Risky Business

Donald Trump built his real estate empire by taking big risks. A great many worked out well but he also had his share of losers. Companies that he controlled went into bankruptcy four times.
In fact, Money magazine reports that no U.S. company over the last 30 years has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy more than Trump's casino empire has.
 
He only avoided personal bankruptcy because he was in so deep with his lenders that they figured that it was better to have him as their "partner" as they tried to work off, write off and restructure the debt in his deals than have him as an adversary in Bankruptcy Court.

Risk has defined Trump's business career. In my view, it is also the most important consideration in evaluating whether to support Trump for President.

Make no mistake, I believe that Trump has had a positive impact on the Presidential race. He has confounded and dumbfounded all the political experts. He has taken on tough issues with tough talk. He has brought a lot of energy and enthusiasm to the process.

All the polling and the political punditry is fun early in a Presidential primary race. Trump has made it even more fun this year. However, it is time to start casting and counting real votes.   

The first votes in the Presidential primaries will be cast in one week.The dating phase is almost over. It is time to decide who you are going to live (or die) with for the next four years. 

It is my opinion that there is real risk for Republicans in voting for Trump. Everyone needs to ask themselves whether the potential return is worth the risk? I understand the motivation to vote for him. However, are you going to get what you want in return? I don't think so.

2016 should be the year for Republicans in the Presidential race. Eight years of Obama have left the American public weary of unfulfilled promises of "hope and change" and leery of more liberal "solutions" to our problems.

The Democrats appear to be giving America a choice between a 69 year old former First Lady who 60% of Americans believe is untrustworthy and dishonest and a 75 year old Socialist who wants to hand out "free" stuff by taxing everyone by an additional $19.6 trillion over the next decade. To put that in context, that would be 47% more in tax revenues than the U.S. Treasury is currently collecting from all of us. No one will be left unscathed.

When looking at these options it is hard to see how the Republicans can lose.

However, with Trump, the risk is real.

Why do I say that?

First, let's look at polling data. Trump likes to cite polls (especially when they are favorable to him).

While Trump sits atop national Republicans polls right now, he still has a lower favorable rating (+27) than Ted Cruz (+51), Ben Carson (+47), Marco Rubio (+46), Mike Huckabee (+40) and Carly Firoina (+30) among all Republican voters. There are clearly a lot of Republicans who like Trump. However, there are a sizeable number of Republicans who dislike him. That is a potential problem for him in the primary battles when the size of the field narrows. However, it is potentially fatal flaw in the general election. The GOP has to turn out its base for its candidate to have any chance of winning. There is a real risk that Trump causes a lot of Republicans to stay home and not vote in November. RISK!

Even worse, Trump's net favorable rating with Independents and Democrats is terrible. He is -27 with Independents. That is double Jeb Bush's net unfavorable rating with the same group. Trump is -70 with Democrats. That does not bode well in the General Election. RISK!

How do you win an election if a 1/3 of your own party does not have a favorable opinion of you and you have a net negative favorable rating of -27 with Independents? RISK!

Second, when will Donald Trump's mouth catch up with him? Through gaffes, guffaws and grumbles, Trump has thus far been immune to any damage to his poll numbers. However, there most certainly is going to be a point when his mouth gets him in big trouble. I would prefer that it not be after he is nominated and is the GOP candidate. RISK!

It seems you can almost sense a fall may be in the offing when Trump said this over the weekend,

  
 "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters,"
 

Third, how many skeletons lurk in Trump's closet? One of the major gripes that many had about Barack Obama's candidacy in 2008 was the fact that the press never seemed to be interested in vetting him like they did other candidates.

The same has been true thus far with Trump.

We have heard about Ben Carson threatening his mother as a 13-year old.

We have heard about Rubio being arrested as an 18-year old when he was in a park after hours. 

We have heard that the freshman roommate of Ted Cruz at Princeton did not like him.

What have we heard about Trump? Almost nothing.

Will he continue to get a free ride? I doubt it.

This is a man who has been involved in the rough and tumble world of real estate development and construction for almost 50 years. A world where special political influence is often critical on issues such as zoning and eminent domain. A world where the labor has increasingly been drawn from immigrant populations (how much was illegal?). A world where many jobs were created but where a lot of workers also got laid off. A world in New York construction in which labor unions and the Mob were always close by. RISK!

This is a man who has been married 3 times. Questions of infidelity?  RISK!

This is a man who has stated he does not think he has ever asked God for forgiveness in his almost 70 years of life. Really? RISK!

This is a man who has previously expressed support for abortion, universal health care, a wealth tax, income tax increases and has changed his political affiliation at least five times over the years. RISK!!
     
I will sum this up as Donald Trump might say it.

I really like Donald Trump. He seems like a nice guy. However, he is better suited to taking risks in the business world. He is not the kind of guy I want to bet our country's future on.

It is really risky, risky business voting for this guy to represent our party in November.

It doesn't matter whether you like what he says and how he says it. I like a lot of it myself. 

It is placing a very, very big bet with a lot of risk attached. A very big bet. And the odds are that some how, some way, at some time, Trump's luck is going to run out as surely as it did with his Atlantic City casinos. If it happens after he has the nomination it will insure that Hillary or Bernie will follow Obama into The White House. And there will be nothing we can do about it then.

However, we can do something about it now. Avoid that risk to begin with. Not one vote has yet been cast.

A vote for Trump is Risky Business. 

It is that simple.

Credit: NBC via Breitbart.com

That's for the Birds

My mother used to look at something that was utter nonsense and say,

"That's for the birds."

It is one of those idioms that you hear growing up but you are not really sure how it originated in our lexicon. The Phrase Dictionary describes the origin and meaning this way.

This phrase is of American origin and, while still in use there, has never been commonly used elsewhere. It is US Army slang and originated towards the end of WWII.  

'That's for the birds' is a shortened form of the vulgar version 'that's shit for the birds'. That suggests the derivation of the phrase which is the habit of some birds of pecking at horse droppings (a.k.a. road apples) in order to find seeds. 

 I have been reminded of my mother's perspective in recent weeks as I have heard about the increased usage of "comfort animals" or "emotional support pets".  These animals are not to be confused with "service animals", such as seeing eye dogs, that are assisting those with physical disabilities.

This is how PetTravel.com defines what an "emotional support" animal is.

Emotional Support Animals are used in Animal Assisted Therapy to improve the physical, social, emotional and cognitive condition of the patient. Most Emotional Support Animals are dogs and cats, however this therapy can also include parrots, horses, elephants, lizards, and monkeys. The DOT is currently considering the addition of pigs to the list. These pet animals are now recognized as providing a valuable service to the elderly and to others with a medical disability and have recently reached the status of Service Animals.

Why are "emotional support" animals "for the birds?"

Because it is another example where well-intentioned rules are being undermined and abused to the detriment of the rest of us.

The Air Carrier Access Act allows service animals (now defined to also include "emotional support" pets by most domestic carriers) in the passenger cabin of planes and insures that they can't be removed simply on the grounds that other passengers object.

It is tough for the airlines to refuse requests for legitimate support animals because they face fines of up to $150,000 for doing so. At the same time, websites are popping up to take advantage of the law by providing the necessary documentation. Here is one site that evaluates applicants via Skype and provides letters (from seven licensed psychologists on staff) that they deem quality for the support animals. The cost? $179.

The New York Post reported on the emerging trend in December which has seen dogs, pigs, and even miniature horses, supporting the emotional well-being of their traveling companions. You will be pleased to know that spiders and reptiles were previously on the list of approved support animals but were removed in 2008.

However, do not be surprised if a turkey is in the middle seat next to you on an upcoming flight as was the case recently on a Delta flight. Chickens are considered farm poultry and would be prohibited from sitting next to you but a turkey is apparently considered to be a "domestic bird". Go figure.

Credit: Imgur/biggestlittlepickle

My mother was right.

That's for the birds!

The friendly skies have gotten a lot friendlier for those who know how to play the game.

And a whole lot more frustrating and infuriating for the rest of us.

An Inconvenient Truth +10

Al Gore first put together his slide show about what he claimed would be the devastating effects of global warming 10 years ago.

With the help of Producer Laurie David, the Gore material was made into a documentary in 2006 entitled, "An Inconvenient Truth" for which the film won the 2007 Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature.

In the film Gore claimed that our weather would get increasingly warmer. That our climate would become more severe with more hurricanes and tornadoes. And that by the summer of 2015 the Arctic sea would be ice-free.

Now that 10 years has passed, how have Mr. Gore's predictions turned out?

I thought about Mr. Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" as I came across this press release last week from the global reinsurance company Munich Re. These people know a lot about everything involving catastrophes around the world and they compile all of it in an annual summary of global natural catastrophes.

What was their verdict on 2015?

The year at a glance with my emphasis in bold.

2015 saw the lowest losses of any year since 2009. Overall losses totalled US$ 90bn (previous year US$ 110bn), of which roughly US$ 27bn (US$ 31bn) was insured.

The loss amounts were also below the long-term inflation-adjusted average for the period 1985–2014 (overall losses US$ 130bn, insured losses US$ 34bn).

The natural catastrophes of the past year claimed 23,000 lives, substantially more than the previous year's figure of 7,700. However, the number of victims was still some way below the annual average for the last 30 years (54,000).

For the first time, more than a thousand loss events were recorded in a single year. However, this is primarily due to improved communication of such events. In particularly benign years, a lot of minor events are recorded.

In summary 2015 saw:

The lowest economic losses from catastrophes since 2009.

Loss amounts below the 30-year average of economic losses.

Number of victims less than one-half of the average for the last 30 years.

In fact, the biggest single catastrophe for 2015 had nothing to do with the weather---the earthquake in Nepal.  However, I am sure that earthquakes will soon be blamed on climate change as well.

Let's look at a few more of Gore's predictions from a decade ago.

There has been no discernible increase in temperatures in over 18 years.

Source: RSS Satellite Data

In 2006, there were 1,333 tornadoes that touched down in the United States.

The average number of tornadoes for 2012-2014 were 909.

No major hurricane has made landfall in the United States in ten years. This is the longest period in recorded history.

And that ice-free Arctic?

This is the Arctic this summer, when Gore said it would be ice-free.

Not quite.

I guess it is an inconvenient truth to remind everyone that in 2000 Al Gore came within 537 votes in Florida of becoming President of the United Staes.

Just another reminder that no matter how bad things you think things have been, they could have been much, much worse.

Citizen Cruz

One thing that Donald Trump does better than any politician in my lifetime is being able to stir the pot in order to gain attention.

He is at again with his questions surrounding the fact that Ted Cruz was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father (who had previously resided in the United States).

This is what Trump had to say on the subject in order to stir the pot.

“Republicans are going to have to ask themselves the question: ‘Do we want a candidate who could be tied up in court for two years?’ That’d be a big problem,” Trump said when asked about the topic. “It’d be a very precarious one for Republicans because he’d be running and the courts may take a long time to make a decision. You don’t want to be running and have that kind of thing over your head.”

Barack Obama's Eligibility

I spent a considerable amount of time researching the question of Presidential eligibility when there were those that claimed Barack Obama was born in Kenya. Obama's birth in Kenya never made sense to me simply because of the timeline involved and the underlying facts of the relationship between Barack Obama, Sr. and Stanley Ann Dunham. (For example, despite the Obama narrative in his book that his father had left him mother, his mother actually left Obama, Sr. and moved to Seattle, Washington when Obama was only two weeks old.)

First, it seems inconceivable that an 8-month pregnant woman would get on an airplane and fly from Hawaii to Kenya. This would seem even more questionable in the year 1961. Would the airline even let her fly?

A birth in Kenya seems even more far-fetched when it is considered that President Obama was born on August 4, 1961. There is documentary evidence that Obama's mother enrolled in two classes at the University of Washington in Seattle in August, 1961. Those classes began on August 19, 1961---a mere 15 days after the birth. A copy of Ann Dunham's transcript is in the linked article.

It is even more ridiculous to think that she would have the birth half way around the world and be enrolling in college classes two weeks later. And why we she go to Kenya with her husband if she planned to go to college in Seattle and be separated from Barack, Sr. by over 3,000 miles within one month of the trip? It does not add up.

Of course, the "birther" controversy persisted for four years until Donald Trump (sound familiar?) kept talking about the issue with the mainstream media and Obama was forced to produce the long form birth certificate that he had previously refused to release. As a result,  this finally seemed to settle the issue once and for all.

Why is all of this important?

The Constitution 

Article Two of Section 1 of the U.S Constitution states in relevant part,

No Person except a natural born Citizen, ...shall be eligible to the Office of President;  neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Note the reference to "natural born citizen".  It thereby excludes anyone from eligibility to be President that is a naturalized citizen such as Arnold Schwarzenegger who was born in Austria of Austrian parents and became a citizen through the naturalization process in 1983 when he was 36 years of age.

This leaves open the question of what about someone who is born to a United States citizen but is born outside the borders of the country. Are they a natural born citizen?

This National Review article by Andrew McCarthy provides the best summary explanation of the law and legal background of the issue and as it applies to Cruz. It is worth reading.

There is a statute that defines who are considered "nationals and citizens of the United States at birth". However, it is true that its constitutionality has never been definitely and definitively decided by the Supreme Court.

The legal requirement between 1952-1986 (link to statute in effect for both Cruz and Obama who were born in this period) was that for someone born outside of the United States to be considered "a citizen of the United States at birth" at least one of the parents had to be an American citizen. Further, the American citizen parent had to have resided in the U.S. for ten years, including five years after the age of fourteen.

Ted Cruz's Eligibility

McCarthy points out that Ted Cruz easily meets those requirements.

His mother, Eleanor Elizabeth Darragh Wilson, is an American citizen born in Delaware; his native-Cuban father, Rafael Bienvenido Cruz, was a legal resident of the U.S. for many years before Ted was born. (Rafael came to the U.S. on a student visa in 1957, attended the University of Texas, and received political asylum and obtained a green card once the visa expired. He ultimately became a naturalized American citizen in 2005.)

Cruz's mother also met the ten year residency rule, including five years after the age of fourteen.

Cruz’s mother, Eleanor, easily met that requirement: she was in her mid-thirties when Ted was born and had spent most of her life in the U.S., including graduating from Rice University with a math degree that led to employment in Houston as a computer programmer at Shell Oil.

To provide further legal support that "a natural born citizen" includes someone born outside of the country to a parent who is a citizen, McCarthy also cites a Harvard Law Review article by Neal Katyal and Paul Clement (former Solicitors-General, respectively, for the Obama and George W. Bush administrations), where it is explained that British law specifically used the term “natural born” to describe children born outside the British empire to parents who were subjects of the Crown.

In that the Founders were most familiar with British law they simply used this term as a model in writing the U.S. Constitution.

Additional legal support for Cruz being a "natural born citizen" is the fact that the first Congress passed a statute defining "natural born" that was signed by none other than President George Washington. You may have heard of Washington---he also presided over the Constitutional Convention. Don't you think that if Washington believed that the statute defining "natural born citizen" was beyond the meaning of the Constitution he would have vetoed it?

The Constitution’s invocation of “natural born citizen” incorporates this principle of citizenship derived from parentage. That this is the original meaning is obvious from the Naturalization Act of 1790. It was enacted by the first Congress, which included several of the framers, and signed into law by President George Washington, who had presided over the constitutional convention. The Act provided that children born outside the United States to American citizens were “natural born” U.S. citizens at birth, “Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”

McCarthy points out that even under the stricter test in the 1790 law that required that fathers had to have been a resident of the United States at one time (this is no longer required) Cruz would still easily pass the test as a "natural born citizen". Further, he has never undergone any naturalization process for his citizenship. He gained his citizenship "naturally by birth."

This should put to rest any questions about the eligibility of Ted Cruz to serve as President.

However, I doubt it will stop Donald Trump from trying to stir the pot.

If Obama Would Have Been Ineligible If Born In Kenya, Why Isn't Cruz?

After reading this you might ask why there was so much controversy about Barack Obama's eligibility as President if he was born in Kenya considering his situation was similar to Cruz? They both had an American citizen mother and a father who was a foreigner who had resided in the United States. Why all the hub-hub about it with Obama?

It has to do with the fact that Obama's mother was extremely young when she got pregnant. When she gave birth to Barack she was only 18 years of age. Note that the statute in effect in 1961 (as it was in 1970 for Cruz) required the American citizen parent to have resided in the United States for ten years, including five years after age 14. (emphasis added). Ann Obama did not meet that requirement. Therefore, if Obama had been born outside of the United States, unlike Cruz, he would not be a "natural born citizen".

The statute, as it was subsequently amended, (and is in effect today) now requires only two years (rather than five) of residence in the United States after the age of 14.

If Cruz continues to gain strength I have no doubt that you will hear even more about the "natural born citizen" issue from Trump, the other GOP candidates and, ultimately, the Democrats if Cruz looks like he will be the Republican candidate for President.

There will be talk about lawsuits and court challenges. However, it is all a distraction that Trump is using because he has become nervous as Cruz has risen in the polls.

Trump suggests that a Cruz presidency could result in "years of litigation over Cruz's eligibility". I have no doubt we will see some lawsuits if Cruz wins, just as we saw dozens filed against Barack Obama. However, none of these lawsuits went anywhere even though the facts with Obama were much more muddled than with Cruz. In fact, most got thrown out quickly for lack of standing. The electoral college process seems to suggest to the courts that a mere individual voter does not even have standing to litigate the eligibility question. And none caused Barack Obama to be distracted from his agenda or the legitimacy of his election with the vast majority of the American people.

There is no factual question about where Cruz was born. He has not hidden anything. As you see from the above, the law is also pretty clear even though it may never have been definitively decided by the Supreme Court.

If anything, the past Obama experience has made Citizen Cruz even stronger on this issue. If the courts would not even force Obama to produce a birth certificate, how could they question the eligibility of Cruz considering the legal basis explained above?

They can't and won't if he is on the general election ballot and wins. It is that simple.

If the Court found a way to find Obamacare constitutional, they certainly are not going to invalidate a Presidential election, considering the legal framework that exists supporting the status of Cruz as a "natural born citizen".

He is Citizen Cruz. Mr. Trump, accept it and move on. Don't try to beat him with innuendo, do it with ideas, intelligence and issues.

Context on Guns

President Obama has his "executive action" pen out again. Frustrated with his inability to negotiate anything with Congress (not that he even makes a reasonable effort) he wants to take matters into his own hands to control gun ownership in the United States.

This is how The New York Times reported on his executive action proposal from Tuesday of this week.

As tears streamed down his face, President Obama on Tuesday condemned the gun violence that has reached across the United States and vowed to curb the bloodshed with or without Congress.

First of all, I am not a gun nut. I have used firearms and at one time had obtained the NRA Sharpshooter classification.  I respect guns and what they can do.  More importantly, I respect the U.S. Constitution. I believe the 2nd Amendment is pretty clear.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

There is no doubt that the people have the right to keep and bear arms and that right is not to be infringed. At the same type, it seems understood that some type of regulation is permitted with regard to that right.  The difficult question is at what point is the right to keep and bear arms infringed by regulations?

For example, does an individual have the right to keep and bear arms such as a nuclear weapon, surface to air missile or bazooka?  I have not heard anyone with the NRA or anyone else make that argument.  Machine guns and other military types of automatic weapons are already illegal and have been since the 1930's.  In fact, the use of these weapons by gangsters such as Machine Gun Kelly, Baby Face Nelson and John Dillinger led to the passage of the National Firearms Act in 1934 that made them illegal in the U.S.

If anything is going to be done that might infringe on the right to bear arms in the Constitution it would seem that it should be clearly demonstrated to be a reasonable regulation. To meet that standard government should have to show that vast numbers of the public are being killed (or could be killed) to outweigh the individual constitutional right.  This is clear with an atomic weapon, machine gun or SAM.  In other words, the public's interest to safety outweighs the individual's right to keep and bear arms.

If it is done it should also clearly be done by the Congress in conjunction with the President. There is a reason the Constitution established both an Executive and Legislative branch. They are supposed to be co-equal partners in governing and in protecting the rights of the people.

I often say, "Context is everything in assessing anything", so let's put "gun violence" in the United States in context.

First, despite all that President Obama, Hillary Clinton and the media talk about gun violence, the reality is that murders by firearms have actually dropped across the United States since Obama became President in 2009.

Here is a graph showing murder victims by firearms. (Note: the most recent data for all the charts below from government sources is 2013).

Homicides in which a gun was used are down 8% since Obama took office. 

In addition, despite the fact we hear a lot about the need to control assault rifles, the reality is that rifles of any type are rarely used to kill anyone in the United States. There were only 285 murders committed with a rifle in 2013. That is down 19% since Obama took office. Handguns were used 5,782 times.

It is also true that firearms are much more likely to be used to commit suicide than to commit a homicide. In fact, almost 2/3 of deaths from firearms in the first five years of the Obama administration were from suicides.

How do gun deaths compare to other causes of death?

Homicides caused by guns is not even close to other causes of death including drugs, poisoning, motor vehicle accidents, falls and alcohol. For example, there are over 4 times as many deaths by drugs as there are homicides by guns.  

What sense is it then for many liberals to favor legalizing drugs but banning firearms?

And why is it that Barack Obama spends so much time on the subject of guns but spends so little time trying to change the culture of violence that exists within our community of young, black males?

In fact, in 2013, almost 50% of the deaths of young, black males between 15 and 24 years of age were the result of homicide. The comparable number for young white males of the same age---8%.

Finally, we see and hear a lot about police violence directed at African American males.

CDC statistics on causes of death indicate that the overall homicide death rate for all black males is 35.1 per 100,000 with 29.4 of those being through the discharge of a firearm.

What is the rate for homicide for black males due to legal intervention (police)? ---.7 per 100,000.

The comparable numbers for white males? 

3.3 per 100,000 deaths for homicides in total. 2.0 of those through the use of a firearm. 

.3 per 100,000 is the homicide rate due to legal intervention.

Therefore, the overall homicide rate for black males is 10 times that of white males.

More interesting, about 10% of total homicides involving white males come as a result of police action. For blacks, only 2% of homicides are the result of legal intervention. 

Therefore, if a black male is the victim of a homicide, there is a 98% chance it was by someone other than a police officer. If it is a white male, it is a 90% chance. 

Context is everything when assessing anything.

Even when it comes to the subject of guns.

How A Supermarket Visit Brought Down The Soviet Union

Many point to the fact that the Soviet Union collapse occurred as the Soviets were baited into trying to compete with the defense build-up instituted by Ronald Reagan.

The Soviets just did not have the financial resources to match the United States in defense spending while also tending to the needs of its citizenry. The Soviets spent money on guns rather than butter. Something had to give and the Soviet people were the ones that suffered.

However, a little known visit to a suburban Houston supermarket in 1989 by Boris Yeltsin appears to have been the catalyst that ended up bringing down the Soviet Union.

Yeltsin visited the Johnson Space Center in Houston in September, 1989 to tour mission control and to view a model of the planned International Space Station.

After visiting the Space Center, Yeltsin made an unplanned stop at a local Randall's grocery store that was close by before heading to the airport.

That visit changed the course of history.

At the time, Yeltsin was a newly elected member of the Soviet Parliament and the Supreme Soviet and had been a key ally of the General Secretary of the Communist Party Mikhail Gorbachev, who was initiating reforms but the pace of which was too slow for Yeltsin.

Houston Chronicle reporter Stephanie Asin was with Yeltsin on the visit to the grocery store that day.

Yeltsin, then 58, “roamed the aisles of Randall’s nodding his head in amazement,” wrote Asin. He told his fellow Russians in his entourage that if their people, who often must wait in line for most goods, saw the conditions of U.S. supermarkets, “there would be a revolution.”

“Even the Politburo doesn’t have this choice. Not even Mr. Gorbachev,” he said.

The fact that stores like these were on nearly every street corner in America amazed him. They even offered free cheese samples. According to Asin, Yeltsin didn’t leave empty-handed, as he was given a small bag of goodies to enjoy on his trip.

This is a picture of Yeltsin touring the grocery store.

Credit: Houston Chronicle

This Houston Chronicle story from 2014 fills in the rest of the story.

About a year after the Russian leader left office, a Yeltsin biographer later wrote that on the plane ride to Yeltsin’s next destination, Miami, he was despondent. He couldn’t stop thinking about the plentiful food at the grocery store and what his countrymen had to subsist on in Russia.

In Yeltsin’s own autobiography, he wrote about the experience at Randall’s, which shattered his view of communism, according to pundits. Two years later, he left the Communist Party and began making reforms to turn the economic tide in Russia. 

“When I saw those shelves crammed with hundreds, thousands of cans, cartons and goods of every possible sort, for the first time I felt quite frankly sick with despair for the Soviet people,” Yeltsin wrote. “That such a potentially super-rich country as ours has been brought to a state of such poverty! It is terrible to think of it.”

To give you some perspective on what was available in the Soviet Union at that time, here is a picture of a Russian store from that era.

Credit: Gennady Galperin/Reuters

An aide to Yeltsin later reported that in that visit to the grocery store in Houston “the last vestige of Bolshevism collapsed” inside his boss.

Two years later Yeltsin was elected to the newly created office of President of the Russian Federation after the collapse of the Soviet Union with Gorbachev.

Yeltsin immediately began dismantling the socialist economic system and introducing capitalism to the Russians. In the process he attempted to convert the world's largest command economy into a free-market one.

The results of that transition were rocky in large part to cronyism in the break-up of many of the large state-owned businesses. In the process, many Russian oligarchs were created and Yeltsin eventually resigned his office in 1999 haunted by charges of corruption and incompetence.

His successor?

Vladimir Putin.

The falling price of oil has put a similar squeeze on Putin and the Russians today. Putin has been popular with the Russian people based on his macho style and nationalistic bombast. However, potential trouble lurks for Putin because of the Russian economy.

The Russian consumer is being squeezed with annual inflation of almost 20% and the average Russian spends about 50% of their income on food.

By comparison, the average American spends only 8% of income on groceries.

Will groceries once again determine the future of Russia?

A Humble Servant?

I have great respect for the energy and enthusiasm that Donald Trump has brought to the GOP Presidential primary race. I wrote about it last July when I asked the question, "Will Trump Be A Trumpet Call To The GOP?".

Politicians are first and foremost very good listeners. They have no future without votes. They will bend with the political winds if Trump's straight talk continues to appeal to voters. The message that they carry may not be as bold or brash as Trump but a trumpet call nevertheless will be going out to the other candidates if Trump's appeal is sustained.

Keep an eye on Trump and his trumpet. And keep an eye out for the rest of orchestra. If the trumpet continues to strike a chord with the voters, you are going to hear a lot of similar notes even if they are not played with the same verve and vigor. Those notes mean votes. And votes are everything in this concert.

These is little question that Trump has had a big influence on the issues in the race.

Of course, it has come with a lot of controversy and criticism. Trump's bluster and brashness has only added fuel to the fire that burns around him.

However, I think something that Carly Fiorina said in her recent book, Rising to the Challenge: My Leadership Journey, is really true when you think about Trump.

"Leaders see things that others don't yet see, which is why they are frequently criticized in their time." 

Of course, Trump is really not seeing anything about some of the underlying issues such as out of control illegal immigration, the questionable Iran deal, the dangers of radical Islam and a loss of respect for the USA around the world, that is not self evident to a great number of  Americans.

I still like this quote from Victor David Hanson that I wrote about last month to describe what has fueled the Trump phenomenon.

"The world that we are told about by our government bears no resemblance to what we see and hear every day."

What Trump really has seen best is that there are a lot of Americans who are fed up with politics as usual and the political correctness that now dominates us. Trump is talking bluntly and boldly about these issues and in the process it has made himself a target of both the political and media class. It is for this reason why the Carly quote seems especially appropriate for Trump with one small change.

"Trump sees things that others politicians see but they don't want to talk about it. He will talk about it, which is why he is frequently criticized."

Now that I have given Donald Trump his due, let me reiterate again why I think he would be a poor choice to be the Republican nominee for President.

I have read a couple of Donald Trump's books over the years, including his first book, The Art of the Deal, almost 30 years ago.

Since it has been a few years since I read anything in detail by or about Trump I recently read the most current biography (published in September, 2015) on him, "Never Enough"  written by Michael D'Antonio, in order to  get a closer look at the man who wants to be President.

D'Antonio is generally complimentary of Trump's business success but he makes it clear that Trump's desire for wealth, attention, power and success is practically insatiable. Quite simply, it is "never enough" for Trump.

Trump is also clearly driven by a self belief that he is a singular and superior human being. And he is not bashful about sharing his views about that with anyone and everyone.

Trump clearly understands the power of politics. In fact, his father's original wealth and Trump's early success in real estate in New York City can be directly tied to the close relationship (and political donations) the Trump family made to members of the Democratic political machine in New York. Former Mayor Abe Beame and Governor Hugh Carey were important allies for Trump early in his career.

Trump does understand the way the game is played because he has played it very well for his own benefit and wealth.

Trump is also relentless and ruthless. He does not suffer fools lightly and any perceived slights or betrayals are dealt with strongly and harshly. He not only barks, he also bites.

Trump's past political positions are clearly nothing you would like to think of as consistently conservative.

For example, in 1999 he renounced his membership in the Republican Party and flirted with running for President on the Reform Party (made famous by Ross Perot and Jesse Ventura) ticket .

At that time he stated his ideal VP running mate would be Oprah Winfrey (hardly a conservative icon.)

Over the years he has supported a wealth tax, a large income tax increase, universal health care and abortion rights (which he says he now opposes).

After reading the book, you have to respect the results he has delivered but you have to wonder what kind of conscience he has, let alone whether he has "the conscience of a conservative".

All politicians have egos. I think it comes with the territory. You don't get in the arena it without it.

However, Trump's ego is in an entirely different universe.

For example, Trump has had a decades long battle with Forbes magazine because he believes they consistently underestimate his wealth in their annual list of the 400 Richest Americans.

I saw the recent list is on the newsstands now and Trump is credited with having $4.5 billion by Forbes which is good for #121 on its list. Trump claims his net worth is at least double that. Here is the financial disclosure statement that he filed when he announced his candidacy. However, in this statement he put a value of $3.3 billion on his name. I know my father told me that my good name is the most valuable asset I possess but how many people put it on their personal financial statement?

Trumps's ego is tied very much to his wealth. It is how he seems to measure his self worth. He says as much in the Forbes cover story.

" I look better if I'm worth $10 billion than $4 billion".

Yes, he is wealthy but let's put that wealth in context. I know two brothers who sell chicken sandwiches that are richer than Trump according to Forbes. Dan and Bubba Cathy of Chick-fil-A. They have $7 billion between them. Contrast the relative modesty of how they lead their lives and and how Trump lives his.

I continue to believe that Trump's ultimate downfall in this campaign will revolve around his wealth.

A big part of Trump's allure is that he says he is going to fund his own campaign and will not be beholden to any special interests.

Consider the fact that Mitt Romney and the Republicans spent $1.1 billion during the 2012 campaign. Romney spent $336 million in campaign funds that he raised for his campaign, the National Republican Party spent another $386 million on Romney and Outside Super PACs and others chipped in another $419 million.

Is Trump really prepared to spend $1 billion of his own money to get elected? 

I don't believe he is. I think he loves his own money too much.

I also question whether he would have anywhere near that kind of liquidity in his portfolio. Is he going to start selling properties to finance his campaign? I don't think so.

Is he going to borrow against his good name? No.

He also most assuredly is not going to raise $1 billion through a bunch of $200 contributions.

And if he has to go to Wall Street and other special interests to fund his campaign like everyone else, a big part of the attraction of Donald Trump washes away.

I am not naive to think that there are any politicians today who you could describe as a humble servant.

The last one was probably George Washington.

I do know Donald Trump is about as far removed from the words humble and servant as you could find.

I can think of only two other names that are further removed.

Barack Obama.

Hillary Clinton.

The bottom line is that Cruz and Rubio are both overall better candidates than Trump to represent the Republican Party this year. 

However, Trump still trumps Obama and Clinton if it comes to that.

We will start to see how it all unfolds in less than a month.

May the best "humble servant" win.