.

Actionable intel targets are normally fleeting in nature and most of the “high-value” targets of opportunity required approval so far up the chain of command that we rarely successfully attacked a high-value, time-sensitive target. 

Early on in 2017 President Trump and Sec Def Mattis decentralized the rules of engagement approval authority to the commander on the ground.  We blew the hell out of ISIS and the caliphate has ceased to exist. 

But the mass media, politicians and Washington pundits are screaming, “But ISIS is not yet defeated.”

They are correct but neither is Hamas, neither is Hezbollah, neither is Boko Haram, neither is Al-Qaeda, neither is ISIS in dozens of countries.  And what’s more, they may never be “defeated.”  It is the world we live in. 

Ok, folks, if the 2000 US troops stay in Syria, tell me what the hell do you want them to do?  Fight the Russians?   Fight the Iranians? Declare war on al-Assad? Or maybe just set up camp for 17 years like we have done in Afghanistan?  I know, some will respond, “Well what if they rebuild the Caliphate?”  Why would they be so dumb? But if they do, we will just blow it up again with a few airplanes. But we do not need 2000 of our absolute finest sitting around in Syria doing “what ifs.” There is plenty for them to do elsewhere. 

Wishing you a very Merry Christmas

Marv Covault