The GOP has lost its base


One of the benefits of Bannon leaving the administration is that it sets up an ideological divide between the economic nationalist policies Trump ran on and the establishment Republican priorities the current politicians in the Senate and the House want him to pursue.

Five thirty eight recently published an article where they cite a survey in 2016 by the Cooperative Congressional Election Study. They look at the policies put forth by Bannon and Trump during his campaign and distilled them into 5 questions asked in the survey. A quick note to all the liberals reading here. Do you see how fast you can actually understand the philosophy behind the Trump movement once you get past the autistic screeching about racism? These are the five questions.

  1. For or against the Trans Pacific Partnership?
  2. The US should send troops to help the UN uphold international law.
  3. The US government should identify and deport immigrants in the US illegally
  4. Their local police should receive a grade of A, B, C, D, or F?
  5. Their state government should increase spending on infrastructure.

The study found that 15% of all people who voted for Trump in the general agree with him in all 5 questions. 50% of people who voted for Trump agree that the US should get out of the TPP and be involved in less foreign interventions. 45% agree that the police is doing a great job and that illegals need to be deported. 40% want more infrastructure spending and to get out of deals like the TPP. What is most dangerous for the GOP is that only 2% of people who voted for Trump agree with none of these five statements.

Let us take a look at the stance of the establishment GOP on these issues. We know that they generally favor things like the TPP. They have expressed their desire for amnesty and other things that reward illegal immigration. Mccain and Graham are good examples of the stance of the GOP establishment towards war. On these issues where 98% of Republican voters agree on the GOP establishment is outright against 3. The stance of the GOP on infrastructure is very debatable as well. It could very well be that the only thing the GOP establishment and its voters agree on is the good job the police are doing.

The lesson is clear for the Republican politicians. Republicans don’t agree with your policies. You are getting voted for now because you are marginally better than the democrats but the minute someone like Trump offers any sort of alternative your base will leave you. It will happen over and over again until you realize you have to do what people vote you in for.

The lesson is clear for Trump. If you govern like a standard Republican. If you govern like a JEB! you will lose reelection. People voted you in for a reason and if that is not achieved we can always look elsewhere.

Most importantly the lesson is clear for economic nationalists. The Republican party is now our party. The Republican voters agree with our beliefs and not with the beliefs of thinkers like Ben Shapiro and their current crop of intellectuals. It is our party now. Run for local office as a Republican. Connections and funding be damned. The voters agree with us. If you make enough of an impact the funding will follow as you as people will always back a winner.

If you are reading this and think of us as racist. Then I urge you to look at the questions as determined by five thirty eight, who I consider to be left leaning, then you may be an economic nationalist too if you agree with us on any of them. You will just have to get used to the autistic screeching outside your door.



The Truth: Racism in Virginia


In the aftermath of the events in Virginia the mainstream media were united in their message. They uniformly asked how was it possible that in this day and age this many people were joining organizations advocating for the rights of whites? This was their attempt to push the blame on the tragedy on President Trump. The truth is the answer is much older than that. Trump has only been in power for around half a year after all. The media did stumble upon the answer and it is racism.

Before I proceed I would like to stipulate two things that I think the left and the right can both agree on. First that there is a difference between how wealthy people are treated and how poor people are treated. You could take a person who hates African-Americans and he would still be deferential if someone like Oprah told him that he would invest in his business. Police would be more likely to be lenient to someone who could afford the best lawyers no matter his color than someone who could not. Second if you target any race for widespread discrimination they will form their own groups to resist this.


When the entire issue of affirmative action was pushed into the limelight by the Trump administration the Democrat controlled media was quick to point out that it was not because of minorities that Asians and whites were losing out on university slots it was instead due to other whites. They argue that whites tend to be legacy admissions and have a much higher rate of being accepted into the alma mater of their parents than other people. What the media misses here is that these legacies are all uniformly wealthy. After all the entire reason universities give them special treatment is to get donations from their parents. Rich white people have the legacy back door. Minorities have affirmative action and scholarships which exclusively cater to minorities. What do poor white people have?

This is not limited to education. Consider criminal justice. If you get arrested and you happen to be African-American or any other minority it is very likely that there is an organization whose sole purpose is to provide representation for you. If you are a rich white person or a rich person of any color for that matter you have access to the best legal talent money can buy. If you are a poor white person what do you have?

How about employment? If you are a rich person then you are most likely doing the employing yourself. If you are a minority then you have a better chance than average since the employer would like to prove that they have a diverse working environment. What about if you are poor and white? For that matter if you cried racism when you are poor and white what would happen? How hard would people laugh?

I do not deny that some white people profited from racism. They were able to build their wealth on its back. What does this have to do with most white people? Is the immigrant from Ireland just as guilty as the plantation owner in slavery days? How about the poor white kid who worked in the northern factories? Are his descendents able to get a head start on life because of his work? The truth is when you tell a race of people that they do not enjoy the same rights and privileges that other races of people do they will form organizations that advocate for their interests.


At this point I hope I have convinced you that there is a difference between how poor white people and rich white people are treated. If everyone were a rich white person then you could discriminate against them and they would not mind as they have the means to get by. Instead we have an entire class of people unfairly discriminated against. I would like to go further than that. I would like to argue that the racism poor white people face is worse than any racism minorities currently face. If I were to organize society into layers of privilege I would place rich white people on top as they were able to build their wealth thru the racism of the past and pass all the advantages to their family and poor white people in the very bottom as they were not beneficiaries of racism before and are unfairly targeted by affirmative action now.

I divide racism into two categories. Note that this is simply a personal division that I use. Residual and Institutional. Residual racism is racism that a single person may possess but is frowned upon by society. Society will try its best to stamp it out. Institutional racism is racism that is encouraged by society. This can be thru laws, social affirmation, or thru other means. A good example would be slavery when it was still legal. Very few people questioned it or even thought they were racist when they owned slaves.

Consider this example. A black person is told by a university or potential employer that he did not get the slot he was applying for partly because of the color of his skin. Society would explode. Boycotts, social backlash, and any number of other things would happen. A lawsuit would most likely be filed and government would use its institutional power to fine the offending party.

Consider another example. A poor white person is told by a university or potential employer that he did not get the slot he was applying for partly because of the color of his skin. Society would not explode. In fact with the most recent Supreme Court decision it is the law of the land. A person can be denied entrance into university partly because of the color of his skin. Society would even go out of its way to reward institutions like that for promoting diversity.

Final Thoughts

Due to its institutional nature people practice racism against poor white people all the time without realizing it. Once society decides to discriminate against the less wealthy majority of an entire race of people and shame them when they cry racism is it any wonder that they decide to fight back?


Are Democrats Racist?


When you talk to Democrats they will tell you that the only reason that the GOP exists at all is because of racism. Any action they disagree with is quickly labeled as racist. When you talk to Republicans they will tell you that it is Democrats who are Racist because of how their policies work in the real world. Lets take a look at how these policies affect minorities.


Meet Christian. I have retracted his last name to protect his anonymity. Christian is an African-American and his lifestyle is that of a stereotypical nerd. He studied hard in high school and managed to graduate. Due to affirmative action he was able to secure a slot in Harvard. He thanks Democrats every day for the opportunities he feels their party has given him. This is where things took a turn for the worse. He found it very hard to cope with the coursework. He was used to being the smartest kid and he was now at the bottom of the class. It did not help that more pressure was put on him with all the student loans he had to take in order to afford college. He eventually cracked and dropped out. He is now equipped to face the future with his high school diploma and a mountain of student debt.

If Christian were an Asian or White he would not have qualified for Harvard and would have gone to a less challenging university instead. He would be well on his way to graduating and finding decent employment leading to future generations of African-Americans with better prospects and economic standing.


Say hello to Jamal. He is a typical teenager. Like girls, playing online games, and basketball. He hangs out with his friends in the weekend and picks up part-time jobs when he needs money. In short he is living a happy childhood. He thanks Democrats that they keep the racist police out of his neighborhood. One day while walking home he was shot by another youth. His funeral was last week.

The police were afraid to go to his neighborhood. They know that if a situation happened and they were forced to defend themselves against a gentle giant or some other entity their life would be turned upside down for doing their jobs. If Jamal were white the police would have been patrolling his neighborhood and would have been able to prevent the shooting or get him aid promptly after the event. Jamal literally died because he was black.


Welcome Pedro! He is a latino born to parents who legally migrated from Brazil. He is proud to be an American and is proud of Democrats for helping bring more South and Central Americans to the country even if they have to do it illegally. Due to various reasons Pedro was not able to finish High School. He attempted to work in construction and even as a waiter just to get a start somewhere but he always found that employers preferred illegals for those positions as they could be paid less. Out of work and out of luck he eventually joined a gang affiliated with MS-13.

If Democrats had prioritized Americans like him over illegal immigrants from Central and South America he would have been able to find employment and gangs like MS-13 would have been kept south of the border.


Jeffrey is a father of two. Due to some complications his wife passed away a couple of years ago. He is trying to raise his two children on his salary but is struggling. He thanks the Democrats for providing an economy with full employment and he blames the evil Republicans for keeping his wages down.

Jeffrey works as a programmer for a popular company. Since there are very few out of work programmers available his salary should have been rising pretty quickly. Instead of increasing his salary or hiring more workers his company opted to hire more h1-b visa holders instead to keep costs down. If Democrats would have prioritized him first his life would have gotten better.

Just a snapshot of four lives all ruined by the racist policies of the Democrats.

The Red Pill: Volume 1


It is no secret that the liberal voter base has been brainwashed by the media. Any information they get from a Republican source is immediately discounted. As part of my efforts to arm the right I am starting a new series of articles of the best talking points to use when Red Pilling liberals.

Deregulation and Dodd Frank

Whenever I try to red pill a liberal this is the point I bring up first. Liberals have been raised to believe that there are only two motives when Republicans act. They are either racist or being bribed by the rich. Dodd Frank is the perfect issue to shake their belief in this. Once their core belief is debunked it is much easier to counter the others.

When you ask a liberal why they support Dodd Frank they will always say it is because they oppose big banks and think they are too big to fail and are a danger to the economy. Republicans have been bought by the big banks and are putting the economy in danger because of their greed.

We now hit them with the facts. Under Dodd Frank 4 banks grew from controlling 11% of the banking industry to 43% of the industry. Too big to fail got to become to ginormous to fail. Before Dodd Frank there were 13000 banks in the US and after there was 6500 banks. Their law to combat the evil big banks wiped out half the competition of the evil big banks. Under Bush hundreds of new banks opened every year leading to more competition. Under Obama a grand total of 3 new banks opened. Their law to combat the evil big banks is protecting them from competition. You can then hit them with the fact that since there are fewer banks they offer fewer benefits to the customer because of reduced competition.

At this point ask them is the economy safer now or before Dodd-Frank? Be sure to bring a jar for all the liberal tears.

White Guilt

One of the reasons liberals put up with affirmative action, illegal immigration, and other things like that is they have a fundamental belief that the people of Europe have exploited the rest of the world throughout history and we are obligated to pay the rest of the world back for it.

To successfully debunk this we have to rely on history. Pay attention to all the major conflicts between Europe and the Middle East. With very few exceptions they all involve the West desperately trying to defend against an invading East. We have Thermopylae and Salamis during the Persian invasion. Then we have the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire to the Turks. The conquest of Spain by the moors. The battle of Lepanto to defend against the Ottomans. The defense of the Russians against the Golden Horde. The antics of Vlad the impaler to safeguard his country against the Ottomans. In fact as recent as the early 1900’s Greece and other countries were defending themselves against the Ottoman Empire prompting the start of the Balkan Wars.

In history the West has really only been able to hold lands in the East for extended periods of time two times. The first was during the height of the Roman Empire and the second was during the initial portion of the Crusades. The reason is relatively simple. The West usually devolves into various political entities that fight each other. While the East periodically gets united by a great conqueror or country. Persia, Genghis, and Tamer the Lame are good examples. The two times I mentioned where the West was able to make gains they were united by Religion or the Romans. If the West were the historical aggressor then the roles in these battles should have been reversed.

The dominance of the West has been a relatively recent development historically speaking. Certainly not long enough to attach an everlasting guilt to a whole race of people. This is one of the cornerstones of liberal theology and they will not be able to accept this easily. Ask them one thing to make your point. Western civilization can trace its roots to the Roman Empire. The capital of the Roman Empire for the longest time was Constantinople. Who holds it now? Why would the West lose its capital if it was supposed to be exploiting the East?

More to come in coming articles!




Peperidge Farm Remembers

download (4).jpg

Remember when the Steele document came out and democrats cheered? Pepe-ridge farms remembers. Remember when it came out that never trumpers funded the opposition research and the funding was taken over by the clinton campaign? Pepe-ridge farms remembers. Remember when it was revealed that some of the sources Steele used for his supposed research came from within the Russian government? Pepe-ridge farms remembers. Remember when the biased press accused the Clinton camp of colluding with the Russians? Pepe-ridge farms doesn’t.

The media may have conveniently forgotten. The politicians may have forgotten. The normies may have forgotten but Pepe-ridge farms always remembers.

When we remember this Democrats scream whataboutism. They say that Trump is the president and anything Hillary, Obama, and any other candidate has done should not be discussed. Pepe-ridge farms remembers because everyone running for office gets information about their opponents.

Pepe-ridge farms also remembers the Democrats colluding with Ukraine. The Pope screaming that Trump was not a christian to prevent the religious right from voting for him. Foreign leaders the world over trying to tip the scales towards the Democrats. Pepe-ridge farms remembers everything.

If Democrats want to bring down Trump let it be for something he did do but the others did not.


Pandoras Box


Democrats have opened Pandoras box with their Russia narrative. Earlier republicans would have already fallen all over themselves in apology. They would have prostrated themselves at the altar of biased fake media in the hopes that they would be spared the wrath of CNN and MSNBC. We are not the previous generation of Republicans are we? If they hit us we hit back twice as hard. If CNN and MSNBC throw their hat in the ring for the Democrats then we marginalize them and diminish their power. The Democrats want to investigate Russia collusion so we should oblige them and investigate Russian collusion. The Trump administration has already started on this by requesting investigations on who funds certain environmentalist groups. That is not enough. We have to expand this to others. As Hillary Clinton would say after the last week in Haiti “Let the bodies hit the floor”


As mentioned the Trump administration is looking into this already. The Russian economy is based on oil and natural gas. The higher the price for these goods the better the Russian economy does. Certain environmental groups are exerting effort to prevent the US from using fracking and other efforts to produce natural gas. If they are successful this means that there would be a lower available supply of natural gas and the US would not be able to compete with Russia in the Visegrad markets. Pushing the price of gas higher makes the Russian economy stronger and allows them to bully the Eastern European countries.

We have to look at environmentalists who push for this and see if they are funded by Russia.


The Iran deal gave billions of dollars to Iran and eased sanctions on Iran in exchange they agreed to some inspections they may or may not comply with in the future. This deal has been very beneficial for Iran while it has not been for the US. The primary ally of Russia in the middle east is Iran. Anything that benefits Iran benefits them as well.

We must take a look at the people who supported the Iran deal and check for funding from Russia.


As everyone knows the US and its NATO allies bordering Russia rely on the US military remaining strong in order to combat the Russian threat. Democrats are mainly against any increase in military spending. We have to check and see if any of them are funded by Russia and are working for a weaker US military.

These 3 scenarios are just the start. Illegal immigration advocates could be setting up a situation like the refugee crisis in Europe to weaken America using Russian funds. The Paris treaty gets funds from developed countries like the US and hands it to “developing” countries like Russia. This is an instance where Russia could directly be receiving funds from the US. We have to investigate the people who support that deal for Russian funding.

The Democrats want Russian hysteria. We should give them Russian hysteria.


In Defense of Joffrey Baratheon


In honor of the new Game of Thrones series starting I am taking a break from writing about politics today to write about my favorite character in the series. Joffrey Baratheon first of his name. Monster, Tyrant, Deranged child of incest Joffrey suffers from the worst reputation in the series. The tragedy of Joffrey is this prejudice against him prevents the reader from seeing his brilliance. If you have not read the books yet please note there will be some spoilers here.


Whether the knife was given to him by Tyrion, Littlefinger, or the Night King Joffrey was the one who ordered the hit on Bran instigating the events which led the North to rebel. This is usually viewed as a sign of incompetence from Joffrey.

Take a look at events from the point view of a future king. The Starks control half the kingdom directly. In addition to this they have a marriage alliance with the Riverlands who in turn had a marriage alliance with the Vale. That puts more than half of your Kingdom under the control of someone else. To make matters worse the 3 regions are right next to each other which means they can easily support each other. Robert is blind to this because of his personal loyalty to Eddard but the king will not always have that relationship with the lord paramount. In Joffrey’s reign you would have the ruler of the North, the ruler of the Riverlands, and the ruler of the Vale all belonging to one extended family. The same region that led the assault against the mad king. It was obvious that the situation could not stand so Joffrey had to act. Waiting until he was the king would have been too late.


Executing Eddard may have been the most brilliant move in the entire campaign. Think about the information available at the time of the execution. At this point in time all Tywin Lannister, the supposed great lion, had proved is that the Lannisters were hilariously incompetent in combat. All the Starks had to do was go south with a commander who had never experienced combat yet and Tywin promptly proceeded to lose half his army and get his heir and a whole slew of nobles captured.

If Eddard were released and proceeded to lead the Stark army against the Lannisters nothing would have been able to stop him. The vale already mutinous at being kept out of the war would have ignored Lysa altogether. The Freys who only had the courage to make outrageous demands because of Robb being a neophyte would have been kept in line. Robb would not have made his errors with Jeyne as well. In short releasing Eddard would have resulted in the loss of the throne.


Out of all the kings seated on the throne Joffrey is the only one who has shown he has the vision to create a stable Kingdom. When Joffrey was asked by Cersei what he wanted to do in his reign he mentioned that he would tax the northerners and take some of them to serve in a central kings landing army. Then if they revolted he would be down violently.

Joffrey understood that the kingdom such as it is not stable. He does not have the luxury of having pet dragons like the Targaryens nor can he count on the personal loyalty of the Starks like Robert could. In any case relying on the loyalty of one man is a shaky proposition at best. It may have led to a brief period of instability but Joffreys plan was best for the realm in the long term.

The saddest moment in the whole series is undoubtedly the death of noble Joffrey first of his name.

Has Warren Been Bought By Big Banks?

th (4).jpg

The Republicans have started work on undoing the damage done to the banking industry by Dodd-Frank. Predictably Democrats like Elizabeth Warren have gone all out in defending this bill. It is one thing to support a bill in its inception without seeing its real world consequences. It is quite another to keep supporting it when the bill is put in practice. At this point we have to ask ourselves. Have Elizabeth Warren and the Democrats been bought by lobbyists from Giant banks?

Dodd- Frank

Dodd Frank has been disastrous for the financial industry. Elizabeth Warren and the Democrats say they support the bill because they feel that banks should be reined in from becoming too big to fail. Four banks went from controlling 11% of the banking industry to controlling nearly half after Dodd-Frank. Giant banks went from controlling 23% of the banking industry to controlling more than 60%.

Dodd-Frank has decimated the small banks that Elizabeth Warren and the Democrats say they want to protect. Since Dodd-Frank 25% of small banks have closed. Bank of America controls more of the banking industry than all small banks COMBINED. Before Dodd-Frank hundreds of new banks were opening up. After Dodd-Frank only 3 new banks opened up. There used to be 14000 banks in America now there just a little more than 6000 and dwindling.

Dodd-Frank has been hugely beneficial for the big banks. It has helped them clear away the competition and grab more of the market. They went from being too big to fail to too giant to fail. If Elizabeth Warren and Democrats were serious about the threat of banks that are too big to fail then they would join President Trump in the Republicans in finding a solution for it. The fact that they insist on supporting a bill that has had the empirical effects Dodd-Frank has had should raise suspicion on their motives. After all what better way to help big banks than by creating a loyal opposition.

Follow The Money

In order to find out who the banking industry has purchased we just have to follow the money. In recent elections Democrats have been raising a lot more money than Republicans. Obama and Clinton both outraised and outspent Romney and Trump in their elections. The difference was glaring in the last election as Clinton spent more than twice President Trump did 1.4 billion to 600 million.

The raw numbers are not enough to go on of course. After all what if all 600 million of President Trumps warchest came from big banks but none of the 1.4 billion of Clinton did? In the last election wall street donated 48.5 million to Clinton and donated 19000 to President Trump. According to Chase, Citibank, and Bank of America are among the top 10 donors of Clinton. These companies appear nowhere in the top donors of the Trump  campaign.

Given all the money that the big banks are giving to Warren and the Democrats is it any wonder that they are protecting a law that allow giant banks to eliminate their competition?


The Truth About the Dodd-Frank Repeal

images (2).jpg

Republicans in the house have voted to repeal Dodd Frank and replace it with the choice act. As usual they have declined to explain why this is done and have let the Democrats control the airwaves with their message of the Republicans who have been bought by the banks and are going to crash the economy with their greed. One of the most frustrating things about supporting Trump and the Republicans is that they generally do the right thing but cannot seem to explain why they are doing it. This is especially important in a complex issue like this one. By all means the article I am writing should come from the Wall Street Journal, National Review, or even the Trump administration itself. Yet they decline to do so placing the burden of explaining why this must happen on the shoulders of independent bloggers like myself with our vastly more limited reach.

It is very easy to have a knee jerk reaction to this issue but for something this critical it is very important to understand why it is being done.

State of the Banking Industry

In order to understand why this must be done we have to take a look at how the banking industry is doing. After all maybe there is no problem and this is just being done for the sake of corporate greed.

If I were to ask you why you support Dodd-Frank your answer would most likely be to rein in big banks, to break up big banks, or something along the vein of placing less power in the hands of big banks. After all it is because of the irresponsibility of the banks that are deemed too big to fail which caused the financial crash to happen.

How has Dodd-Frank affected these banks? The best data I could get is that in 1995 giant banks controlled 22% of the assets of the banking industry. 13% of which are controlled by 4 companies Citigroup, Chase, Wells Fargo, and  Bank of America. As of 2015 giant banks controlled 63% of the assets of the banking industry and the top 4 banks mentioned control 42%. The giant banks nearly tripled their market share. What about the smaller banks? Since Dodd-Frank started a quarter of local banks have closed. Can you guess how many new banks of any size have opened since Dodd-Frank started? How many new banks we have had in the 7 years since Dodd Frank was signed into law? Take a moment to take a guess before going on. There have been a total of 3 new banks. 3. Before Dodd-Frank you had hundreds opening every year. Now we have 3. In seven years.

If Dodd-Frank was supposed to curb big banks it has failed spectacularly. In fact it has even helped concentrate even more assets into these banks. If you thought they were too big to fail before then they are even more so now. This is a dangerous trend that we have to break and instead of having it slow down it is accelerating. As of right now we have 4 companies who own almost half the banking industry. Repealing and replacing Dodd-Frank into something that helps smaller banks must be done.

The Solution

Republicans have put forth the Financial Choice Act as a solution to the problem. The bill is very long and a copy of it is available in the government website so I will give the barebones summary. In a nutshell the bill says that if a bank of any size were to meet a reserve requirement of 10% then they would be exempt from most of the regulations of Dodd-Frank. Under Dodd-Frank the reserve requirement is 3%. The crucial section here is that it is voluntary. A bank would have to choose to meet the requirements to get out from the regulations of Dodd-Frank but is not forced to. At this point it is important to understand what the reserve requirement is otherwise it will seem like the banking industry is getting something for nothing.

Most countries have something called a reserve requirement. This is the percentage of the total assets the bank has lent out that it must have on hand. This is usually in the form of physical cash in a bank vault or deposits to the central bank. For instance if a bank has lent out 100$ then it must have 3$ in its  reserves under Dodd-Frank or 10$ if it wants to get the benefits of the Choice act.

This is important because banks earn money by lending out money. Whether it be thru fees, interest or any other method money has to be lent out before it can earn money. This is also the reason why Giant banks cannot benefit from the Choice Act. All the giant banks have shareholders who expect the same level or more of profits every year. You just cannot make the same level of profit by loaning out that much less money.

Giant banks also make most of their money on fees. Whether the accounts are paid back or not what is most important is there is a lot of them generating various fees. If they go into collections then the big banks just sell it to an agency and make some of the money back anyway. Smaller banks make most of their money on interest. It is important to them to have the loan active and current. They have to pick and choose who to lend to carefully so the 10% reserve requirement fits their portfolios perfectly.

This creates a two tiered system. When you ask for a loan or a credit limit increase with a giant bank they do not generally want to have a live person make a decision for you. They don’t really have the manpower or inclination to decide whether Bob gets a 200$ increase or whether you get your 10000$ loan to start a pizza shop with a basement. They want to run everything thru an algorithm based on current regulations and base the decision on that.

Smaller banks are different. Since they normally service local communities they rely more on face to face interactions as well as judgement calls based on the persons history with the community. Instituting a system with far less regulations makes sense for them. This also creates a unique market for them of customers who literally cannot do business with giant banks due to regulations but can do business with them increasing their market share.

Why Small Banks?

Smaller banks need to be encouraged and protected instead of systematically eliminated under Dodd-Frank. Smaller banks have a significantly lower default rate on loans and they make significantly more loans to start-up businesses. 33% of business loans come from small banks while only 23% come from giant banks. Having the assets of the banking industry spread out over more sources reduces the risk of any single one of them causing a crash and needing to be bailed out.

We finally have legislation that will help fix the banking industry and Republicans are to shy to explain it to the public.



The Truth about FAA Privatization

images (1).jpg

President Trump has lent his support to efforts to privatize the air traffic control functions of the FAA and predictably the Democrats are setting their hair on fire. Every possible reason has been brought up from worse services to increased costs on consumers due to fees being passed on. Senator Schumer even stated that the airline companies could raise taxes on their consumers which normally only the government can do.


The truth is this bill shifts the burden of paying for air traffic control from the taxpayers to the airlines and may even lower costs as well for consumers. The function would fall onto a non-profit company who would then be funded by fees from the airlines themselves as opposed to funds from the budget which of course comes from taxes. The same exact employees who are handling the job now would be handling the job in the non profit organization, which is why some unions who work with air traffic control are ok with this when they are normally against privatization. The same exact equipment used now would still be used then. We get the same service but we get the program of the government books.

There is also an argument being made that it would be easier as a non-profit to upgrade your equipment than it is as a government entity and anyone who has dealt with the government before on a business capacity would agree with this.


When a consumer hears about fees they assume that the company that the fee targets will automatically pass it on to them. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Let me show you examples from two industries. First lets take a look at telcos. All the companies you love to hate. ATT, Comcast, Verizon, etc. The moment you charge any of them fees they will automatically pass it on to consumers without question. Do you notice the similarities between these companies? They are all effective monopolies with no incentive to try to retain customer loyalty. After all if you do not like your Comcast you have nowhere else to go. Now let us take a look at another industry: credit cards. Most major credit cards are available in all major cities so they effectively compete with each other all the time. In this environment a company like Capital One offers no foreign transaction fees. Does that mean that the underlying legislation somehow exempts one company from paying fees while requiring the rest of the industry to? After all they are not passing it on to the consumer. Or is it more likely that Capital One is absorbing the costs to offer an advantage to customers that its competitors don’t?

At this point even the most ardent liberals have to admit that companies do not automatically pass fees onto consumers. The determining factor is competition. If the companies have competitors then they sometimes absorb the fees to be more attractive to consumers and if they don’t have competitors then they pass everything on.

We finally get to the airline industry. We have to determine which one of these models best fits it. When you fly along a major route do you have the choice of one airline or multiple ones? Do you see budget airlines pop up like mushrooms who then to proceed to cut everything they can cut in an effort to undercut their competition? Do you see apps get designed for the sole purpose of making sure you get airline tickets at the lowest price possible? Airlines are already doing everything they can to undercut each other. Any fees charged will be just another thing they use in this battle.

This issue is admittedly a small one if we look at the size of the budget and economy. It does go a long way in showing the blind partisanship of democrats that they would be against something that would both lower the cost to the government and to the consumer just because it came from President Trump.