Monday, July 25, 2016

There is a Shortage of Health Care Professionals Capable of Serving the Elderly Population

There is a troubling shortage of health care professionals specializing in treating and caring for the elderly, according to an article published in Kaiser Health News. This shortage includes geriatricians, physicians who specialize in the treatment of adults age 65 and older, as well as nurses, physical therapists and psychologists who know how to care for this population.

The American Geriatrics Society estimates that the nation will need approximately 30,000 geriatricians by 2030 to serve the 30 percent of older Americans with the most complicated medical problems, according to an article in Health News from NPR. There are, however, only about 7,000 geriatricians currently practicing. To meet the projected need, the society estimates medical schools would have to train at least 1,500 geriatricians annually between now and 2030, or five times as many as last year.

Dr. Todd Goldberg, a geriatrician, recently told Kara Lofton, of West Virginia Public Broadcasting:
With the growing elderly population across America and West Virginia, obviously we need healthcare providers...The current workforce is inadequately trained and inadequately prepared to deal with what’s been called the silver tsunami — a tidal wave of elderly people — increasing in the population in West Virginia, across America and across the world really.” 
The deficit of properly trained physicians is only expected to get worse. By 2030, one in five Americans will be eligible for Medicare, the government health insurance for those 65 and older.

Dr. Goldberg teaches at the Charleston division of West Virginia University and runs one of the state’s four geriatric fellowship programs for medical residents. Geriatric fellowships are required for any physician wanting to enter the field.

For the past three years, no physicians have entered the fellowship program at WVU-Charleston. In fact, no students have enrolled in any of the four geriatric fellowship programs in West Virginia in the past three years.

“This is not just our local program, or in West Virginia,” said Goldberg. “This is a national problem.”

The United States has 130 geriatric fellowship programs, with 383 positions. In 2016, only 192 of them were filled. 

Tuesday, July 19, 2016

Fraudulent Transfer Claim Against Nursing Home Resident's Sons Survives

Nursing homes and state departments of Medicaid will become more proficient in developing and implementing techniques to pursue assets in resource recovery over time.  Accordingly, planning techniques must be more, not less, sophisticated.  An excellent exampleof just how devastating simple, self-help, plans lacking in sophistication can be, is the planning of the Nyce brothers.  A U.S. district court recently ruled that a nursing home can assert its case for fraudulent transfer against the brothers, who transferred their mother's funds to themselves, because the claim survived the resident's death. Kindred Nursing Centers East, LLC v. Estate of Barbara Nyce (U.S. Dist. Ct., D. Vt., No. 5:16-cv-73, June 21, 2016).

Roger and Kinsley Nyce were agents under their mother's power of attorney. Their mother, Barbara Nyce, entered a nursing home and signed an admission agreement in which she agreed to pay the nursing home or apply for Medicaid. Ms. Nyce filed for Medicaid, but the application was denied because the Nyce brothers withdrew money from Ms. Nyce's bank accounts to pay themselves. Ms. Nyce also transferred her real estate to her sons. Ms. Nyce died owing the nursing home $137,586.92.

After Ms. Nyce died, the nursing home sued her estate as well as the Nyce brothers individually for fraudulent transfer. The estate cross-claimed against the Nyces, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and conversion. The case was removed to federal court, and the Nyces moved to dismiss the claims. The Nyces argued that the estate couldn't sue for fraudulent transfer after Ms. Nyce died and that the estate's cross claim fits into the probate exception to federal jurisdiction.

The United States District Court, District of Vermont, denied the motion to dismiss. The court held that the fraudulent transfer claim survived Ms. Nyce's death because state law does not require that there be a pending claim in order for an action to survive. The court further holds that the probate exception cannot be used to dismiss widely recognized torts, such as breach of fiduciary duty.

The brothers plan for protecting their mom's assets didn't turn out to be so Nyce. 

Monday, July 18, 2016

Americans Plan Poorly- 72% Do Not Have An Updated Last Will and Testament

A Google Consumer survey by USLegalWills.com suggests that previous surveys may have under-reported the number of Americans without a Will, by not including those who have a Will that is out-of-date. The survey reported that 63% of Americans do not have a Will, showing no real change from 2014. A statistic that was not published before now reveals that am additional 9% of Americans have a Will that is out-of-date. This means that 72% of Americans do not have an up-to-date Last Will and Testament.  The survey revealed that many people have Wills crafted before they were married or had children, meaning, essentially, they have worthless Wills.  

The survey showed a positive relationship between age and the probability of having a Will:

  • 18-24: 85% do not have a Will, 10% have an out-of-date Will, and 5% have an up-to-date Will;
  • 23-35: 80% do not have a Will, 6% have an out-of-date Will, and 14% have an up-to-date Will;
  • 35-44: 67% do not have a Will, 8% have an out-of-date Will, and 25% have an up-to-date Will;
  • 45-54: 53% do not have a Will, 11% have an out-of-date Will, and 36% have an up-to-date Will;
  • 55-64: 52% do not have a Will, 8% have an out-of-date Will, and 40% have an up-to-date Will;
  • 65+: 35% do not have a Will, 15% have an out-of-date Will, and 50% have an up-to-date Will.

When discounting younger adults, only 37% have a Will that reflects their current financial and personal situation.

Shockingly, there is an inverse relationship between income and a person's likelihood to have an updated Will.  Persons with larger incomes are more likely to have a Will that is no longer useful.  The income group least likely to have up-to-date Wills was in the $100,000+ annual income range.  The income group most likely to have up-to-date Wills was in the annual income range of $25,000-$99,999.

There were no significant differences when comparing across gender, region, or urban density.

Graphs of the survey data can be found here.

Source: ABCNewswire, "US SURVEY REVEALS THAT 72% OF AMERICANS DO NOT HAVE AN UP-TO-DATE WILL," last retrieved July 17, 2016.

Saturday, July 16, 2016

"Comfort Clauses" Hobble an Irrevocable Trust for Medicaid Planning

When I counsel clients regarding irrevocable trusts, clients often discuss the possibility of provisions giving them more control over the trust. Many have attended seminars where they are told that a "safety valve" can permit the irrevocable trust to be no more cumbersome or limiting than a revocable trust. There is no "safety" valve. These provisions are usually for the purpose of comforting the owner that they are not really turning ownership and control of assets over to another. These "comfort clauses" can make the owner more comfortable, but they can also threaten the integrity of the plan.

There is little question that provisions permitting trust protectors, and changes to the trust resulting from changing circumstances should be considered, but an irrevocable trust should be somewhat uncomfortable.   An irrevocable trust can protect assets only if there is a marked change in the owner's relationship with the assets; the owner must no longer have ownership or control of the assets, or the trust will not work for its intended purpose.  If a client is not, at least initially, uncomfortable with an irrevocable trust used for asset protection, the client probably does not understand the trust.

A recent New Hampshire case demonstrates the risk of diluting an irrevocable trust with "comfort clauses." New Hampshire's highest court recently ruled that a Medicaid applicant's irrevocable trust is an available asset even though the applicant was not a beneficiary of the trust because the applicant retained a degree of discretionary authority over the trust assets. Petition of Estate of Thea Braiterman (N.H., No. 2015-0395, July 12, 2016).

Thea Braiterman created an irrevocable trust in 1994, naming herself and her son as trustees and her children as beneficiaries. In 2008, Ms. Braiterman resigned as trustee, but the trust authorized her to appoint additional and successor trustees, including the power to appoint herself. The trust also gave Ms. Braiterman the ability to appoint any part of the income of the trust to any of the trust beneficiaries. The trust also did not limit her ability to impose conditions on the appointment of principal to the beneficiaries.

Ms. Braiterman entered a nursing home and applied for Medicaid. The state determined that the trust, which was valued at $156,000, was an available asset and denied her benefits. After a hearing, Ms. Braiterman appealed the state's decision to court.

The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirms the denial of benefits, holding that the trust is an available asset due to the degree of her discretionary authority over the trust. According to the court, an irrevocable trust is a countable asset even when the applicant is not a beneficiary if there are any circumstances in which payment can be made to the applicant. The court rules that there was nothing in the trust "to preclude [Ms. Braiterman] from requiring her children, as a condition of their receipt of the Trust principal, to use those funds for her benefit."

The question is whether comfort clauses are worth the cost and expense of the trust failing to accomplish its intended purpose. 

Friday, July 15, 2016

The Ohio Family Trust Company Act Offers an Important Wealth Planning Tool

On June 14, 2016 Governor Kasich signed House Bill 229, which allows an Ohio family to establish its own trust company to serve as trustee for its family trusts.  The Act gives wealthy and ultra-wealthy families another way to preserve and grow their fortune for many generations.

Ohio now joins more than 15 states authorizing family trust companies (FTCs), which have become increasingly popular wealth planning tools. Before passage of the Act, an Ohio family selecting a trustee had to use either a commercial trustee, or one or more individuals.  This meant that an Ohio family that wanted to use an FTC was required to form and operate the FTC in another state.

The goal of most, if not all, families that have acquired substantial wealth is to preserve and grow their assets and transfer them to succeeding generations in a deliberate way that will avoid the proverb, shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations.” [Note: This proverb is surprisingly common.  The Scottish version is "The father buys, the son builds, the grandchild sells, and his son begs."  The Japanese is, Rice paddies to rice paddies in three generations."  The Chinese state it plainly as, "Wealth never survives three generations."] Success is only possible if a family cultivates, across generations, positive and productive attitudes about money, responsibility, investing, planning, and risk and develops a resulting understanding of both the benefits and burdens of wealth. These values, skills, attitudes and insights sets families successful in managing wealth over generations apart from those that watch wealth dissipate over the generations.  

An FTC provides as framework for developing these values and educating generations of family members.  Of course, the wealthy and ultra-wealthy use trusts to hold their assets, to accomplish estate and tax law planning and to ultimately distribute those assets to family members and charity.  But trusts present challenges to the very wealthy.  Assets owned by a trust are often  illiquid (such as private  equity- interests in privately-owned businesses, or they are difficult to value (such as certain real estate, mineral, oil, and gas interests, life insurance, farms and ranches, loans and notes, collectibles, and intellectual property).  These assets comprise a substantial portion of the wealth of wealthy and ultra-wealthy families.  According to analysis of estate tax returns, real estate and other “unique assets” constitute roughly half of the affluent’s investment portfolios.

These assets are typically owned by the trustee of the trust, whether it is an individual trustee or a bank or trust company. These types of assets are appropriate, albeit aggressive, investments for the family. If a bank or trust company serves as trustee, the family is often in the position of having to justify keeping these investments because of their speculative nature. If an individual or series of individuals serve as trustee, they may have difficulty administering a trust involving a business or other hard-to-value assets. You can choose anFTC as trustee instead of an individual, bank or trust company.  

 An FTC allows families to establish long-term multi-generational trustee arrangements without using a bank, investment or trust company. This means greater privacy and control for the family. Often, families want to use individual trustees instead of a bank or trust company, but because of internal family dynamics and conflict, they are hesitant to name relatives. Appointing relatives, friends or business associates necessarily means divulging private information about your finances and family to others which can be uncomfortable for both you and your friends. An FTC can help alleviate the feeling that “there is no one to turn to” when selecting trustees of your various trusts.  

Typically FTC's are governed by a board of directors. One of the primary board functions is to create a discretionary distribution committee to make all distribution decisions from all trusts. Another important board function is to name an investment committee to make all investment decisions. Both the board and the committees can be populated with a combination of individual family members and independent individuals familiar with your family such as investment advisors, attorneys or  accountants.

Because the FTC is governed by a board, it brings formality and discipline to the family governance process. The Board can manage various trusts, oversee privately-held businesses, and insure and manage collectibles, mineral interests, and intellectual property rights and interests.  Formality means that meetings must be held and minutes taken.  Board members must be accountable and act in accordance with the family values, and decisions must be made regarding investments of assets in each trust and distributions of assets from those trusts. One board makes these decisions instead of a varied group of individual trustees of your family’s separate trusts.

An FTC is defined  as a corporation or limited liability company that (1) is organized in Ohio to serve only family clients, (2) is wholly owned by family clients and is exclusively controlled by one or more family members or family entities, (3) acts as a fiduciary, and (4) does not transact business with, propose to act as fiduciary for, or solicit trust business from, a person that is not a family client.  Ohio’s legislation allows for unlicensed and licensed FTCs.  

An unlicensed FTC  may provide services only to “family members,” and since the FTC will not be audited by the Department of Financial Institutions, it must abide by certain restrictive SEC rules in order to provide investment advice without registering with the SEC as a registered investment advisor. While an unlicensed FTC is not subject to banking regulations, it is required to submit an annual affidavit to the Department of Financial Institutions confirming its compliance with the statutory limitations.

One of the limiting features of an Ohio FTC is the definition of “family member.” This definition ensures that an FTC is not serving the general public (and, in fact, solicitation of trust business is explicitly prohibited by the bill). Family members are defined as a class, all of whom have a common ancestor who is not more than 10 generations removed. This so-called designated relative must be identified at the inception of the FTC and cannot be changed. Family members also include spouses, spousal equivalents, adopted children, stepchildren and foster children. The definition also includes the following related persons/entities: family charities, family estates, irrevocable trusts with family beneficiaries, key employees, trusts formed by key employees, and business entities wholly owned and operated by family members. These rules are intended to track the SEC’s definition of a “family office.”

A licensed FTC is subject to the following requirements: (1) it must have a minimum capital balance of at least $200,000, and up to $500,000, at the discretion of Ohio’s superintendent of financial institutions; (2) it may provide services to “family members,” certain non-family members and certain affiliated entities; (3) it must maintain office space and at least one part-time employee in Ohio; (4) it must hold at least two governing board meetings per year in Ohio; (5) it must perform certain administrative activities in Ohio; and (6) it must maintain a fidelity bond and directors/officers insurance, each in the amount of $1 million. A licensed FTC is also subject to supervision by Ohio’s Department of Financial Institutions and will be audited every 18 months.

For more about the Act, go here




Wednesday, July 13, 2016

Ohio Attorney General Issues Warning About Grandparent Scam


Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine recently issued a press release warning of phone scams targeting Ohio grandparents following an increase in complaints:
"In the past month, 11 Ohioans have reported losing an average of $3,800 to the “grandparent scam.” Most said they paid over the phone using iTunes gift cards after receiving a call saying their grandchild was in trouble.
One man received a call from someone who claimed to be his granddaughter. The granddaughter supposedly was in jail and needed $2,000 in iTunes cards to be released. After the man paid, he realized it was a scam.
“Many grandparents will drop everything to help their grandchildren,” Attorney General DeWine said. “That’s why this scam works. It’s terrible not only because of the money loss but because of the fear it instills in people. Our goal is to protect Ohio’s families and help them recognize the warning signs of a scam before it's too late.”
Since the start of 2016, the Ohio Attorney General's Consumer Protection Section has received about two dozen consumer complaints involving grandparent scams.  The scam often begins with a phone call telling grandparents that one of their grandchildren has been in a car accident, caught with drugs, or put in jail.
The caller pretends to be the grandchild, an attorney, or a law enforcement officer and tells the grandparent to send money to have the charges dismissed, to cover court costs, or to allow the grandchild to return home.
The grandparent is told to go to the store right away, to buy several gift cards, and to read the card numbers over the phone. Using this information, the scammer drains the cards’ funds almost instantly.
As part of the scheme, grandparents often are instructed not to talk to other people (such as the grandchild’s parents) about the problem. Callers may even threaten to shoot or harm the grandchild if the grandparent refuses to pay. 
If grandparents pay once, they likely will receive additional calls seeking more money, supposedly for attorney’s fees or other unexpected costs. Eventually, grandparents discover that their grandchild was not truly in trouble. 
Attorney General DeWine encouraged consumers to take the following steps to protect against grandparent scams: 
  • Communicate with your family members. Talk to your family about scams and discuss how you would communicate during a true emergency. If you receive a call from a grandchild or another family member who claims to be in trouble, contact someone else (such as the grandchild’s parents) to determine if the person truly needs your help, even if you’ve been instructed not to contact anyone else. When in doubt, ask questions only your real family members would know how to answer, such as the last time you saw each other.
  • Limit the amount of information you share online. Don’t post upcoming travel plans or detailed personal information online, and encourage your family members to take similar precautions. Check your account privacy settings and limit who can view your information. Be aware that scammers may use information posted on social media or publicly available online to learn more about their targets and to make their ploys seem believable.
  • Be wary of unusual payment requests. If a caller demands that you pay over the phone using a gift card or a prepaid reloadable card, it’s likely a scam. Also be wary of requests for payment via wire transfer. These are preferred payment methods for scammers because it is difficult to trace or recover the payment once it is provided.
The Ohio Attorney General’s Office warns consumers about scams and offers a variety of educational materials, including a phone scams checklist."
The scam first appeared in 2008, prompting warnings from the Better Business Bureau (BBB).  The the scams quickly grew in sophistication and number, prompting the FBI to issue a warning about the scams. The AARP warned consumers about the "Grandparent Scam" in 2012.  In at least one tragic case, the scam turned deadly resulting in the loss of a life

To learn more or to report scams to the Ohio Attorney General’s Office, visit www.OhioProtects.org or call 800-282-0515.

If you are a member of a group or organization and want a simple flyer warning of and describing the scam, while providing useful tips regarding protective measures, go here.

Additional Resources:

If you have received a phone call from someone claiming to be your grandchild, or you have fallen victim to this scam you may wish to contact your local law enforcement agency or the following agencies:

Federal Trade Commission
Consumer Response Center
600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20580 
(877) 382-4357

Federal Bureau of Investigation


Monday, July 11, 2016

Filial Responsibility In the News

Philly.com published the most recent warning: Children May have to Foot Bill for Indigent Parents' Care. The author writes:
Remember when Mom and Dad bailed you out on that overdue bill?
Now, it may be your turn.
More than half of U.S. states have so-called "filial responsibility" laws that require adult children to support their parents if they become indigent.
For example, under Pennsylvania's 2005 statute, spouses, parents, and children are obligated to care for or financially assist destitute family members.
That means you could be held financially responsible for a parent's nursing-home care, says Marc Jaffe, estate-planning lawyer and partner at Fromhold Jaffe & Adams in Villanova.
"A nursing home will sue an adult child to recover monies the parent didn't pay," Jaffe says.
"It's not used very often. And you are not necessarily responsible for all of that person's debts. However, you might be held responsible for that person's food, shelter, clothing, medical care, and other similar necessities if the person did not have the funds to pay," he notes.
Such lawsuits "may become more common, as the government in general is looking to be less generous with benefits, and if a medical provider doesn't get paid, they may look more toward the family," Jaffe adds.
For the remainder of the article, go here.

Update [July 13, 2016]:  A similar article, "Are You Going to Saddle Your Kids With Your Debt?," can be found here

Saturday, July 9, 2016

Nursing Home Involvement in Patient's Death Object Lesson on Aging-in-Place Planning

An effective Aging-in-Place strategy will include, as a last resort, identification, consideration and communication of standards used in selecting institutional care.  So many folks assume they have an effective Aging-in-Place plan, but never consider the likelihood of short or long-term institutional care, which may, regardless of an underlying plan, be inevitable. 

This oversight can have tragic consequences if short-term institutional care becomes inevitable!  If decision-makers cannot effectively evaluate competing institutional care options, a choice of care may be uninformed.  Mistakes can be  severe and permanent. Consider the case of a Massachusetts nursing home.  

Massachusetts officials announced this week that they are maintaining a freeze on admissions at a South Yarmouth nursing home as a federal investigator’s report reveals details about the death of a patient that collapsed during physical therapy, and later died.

According to a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) report, Windsor staff failed to perform chest compressions or use an automated external defibrillator (AED) on a patient who became unresponsive while doing light hand and wrist exercises in his wheelchair in the rehabilitation gym.  The CMS report describes a chaotic scene, with precious and possibly life-saving moments lost while staffers scrambled to respond.  Reading the report of the event one might conclude that there was no consideration by the management or staff of the possibility of such an event, and there appears to have been no knowledge of, reference to, or implementation of a concerted emergency life saving plan.  
CMS criticized the institution  for going three years without mock trials of code blue emergency drills, which include notifying the entire nursing home staff of an emergency and making the facility accessible to rescue personnel. 

The result was horrific.  A physical therapy assistant said she couldn’t get an outside line on a nursing home phone while dialing 911 emergency services and after numerous attempts resorted to using her personal cell phone to call 911.  Other staff  struggled put the patient, who wore a nasal cannula for oxygen, in an oxygen mask, but it was not applied properly.  By the time emergency rescue crews arrived and started performing CPR, the resident had no cardiac activity or signs of life. When a second rescue crew arrived about three minutes later with additional emergency equipment, access to the patient was delayed by locked doors as many of the staff were unaware of the emergency.

The American Heart Association says that after 10 minutes few attempts at resuscitation succeed.
The patient was transferred to Cape Cod Hospital and put on a ventilator, but family members decided to withdraw life support March 6, and the patient died one hour later.

 CMS fined Windsor Skilled Nursing and Rehabilitation Center $90,000 following the death of the 54-year-old resident in March.  The sanction works out to approximately $3000 for each of the almost 30 years of the patient's life expectancy.  The sanctions took place after investigators determined that Windsor staff failed to do CPR on the patient after he went into respiratory and cardiac arrest.

The nursing home submitted a plan of correction with public health officials that is under the process of review.  If the 120-bed nursing home is not brought into “substantial compliance” with regulations by Aug. 27, the government will no longer reimburse Windsor for services delivered to Medicare and Medicaid patients.The federal agency threatened to rescind Windsor’s Medicare and Medicaid contract by June 19, but that deadline has now been extended to Nov. 27.  The sanctions and warnings started after state Department of Public Health officials took the rare move of finding that Windsor was in “immediate jeopardy” May 27.  "Immediate jeopardy" was changed to “non-immediate jeopardy” June 7, but a CMS letter to Windsor dated June 8 said “substantial compliance, however, had not been achieved.”  Meanwhile, the institution to cares for patients.

Windsor spokesperson Ernie Corrigan said earlier this month that the nursing home staff has gone through “hundreds of hours of training” since the May 27 jeopardy finding.  He said in an email that the staff had followed proper protocol as far as life-saving measures were concerned:
The response staff was continuously at his side, detected and continued to detect a pulse, and followed the protocols outlined by emergency medical trainers and the American Heart Association that dictate that you do not provide CPR or AED assistance when a patient continues to have a pulse. It is our view that everyone involved did their very best and performed admirably during a rapidly deteriorating medical emergency that eventually led to this patient’s death.  
State health inspectors will conduct an unannounced follow-up inspection once the nursing home submits an acceptable plan of correction, according to an official with the state Department of Public Health.  If DPH finds the nursing home to be in compliance with regulations, it will lift the freeze on admissions, the DPH official said.

In addition, CMS will not terminate its contract with Windsor if the nursing home comes into compliance with state and federal regulations, a CMS spokesperson said.

Findings of jeopardy and nursing home terminations in Massachusetts are not common. Last year, five Massachusetts nursing homes were placed in jeopardy, a DPH spokesman said.  Only one nursing nursing home in Massachusetts has had its Medicare provider agreement involuntarily terminated since June 2015.

For more information, please go here.

Wednesday, July 6, 2016

A Criticism of the Brief for LEV (Lesser Evil Voting)


[Preface:  The articles on this blog normally avoid direct political commentary.  Those who are friends on my personal facebook page sometimes must tolerate occasional political commentary.  A friend, for whom I have great respect, requested on Facebook my commentary regarding an article, "An Eight Point Brief For LEV (Lesser Evil Voting), hereinafter referred to as the "Brief." It is, despite my criticism, an interesting article, and I commend the article to my readers and friends, notwithstanding that I do not agree with the author's conclusions. The following is my commentary and opinion].

I read with interest the Brief for LEV (Lesser Evil Voting), penned by John Halle and Noam Chomsky which begins with the following preamble: 
Among the elements of the weak form of democracy enshrined in the constitution, presidential elections continue to pose a dilemma for the left in that any form of participation or non participation appears to impose a significant cost on our capacity to develop a serious opposition to the corporate agenda served by establishment politicians. 
I question the assumptions on which the article is based.  I wonder, for example, why "participation or non-participation [in presidential elections] appears to impose a significant cost on our capacity to develop serious opposition to the corporate agenda served by establishment politicians?"  Wouldn't opposition to the corporate agenda be better organized and implemented prior to an election?  What "cost," particularly of non-participation? I wonder more why this is a "dilemma" for the left?  I believe the assumptions and conclusions of the authors are flawed.

As anyone from the left should know, there is no such thing as non-participation in a political system.  "Not voting" is participation, just as is voting.  There is no dilemma here.  What frustrates both the intellectual right and intellectual left is that there are, usually, no intellectual or anti-establishment choices. Whether or not one casts a vote, one has no choice that is either "enlightened," or "anti-establishment," and therefore, no choice offers a real opportunity for reform. Political promises of "change," are common, but in the end nothing fundamentally changes.

Our two most recent Presidents offer excellent examples of administrations run by the establishment for the benefit of a corporate agenda.  Only this week, for example, I watched Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough extol the ability of George Bush to surround himself with amazing, intellectual talent with deep foreign policy experience (all by way of criticizing Trump for not similarly surrounding himself with the "best and the brightest").  But these "experts," could not prevent some of the greatest foreign policy blunders of modern time. These blunders, and more importantly, the foreign policy as a whole, served the corporate establishment directly and indirectly.

While few today dare credit Bush with having the same ability regarding economic policy expertise, the reality is that, there, too, he was surrounded by the "best and brightest," who, nonetheless, offered no solution to the crash of 2008.  The crash of 2008, too, served the interests of the establishment, creating overnight the greatest disparity between the "have and have-nots" in modern times.  If you bristle at the suggestion that the Bush Administration included the "best and the brightest," I suggest watching the last fifteen minutes of Charles Ferguson's excellent documentary "Inside Job," which describes how, to a man and woman, the new Obama Administration kept and retained the same economic brain trust that seemingly orchestrated the crises leading to the 2008 meltdown.  Eight years later, the same economic brain trust continues to inform and direct the administration.

President Obama promised to be the most progressive, and the most transparent President in American history.  I, for one, do not question his stated intention.  Whatever one thinks about the promise of the Affordable Care Act ("ACA"), in what progressive world would it rely upon, and reward the largest health care providers and create entry barriers to competition from the smaller competing providers?  In what transparent world would it be foisted upon the electorate by intentional lies?  Regardless, the ACA is clearly a boon for the establishment. As a result of ACA, despite its admitted successes in reducing the numbers of uninsured, we are witnessing perhaps the greatest centralization of an economic system (health care) since the break-up of AT&T (telecommunications).   Just this week, HHS Secretary Burwell admitted that despite success in reducing the numbers of uninsured, access, quality, and the price of health care remain challenges unresolved by the ACA.  Has it achieved some goals?  Unquestionably, but there is little question that, in the balance, the legislation did much more to serve the corporate establishment and the politicians that serve it.

Sadly, the ACA is not a unique example of the Obama Administration economic policy serving the corporate establishment.  Dodd-Frank was supposed to ensure that no financial institution became too big to fail, but the result has been a similar consolidation of economic power in both investment banking and consumer credit, and greater entry barriers for smaller competitors. Regulation sometimes serve the interests of the establishment by making competition more difficult or impossible.  By further entrenching those representing the status quo, and preventing newcomers from deposing them, it is apparent that Dodd-Frank, too, serves the interests of the corporate elite and the political establishment.

Despite the promise of a new era of economic and financial protection, the present administration has wholly failed to resolve the toxicity of derivatives, except to finally invoke an incomprehensible definition of what they are, and make them FDIC insured.  If you did not know that derivatives are FDIC insured (some always were), don't feel badly.  I bet that few in Congress know!  Resolution of the derivative matter does not serve the corporate agenda, so we "kick it down the road," to be resolved  at some random future date when resolution is compelled by circumstances, or orchestrated by design, hopefully while maintaining some political and economic order.

President Obama's promise in foreign policy is, and has been, undermined at each turn by the same corporate establishment that relies on the existing order, conveniently orchestrated from inside by no less than his Secretaries of State.  Hillary Clinton, particularly, has reached, in my opinion, the height of arrogance, drinking from the public trough while selling political influence and favor for something as mundane as personal wealth and power, carving for herself special rules and regulations. I believe history will show that Obama's greatest foreign policy failure is his inability to recognize this counterinsurgent insider. Hillary Clinton is clearly neither progressive, nor particularly liberal, unless your definition of either is limited only to support for the social/civil rights.  Quite frankly, there is little to substantiate either a liberal or progressive ideology.  In fact, her deeds bespeak a traditionally Republican corruption as she champions the cause of the establishment Wall Street and corporate elites for personal and political gain.

If you protest that the foregoing statements suggest I watch too much Fox News, know that my understanding of Hilary Clinton comes from the offices of Senator Warren, who has identified the financial corruption both generally and specifically, and the foreign policy failures both generally and specifically.  If Warren becomes Clinton's running mate, she will have swallowed a lot, since her office was involved in pointing out how Clinton lied when she denied supporting repressive Latin American regimes, such as that in Honduras, in their efforts to crush progressive reformers, resulting in the murder of hundreds of progressive heroes.  Her personal corruption in supporting Colombian free trade agreements for wealthy contributors to her campaign and the Clinton Foundation is well documented.  Many progressives believe that it is Clinton's betrayal of progressive freedom fighters and human rights activists that lead to the leaking of  Clinton's emails.  

Warren has been harshly critical of not only Clinton's financial relationship with Wall Street, but that "she worries about them as her constituency."  She has accused Clinton of changing her position solely because of campaign contributions, writing in her book about Clinton's indispensable support in securing President Bill Clinton's veto of a bankruptcy bill championed by establishment consumer credit companies, only to support the exact same bill as a senator after receiving several hundreds of thousands in donations from the same industry.  Simply, Warren accuses Clinton of having been "bought," and provides detailed and incontrovertible evidence supporting the charge.  

The positions of Clinton and Warren regarding the corporate establishment are so disparate that within days after Warren first appeared publicly with Clinton as the presumptive nominee in what some touted as an audition for the vice presidency, Warren attacked silicon valley and the tech giants, all Clinton donors.  The brazen and justified attack prompted Vanity Fair, to publish the article, "Elizabeth Warren Just Proved Why She'd Make a Terrible Running Mate."  The article boldly proclaimed that "attacking the same donors that Clinton is courting is a recipe for disaster."  Politico reported that Wall Street donors have threatened to dump Clinton over Warren. The Obama administration has advanced the corporate agenda served by establishment politicians, knowingly or unwittingly.

As an aside, I predicted two years ago that the Democratic Party would ultimately "do the right thing," and mercifully kill the Clinton candidacy, and I predicted that the Party would install Warren as its candidate.  Warren would be a formidable candidate, and could right the Clinton betrayal of the Obama Administration specifically, and of the Progressives generally. Although I was initially encouraged when Joe Biden rebuffed the "Draft Joe," movement after, by the way, consulting Elizabeth Warren, recent events seem to suggest a closing of the circle of establishment Democrats.  Whether this circle includes or excludes Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders remains to be seen. Whether my prediction will become reality also remains to be seen.

I agree with the authors that government has become corrupted and co-opted by corporate and multinational interests. This is not just a problem for the left, however.  The left and right disagree, generally, about the ability of the government to solve problems, whether courts or legislatures should resolve disputes, and whether international, state, or federal action is appropriate in taking governmental action.  While the right generally utilizes a hierarchical value system and the left is more likely to utilize a dialectic that dispenses with first principles (even these generalizations are sometimes untrue, however; an excellent example is the Catholic concept of "social justice," which obviously springs from a hierarchical value system that is traditionally rather rigid, but most would characterize as "left, nonetheless).  Of course, there are differences between those on the left and those on the right.

What few will admit, however, is that, at least in the United States, traditionally, both the left and the right agree on most core values, goals, and objectives:  free speech; freedom of assembly; freedom from prohibition of religious expression; freedom of the press; freedom from search and seizure; freedom from investigation without probable cause; freedom from self incrimination; freedom from taking property without reasonable compensation; the right to trial by jury; the right to confront and examine witnesses; the right to counsel. These core values elevate, for both the left and right, individual rights above the power of the state. Both agree fundamentally regarding protection of the environment, although they disagree regarding the scope and balance regulation should take.  The right might be more cooperative with the left regarding environmental protection, by the way,  if the corporate agenda did not so obviously flaunt environmental protection by moving environmentally threatening manufacturing and production to countries that seem little concerned with the environment, but more on that later.   

Both the left and the right embrace the American Dream, which might be described as the ideal that each generation by sacrifice and hard work, make a better world for the next generation (and so there is no misunderstanding, even the most extreme of both would consider "hard work" as including not just labor and industry, but political, social, and economic reform, and familial sacrifice and support). These common values are corrupted by the corporate agenda served by establishment politicians. 

In fact, as the authors will demonstrate, frustration with the corporate agenda and the political establishment entice some to suggest greater state authority, elevating the state above the individual, without acknowledging that such power, once attained, may be wielded by the same political establishment serving the corporate agenda.  Simply, "developing serious opposition" to the establishment is increasingly in the best interest of individuals from both the left and the right, and can only occur when the individuals, left and right, join forces to defeat their common foe.  Serious opposition is not, however, found in granting to the political establishment more power, by for example, compromising individual rights and liberties. 

One could easily make the argument that it was the underlying unity of the electorate (shared values and growing distaste for the establishment) that propelled a young Barak Obama to ascend to the Presidency. His was clearly not an establishment candidacy, and many saw in his rhetoric the opportunity to escape the establishment choices.  Hillary Clinton was the Democratic establishment candidate over which he leap-frogged to the nomination.  Obama then capably dispatched the Republican candidate, an established Senator so entrenched in the status quo that, by the time the establishment Republicans sensed the anti-establishment mood of the electorate, it panicked and offered the electorate a monstrous ticket, selecting a young, attractive, female, undisciplined, reform conservative, as mainsail in an effort to catch the anti-establishment wind. The public, not so easily deceived, rejected the monster, despite the fact that many conservatives undoubtedly voted for what they probably saw as the Lesser of Two Evils.          

The inability to develop serious opposition, in my opinion, is also not structural to the American political system, as the authors suggest.  It certainly does not arise from the "weak form of democracy enshrined in the constitution." Weaker democracies, stronger democracies, and even more or less authoritarian regimes struggle against the establishment, and the corporate interests they serve.

The "assumption" that the weak democracy is the root of the inability to confront the establishment, is my greatest criticism of the Brief; it removes from individuals personal blame for a system that has been co-opted and corrupted, and encourages the very divisions that permit corporate and establishment interests to continue unchallenged. The model posited by the authors embraces the concept that participants, i.e., voters, should vote for a corrupt and compromised candidate protecting the corporate agenda and the political establishment - why? because the candidate identifies as liberal or conservative, republican or democrat?-  as the measure of what constitutes the lesser of two evils? The model intellectualizes and rationalizes surrender to the establishment, and if adopted, assures that rejection of the establishment will never occur through the political process!

The "Lesser of Two Evils" is explicitly a rejection that there is an evil inherent in supporting the corporate establishment, despite the fact that the authors posit the value as the very reason for the original dilemma. The authors don't offer a resolution, but an "escape clause:" a value statement that is vapid, unsupported, and devoid of any value:
Voting should not be viewed as a form of personal self-expression or moral judgement directed in retaliation towards major party candidates who fail to reflect our values, or of a corrupt system designed to limit choices to those acceptable to corporate elites.
Beyond making the normative statement, there is no rationale for the proclamation, other than to advance the author's argument to its intended conclusion.  It is a "rationalization," where the term is used to denote a seemingly rational statement made merely to avoid or hide an inconvenient or embarrassing underlying truth.  The underlying truth is that the authors advocate surrender to the establishment.   Although the authors don't say so bluntly, their argument is:
Because we inherently cannot attain our objective of a candidate that will oppose the corporate agenda served by establishment politicians, we should surrender attaining the value, meaning that we should vote for a candidate notwithstanding that they support the corporate agenda, based upon support for other policies/values we hold dear, notwithstanding that we know the the candidate will betray these policies/values in order to protect the corporate agenda served by establishment politicians.
If stated that way, the reaction to the author's proposition would probably be on the order of "What? Seriously?"

Rejection of the establishment will only occur when the participants reject both the lesser and the greater of two evils, and demand in their candidates repudiation of both parties continuing to serve the corporate agenda.  Opposition will be meaningful when voters, individually and communally, reject  protecting the political establishment as an option.

The author's rattle off a series of characterizations of Trump's positions as justification for opposing him "regardless." You aren't voting for Clinton, after all, you are casting a vote against Trump.  The problem with this part of the argument is that it is based upon the mendacity of the establishment political system (not the constitutional democracy, but the Republican/Democrat party system).  It is the political establishment, after all, that would have you believe that "the other side" is at your door, ready to take your rights, your life, your property, your safety, etc. The "other side" is racist, destructive, misogynist, backwards, dangerous, etc.  The mendacity of the establishment is that there can be no rational agreement with cretins on the other side, because they are irrational cretins (I purposefully use the term cretin because of its irony.  If you don't appreciate the paradox in my use of the term cretin, look up Epimenides of Knossos).  The authors make no more enlightened analysis, because no analysis is relevant having already justified surrender to the establishment.

It is this irrational division, and the threats that arise therefrom, that perpetuate the status quo for the establishment  To assure that the "threat" is always existential, establishment politicians play their respective roles, and are increasingly extreme, and appear unwilling to govern by conciliation and compromise. This is no accident, and serves to protect both the establishment and the corporate interests they serve.  Moreover, it is abundantly clear that although politicians espouse extremist positions for political purpose and gain, they do not believe what they say; despite repeated opportunities for one party or the other to institute dramatic change after garnering the public's mandate, they refuse, choosing instead to maintain the status quo.

The current national debate regarding police shootings and gun violence provide a poignant example.  Most people support law enforcement.  Most are horrified when law enforcement officers kill citizens, whether or not legal or justified. Depending upon how you shake up the statistics, there are either more or less minorities killed by police, but the reality is that too many citizens are killed by law enforcement, and even when justified, national debate begs the question, "are we doing enough as a nation to both keep law enforcement officers safe, and keep citizens confronted by law enforcement safe?"  Are there alternatives to  traditional detentions and arrests?     

Why, then, is law enforcement violence against minorities the only topic that gets media and political attention?  If law enforcement is failing to pacify rather than escalate situations, why is that only a legitimate topic for discussion and debate when a minority citizen is killed? If, as some suggest, our citizens are to blame for escalating violence during confrontations, to what do we account for this phenomenon which appears to cross racial lines?  Are people of all races losing respect and deference to law enforcement?  Are people more likely to flee and evade, or resist arrest, and if so why?  Are people more fearful?  Should they be?   

Most people acknowledge that there is a need to address escalation of conflict during what should be routine detentions and arrests, and few support rhetoric that would justify violence.  Yet groups that openly discuss and seem to advocate violence are not only accepted within the establishment, but embraced by establishment politicians.  Few believe that most law enforcement officers are racist. Few believe that the problem of police violence is only a problem of race.   Yet the establishment politicians support and encourage extreme and even violent rhetoric in order to keep the populace divided.    

So, the reality of establishment candidates, left or right, is that we can expect that nothing will change, regardless of the rhetoric.  If Trump is also a candidate supporting and protecting the corporate establishment, by the author's own reasoning, he will not make any meaningful change to the status quo, and more importantly, what he says is meaningless, since the only thing we can know, is that he will inherently support the establishment.  His rhetoric is as meaningless as his opponent's.  The authors would have voters trust one candidate as the lesser evil because, well, the candidate says so.  The authors' model is to perpetuate the establishment by seizing upon the very meaningless rhetoric that perpetuates the establishment. It should be obvious that the Brief's real intent is to simply rationalize support of the establishment, a rationalization only necessary because the mood of the electorate is palpably anti-establishment, and their "preferred" candidate is unlikely to convince large numbers that she threatens the establishment.    

Finally, if taken seriously, the Brief would justify dismantling a constitutional system  that has, at least until recently, frustrated corporate and establishment authority from achieving ultimately and permanently its goal of attaining unchecked political power directed by unbridled economic power. 

Yes.  I mean the previous sentence.  I accuse the political establishment of working for unrestrained political power directed by unrestrained and unregulated economic power.  

Before you scoff and label me a "conspiracy nut," understand that nothing is further from the truth.  I do not believe that the corporate establishment "conspires" to "world domination," but I do believe that multinational corporations and the establishment politicians behave in their mutual best interest, and influence politics accordingly.  This influence contravenes accepted values of both the left and the right. I will give one example in the form of modern globalism.  

It is a common and popular tenet of modern foreign policy that economic interdependence makes for a less volatile world, and potentially solves the problem of war. After all, a nation is less likely to go to war when war means various adverse economic repercussions.  This tenet underlies modern free trade theory.  This tenet informs and instructs modern foreign policy.  It is accepted, uncritically, by almost everyone in the foreign policy establishment that could be considered among the "best and the brightest." The theory is rational.  It's goal is, at least superficially, noble and admirable.  It is seductive. But it is palpably wrong, and I would suggest, ultimately, evil.  The theory serves the corporate agenda, and the political establishment (explanation why follows).

Concepts such as these, whether developed innocently and independently, or not-so-innocently and by design, are funded and encouraged by the establishment,  then nurtured financially in private think tanks, quasi-governmental institutions, and the halls of academia, with both private and public funds until there is a broad "consensus" among the "best and brightest."  This does not mean, however, that these concepts, ideas, or theories are necessarily "wrong." And, admittedly, they are always rational.

Jimmy Carter bucked this philosophy arguing that economic free trade should, notwithstanding its value, be secondary to moral behavior.  According to Carter, free trade, and free access to markets, should not be extended to countries and regimes that violate basic human rights, engage in terrorism, subjugate women or children, or the like.  One should not hypocritically sacrifice important values simply for economic gain.  Well, we all know where that went in the annals of foreign policy initiatives. If the establishment could have removed Carter from office after his first year, it would have.

I personally believe that Jimmy Carter was and is right, and had American foreign policy been conducted to restrict economic trade with immoral and repressive regimes, with, by the way, its natural economic impact, the world we live in right now would be fundamentally different. Reagan, incidentally, and shockingly, at least to some, employed a version of the "Carter doctrine," to serve the cause of the break-up of the Soviet Union, employing economic pressure and monetary policy to accomplish a foreign policy objective despite the fact that establishment critics assured us that no such result could ever be attained (though neither President Carter nor Reagan receives the "credit" each deserves). Regardless of success or failure, I think "we," in the U.S., and in the West, would see ourselves much differently had we engaged in rational free trade with consequences for the most repressive.  I also think how we see ourselves means a lot, by the way. [To the true historians, Carter will ironically always be remembered by the more accepted "Carter Doctrine" which justified the use of military force in the Middle East to advance and protect American interests; he is not highly regarded for his "naive" view of international trade and monetary policy].

The common retort of the "best and brightest," is that unilateral action is ineffective. Possibly true.  But taking no action is always ineffective.  Moreover, as individual nations are weakened by interdependence, by sacrificing economic power and authority to other nations, non-governmental entities, groups of nations, and ultimately international governmental institutions, the possibility of successful unilateral action is made less likely, and then, ultimately impossible. This well maintains the status quo.  As the likelihood of success seems more remote, nations more easily rationalize their economic interests and political positions toward unethical and immoral ends, all the while serving the corporate establishment.

Repressive regimes are emboldened by free trade and efforts to create interdependence. At a minimum, a regime can be assured that the risk of assembling a coalition of the willing is far less likely than any one or a few nations acting independently against their repression, since the refusal of even one or a few impedes concerted action, and, even if inevitable, will take much more time. Economic interdependence, though, unconditioned by rational and moral principals, intentionally makes even repressive nations and regimes stronger.     

The corollary to the globalist free trade position is the proposition that development leads to egalitarianism, freedom, democracy, and the like.  This theory is palpably ludicrous since these very values were forged and spread, in many cases, without an underlying economic foundation.  The idea that only the wealthy can be free, democratic, altruistic, peaceful, etc., is arrogant, elitist, culturally insensitive, and, more importantly, false. 

Conversely, rewarding repressive regimes with unconditioned economic growth and development in the hopes that they will become reformed responsible international partners has failed more often than it has succeeded.  We have succeeded in creating wealthy, more powerful repressive regimes, more capable of keeping and spreading control and influence. The corporate interests make them even wealthier, and more powerful, by moving capital from more expensive less repressive nations. Moreover, as capital is invested in repressive regimes, the establishment has more to lose from reform.  Imagine a well developed, extremely wealthy, militarized, modern, repressive nation into which more capital flows every day- is that nation easier or harder to reform? 
   
Multinational corporations no longer need to work for the restriction of worker's rights, women's rights, minority rights, environmental protection, child labor, or taxation in the developed  or Western world; they are satisfied with the privilege to take their capital to wherever these don't exist.  These same corporations can appear benign as they freely support establishment politicians that claim to support worker's rights, women's rights, minority rights, environmental protection, child labor, or taxation, while keeping and maintaining a status quo that allows capital to move where these economic impediments don't exist.  And where these don't exist, capital can produce efficiently without governmental regulation. 

These are the reasons more people are rejecting modern "globalism."  The establishment will immediately call globalist critics xenophobes, like Biden did immediately after the Brexit vote.  More and more people are realizing, however, that globalists facilitate the corporate agenda by facilitating the search for cheap labor, new places to build businesses where protection of the environment isn't a concern, where women have no rights so they can be prostituted and indentured, and workers can't bargain and have no power, so the wealthy can better utilize and build their wealth.  The hypocrisy of  protecting "our" women, "our" minorities, and "our" environment" so "they" can be enslaved, adulterated, polluted, and abused, is becoming apparent.  Moreover, the hypocrisy of "free trade" is becoming apparent as jobs, business, and opportunities are lost to countries with little or no costs associated with protecting the values we hold dear.  "Free trade" is not "free" and the cost is borne by "our" workers and "our" economy and "their" people and "their" environment.   

Further, whether directly, by securing and protecting cheap labor and inexpensive or non-existent regulation in the more repressive world, or indirectly by removing economic power from nations otherwise powerful and influential enough to threaten the order of cheap labor and favorable non-regulation (or as my father called it tacit slavery), establishment politicians serve the corporate agenda.  This order allows capital to work more efficiently than would otherwise be possible.  This is the direct by-product of voting for the lesser of two evils, and supporting the establishment. This is the establishment. Both the left and the right establishment would bristle at the suggestion, but what post WWII policy has accomplished is internationally tantamount to granting license to slave holders to move their plantations and slaves to slave states.  Our world is dangerously "less free" than it was when the globalists ascended to power: here and here. [If you want to read a troubling report regarding the relationship between reform and terrorism in the Muslim world, go here.] 

The foregoing begs the question, then, to "what" do we owe inability to confront the establishment?  Trust and confidence in the establishment is common, purchased, encouraged, and incentivized socially, culturally, economically, legally, and politically.  The establishment is strong.  Successful opposition to the establishment is risky; there is and will be a consequence and cost to mere opposition, and greater cost and consequence to reform.

Faith and confidence will erode eventually, because no system can oppress so many for too long.  Some day, those on the left and the right will acknowledge that theyhave been duped, and have carried the water of the corporate establishment too long.  Some day, the political establishment will become so palpably corrupt that people will grasp at any effort to reform or overturn it.  Some day there will be a revolt, likely peaceful and political, bringing down the political establishment, and threatening the corporate interests it serves.  It won't be easy. And it won't be without consequence.  But it will happen. We can choose to hasten the change by rejecting the establishment, and the divisive narrative that supports the establishment, or we can surrender, as the authors of the Brief suggest.

I know the Brief invites a defense of Trump.  I will not mount such a defense.  I haven't decided whether Trump is anti-establishment, or a brilliant actor seeking to cause people to believe that he is anti-establishment. I believe that it may become apparent, and his rejection of establishment choices for campaign tactics, campaign finance strategies, running mate, convention speakers, and the like may help identify him.  If Trump is anti-establishment, he will garner my vote. But, if Warren was running against Jeb Bush, she would garner my vote. Regardless, I will vote for a third party, or pass, before casting a vote for the lesser of two establishment evils. The lesser of two evils is a myth, and a fool's errand.  Why should I cast a vote when the choice is between the establishment and the establishment?

There is little question, though, that Trump has "caught the wind," and has left the establishment twisting as a result.  At a minimum, if you really are seeking reform or abandonment of the establishment, you have to smile.  Just the fact that he has prevailed over politicians spending millions threatens the establishment.  If he is competitive against Clinton, and continues to finance his campaign without PACs, bundlers, and party financing, he threatens the establishment.  Trump makes me smile.  Buffoons, blow-hards, clowns, comics, entertainers, artists, performers, jesters, reformers, activists, idealists, dissidents, critics, patriots, and heroes all make me smile.  Time will tell exactly who and what Trump is. He may be all, some, or none of these.

Follow-up:

I answer the questions a friend asked of me after reading the foregoing.  I have eliminated the questions, because I think they are obvious from the answers that follow. They all regard Trump as a candidate, by the way.  My discussion is not a "defense" of Trump; my discussion is whether as an anti-establishment candidate, I could support Trump despite his "negatives."   In other words, underlying the specific question is a rather obvious attempt to cause me to select the lesser of two evils.  
  • I don't believe that Trump is a racist.   I do not think it racist to acknowledge and attempt to solve problems simply because race is involved, impacted, or concerned. I agree that one of the reasons a border should be regulated is to prevent criminals and crime. It is not racist to acknowledge that there are dangerous elements in any demographic, and burdening every demographic to solve the problem can be rational. Trump's rhetoric is often careless. Regardless, everyone (excepting only those who drink the establishment Kool-aid), must admit that in his personal life, Trump displays none of the racist, misogynist, bigoted attributes for which he is criticized.  I won't dismiss the personal attacks upon Clinton, but accept blindly the personal attacks on Trump. I have to believe that some folks love them, others hate them, and neither group of critics completely or accurately characterizes the candidate.  
  • Yes, I could easily dismiss Trump's rhetoric, even when irresponsible.  It is easily dismissed as being the product of an inexperienced politician.  He does not speak as a politician because he is not a politician (this does not necessarily mean he does not serve the same establishment as politicians).  If he is anti-establishment, I am particularly unconcerned with his repeated political missteps.  I also believe that political correctness, and the demand to so carefully craft ideas and concepts so as to never offend anyone stifles discussion and discourse.  Adults should be expected to accept insult and offense in order to facilitate free discussion and debate.  If someone criticizes Israel, I do not automatically think them anti-semitic; if someone criticizes Isis, I do not automatically think them anti-Muslim.  The establishment politicians and corporate establishment will perpetrate such false generalizations simply because they are divisive.     
  • I don't know whether he is sure of his own positions, and yes they may change as he recognizes political consequence and limitation.  This change is actually comforting.  He is capable of change.  More importantly, Trump is not running as the more capable politician, so evaluating him on that basis is ridiculous.  He is running as the more effective executive.  Clinton is clearly the more capable politician. 
  • He may not be able to accomplish what he promises.  Aside from the fact that this is inherent in politics, it is not a serious challenge unless one truly believes he is making promises he knows he cannot keep solely for the purpose of attaining power.  That would suggest he serves the establishment  The same charge could be made against any political opponent, and must be accepted as legitimate as against Clinton, since no one doubts that she is, and therefore serves, the establishment.  The question, for me, is whether he will attempt changes that threaten the corporate agenda served by the political establishment.    
  • The suggestion that Trump is a megalomaniac intent on world domination is no more believable than the same charge leveled at his opponent.  Clinton has a pretty clear track record of corruption, though. She is a brilliant politician.  I see her as no more likely, but clearly more capable, at making a run at world domination.
  • The establishment can't decide, whether Trump is unable accomplish what he says, or that what he might accomplish is wrong or dangerous.  If he is unable to accomplish that he says, why the hysteria over the possible impact?  If he stated that he was opposed to gay marriage, for example (he isn't, by the way), what importance would it be?  So what if he made a statement during a discussion in which Chris Mathews adeptly led him to consider the logical consequence of attempting to criminalize abortion.  Simply, his position, which is best characterized as politically naive, even if logical, is irrelevant.  The courts made the issue nearly irrelevant to Presidential elections (and I am aware of no cache of Scalias or Thomases with which to populate the Supreme Court -remember establishment mendacity- history shows that the greater likelihood is that Trump would support what he thinks is a conservative only to find an O'Connor, Kennedy, or Roberts). I have the same opinion regarding Clinton's out-of-the-mainstream view of abortion rights.  Much of the criticism of both candidates, even if true, is irrelevant. 
  •  If Trump can't magically deport every undocumented immigrant, even though I don't believe he has ever promised such a magical solution, who cares?  When he is pushed on things like the wall, and enforcement, he simply defers by stating that he'll get it done, or "it's easier than you might think," or some such deflection.  Really, opponents and  the media often imprint on his statements what they want so that they can criticize him, just like the right-leaning media, and opponents do with Clinton.   But, as a seasoned a capable politician Clinton leaves less opportunity by carefully crafting her words and positions, or more capably deflecting (reporters have been asking her for what seems like ten years from whom she received approval or authorization to set up her own email server--go read the responses and good luck finding an answer).  Clinton has not held a full and open press conference in God knows how long, and she rarely speaks off-script. Trump is NOT a politician.   When you throw a novice politician into these events, you get what we have seen.  That is why a seasoned politician doesn't often take the risk of challenging the establishment. 
  • His rhetoric is coarse.  It is sometimes immature.  Coarseness doesn't bother me. His coarseness disproves for me that he is a misogynist, a racist, or a bigot, by the way. His rhetoric is un-apologetically directed at his foes, and those he opposes, and he treats foes and opponents harshly.  In other words, he does not treat women differently than men, for example- if you are a foe or opponent you are treated harshly. Of course, you aren't suggesting that any group should be treated more gently than another, right?  This would only concern me if I was looking for a kinder, gentler President, rather than an effective and capable President. At the end of the day, the question is whether it is possible for a person to "gently" confront the establishment. Sanders is an excellent example of how difficult that path is, because he has the heart, and the ideas, but sometimes lacks the forcefulness to call a cheater a cheater or a liar a liar.  Nice man, but is he really anti-establishment if he is not ready to squarely and forcefully  confront  the establishment rhetorically and ideologically?  As for immaturity, I can easily resolve that as 1) his background and training not serving to conform him to the norms we are told we must accept from politicians; or 2) a contrivance designed to increase his appeal to the voters most likely to reject the establishment.  Consider this, knowing what we know, would either Lincoln, FDR or Churchill be acceptable politicians if everything they said was dissected by a media establishment hell-bent on their destruction?
  • He makes me smile.  That is as far as I have gone in my consideration or support. 
                     

Personal finance news - CNNMoney.com

Finance: Estate Plan Trusts Articles from EzineArticles.com

Home, life, car, and health insurance advice and news - CNNMoney.com

IRS help, tax breaks and loopholes - CNNMoney.com