High Fructose Corn Syrup is high priced, unhealthy, poison
What poison am I talking about? A poison that many don’t realize is one of the most unhealthy and expensive substances that many of you eat or drink every day. This poison costs you at the cash register, on tax day, and in the end in your health insurance bill when the consumption of it makes you substantially, and unnecessarily, less healthy. The poison I’m referring to is called High Fructose Corn Syrup, or HFCS for short. HFCS is used in many foods and beverages as a substitute for regular sugar to sweeten the flavor of many products that we eat and drink.
HFCS was invented in a Japanese laboratory in the 1960s as a sugar substitute because sugar prices were high, and it’s not a natural product at all. HFCS is a highly processed substance made via an extremely complex manufacturing process involving several steps and the use of several enzymes and other substances to process and refine the corn syrup in order to maximize it’s fructose content. In the end, it creates a sweetener that is in some ways sweeter than sugar, but substantially less expensive for food producers than sugar because the HFCS is massively subsidized by taxpayers via the farm policies that support corn growing. Additionally, something our government did to favor HCFS over sugar, in the later 1970s, was to limit the importing of sugar, which raised the price of sugar and made it even less competitive against HFCS. If we stopped subsidizing HFCS through corn subsidies, sugar would likely be as cheap if not cheaper than HFCS.
Due to the subsidies, we pay for the high cost of HFCS when we pay our taxes, that go to corn and HFCS producers. Because a high percentage of corn is grown for the production of so much HFCS (and corn ethanol to add to the gasoline), this creates less of a supply of corn grown for livestock feed and human consumption of corn as food, leading to higher prices for the corn that we eat, and high prices of all the meats that are raised by feeding corn to cows, pigs, and chickens. In short, the subsidies to corn cost us tax dollars, and also costs us more dollars at the cash register at the supermarket in the form of higher grocery prices. HFCS is a bad deal all around for us as consumers, and it’s even worse when health issues regarding it are taken into consideration.
HFCS is also the least healthy form of sugar you can consume. In fact, it is so unhealthy, it should be called Type 2 Diabetes in a bottle, or a can, because it does more to increase one’s risk of insulin resistance, and Type 2 Diabetes, than any other sweetener used in food and beverages. Simply put, there are several forms of sugars, and they very in healthiness, or unhealthiness, by the degree to which they cause your blood sugar to spike. This is what physicians refer to as the glycemic index of a sweetener. Fructose is the worst on this scale, and Dr. Mercola recommends that healthy individuals consume no more than 25 grams of it per day, and those with blood sugar, insulin resistance issues, or any type of Diabetes should consume fewer than 15 grams of the stuff. He explains it here, and also notes that the sweetener that has the highest concentrations of fructose is HFCS.
The reason HFCS is much less healthy than regular sugar is quite simple. Regular sugar is made up of a molecule of glucose tied to a molecule of fructose, and the digestive process of your body separates these, and the glucose is the preferred sugar for your body, while the fructose is processed by the liver into body fat, and when too much of that happens, your blood sugar rises, the body creates more insulin, your blood sugar rises, and you are more likely to gain weight. Over time, this process taking place more due to higher consumption of sugar causes insulin resistance, and ultimately Type 2 Diabetes. No one in immune from this. And consuming HFCS brings about this condition so much sooner since it not only contains a much higher percentage of fructose, but the processing of it separates the molecules of fructose from the glucose. This means the fructose is more readily absorbed and processed, spiking ones blood sugar levels higher and faster, and leading to much more rapid insulin resistance. Consuming HFCS at ANY levels, now much more moderate, is unhealthy!
Not only does HFCS cause insulin resistance and Type 2 Diabetes, but it is also implicated in causing hearth disease, obesity, cancer, dementia, liver failure, tooth decay, and number of other health issues. The stuff is just really incredibly unhealthy, it truly is poison and no one should ever eat or drink the stuff!
You pay for HFCS in taxpayer subsidies, and then in the highest costs of food. The third way you pay for HFCS, if you consume the stuff, over time is in the form of poor health, the limits to the quality of your life that such poor health will lead to, and the costs of your health care for that poor health. Treatment for all those health issues, possibly with expensive prescription medications, surgeries, and other medical treatment will run up gigantic medical bills. Most of us will pay those bills to the insurance companies, the hospitals and doctors, or to the government in taxes to pay for the higher costs of programs like Medicaid, Medicare, and Obamacare. The more HFCS consumed, the more we’re all going to rendering to Caesar, and Kaiser Permanente, perhaps, as well.
You can eat and drink HFCS if you wish. Check the ingredients of all the food and beverages you purchase if you’re wishing to avoid it. But if you choose to keep drinking and eating HFCS, you will be paying for it now and in the future in at least three ways financially, and in a major way with poor health. HFCS really is poison. And it would likely go away if we stopped subsidizing it with our tax dollars.
Ted Cruz campaign suspended
The objective of course, for those of us who supported Ted Cruz for president last year and this year, was for Senator Ted Cruz to win the GOP nomination, and then defeat Hillary Clinton in November. That plan fell short as Donald Trump won more votes, more states, and more delegates on his way to the nomination, than Ted Cruz did. While we appreciate and honor all that was done by Senator Cruz himself, and everyone who supported his campaign, it is important at the same time that we learn some lessons about why this campaign fell short of winning the nomination for Cruz. If we fail to learn from this experience, we are only likely to repeat those mistakes in the future.
While this is the time to learn from our experience, it is also not the time to turn on our own fellow supporters, because some of us suggest we learn from this experience, or that some of us say it’s time to unite behind our party’s nominee to defeat Hillary Clinton, or because some react to any of this by suggest some of us were never really Ted Cruz supporters anyway. I’ve already seen some of this divisive chatter online, and it has no place in this discussion. A few are showing signs of scary fanaticism at this point, in voicing these kinds of reactions to the more level-headed voices in the aftermath of Cruz’s defeat by Trump.
First, let’s be realistic about the candidate himself. Many of us hoped, and even expected, that Cruz is or would become the second coming of Ronald Reagan himself. He wasn’t. Sure Cruz was the most consistently conservative candidate that ran in 2016, and that had a lot of appeal to many conservatives around the country. And when he lasted to become the strongest challenger to Donald Trump left, he became the last hope of preventing Trump from winning the nomination. Ted Cruz came a long way to be in that position, considering where he started last year. He was, after all, a first term senator, who hasn’t yet finished his first term, who really wasn’t ready to run for president yet.
In a country plagued by eight years of failed and disastrous economic policies, and still suffering from a Great Recession we haven’t actually recovered from, a strong prosperity message would easily win. A solid plan to bring Middle Class Prosperity back to this country would be an easy winner. The voters gravitated to the closest thing that sounded like a Middle Class Prosperity message, the Make America Great Again theme offered by Donald Trump. What did Ted Cruz offer, he was the most consistent and principled defender our Constitutional liberties. That’s great and it has a lot of appeal to conservative activists. But if had little appeal to the voters out there who are struggling to pay their bills and stay afloat in this rotten economy. Cruz’s message was great for the conservative activist class but failed to inspire most Republican voters who are looking for some hope of getting out the depressing economic failures of the last seven years of Barack Obama. Voters are fed up with politics-as-usual, and the current administration, and its politics, and Trump connected far more effectively to that anger than Cruz did. Ted Cruz could have easily inspired voters with a strong Middle Class Prosperity message, and he would have easily defeated Trump if he had done that. His failure to do this is only Ted Cruz’s making, we can’t blame anyone else, not even The Donald.
Somewhere along the line, the Cruz campaign abandoned any realistic hope of winning 1237 delegates and winning the nomination legitimately, and instead focused on a strategy of winning in the event of a contested convention where Cruz would obtain a majority of delegates on the second or third ballot in Cleveland. The Cruz campaign was well aware of how the Ron Paul campaign in 2012 gamed the system and sought to win delegates at state conventions where Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum had won the primary or caucus votes, and therefore should have won the delegates, for those states. So Cruz’s campaign staff out-hustled The Donald’s campaign by skulking around at county and states conventions in many states to win delegates that were supposed to be, in many instances, pledged to vote for Donald Trump on the first ballot in Cleveland.
This process didn’t look right, and The Donald exploited the poor optics of this strategy by accusing the Cruz campaign of gaming the system, and also accusing the party leadership of running a rigged process. The optics worked for Trump, and against Cruz, and after Cruz’s big win in Wisconsin, every state after that voted against Cruz and for Trump, including a state that Ted Cruz was winning in, according to polls, and should have won: Indiana. Ted Cruz’s problems with optics were clear the night he lost the five states in the Northeast. Cruz supporters who dismiss Ted Cruz’s losses in those states because they are “more liberal” states politically are only fooling themselves with that convenient, and inaccurate, analysis. A candidate running on a strong Middle Class Prosperity message would win just about all the states, including those in the Northeast.
Even after those losses, I was assuring everyone who would listen that Ted Cruz would rebound in Indiana, and he still had a chance, even if his chance was slim. I still argued, that Ted Cruz was a far better choice than Donald Trump for the GOP nomination. I wrote and told everyone I communicated with that Cruz was still the best candidate to do all the things that needed to be done, in working to repeal the entire Obama agenda (including but not only Obamacare) and move the country forward towards freedom, prosperity, and a foreign policy based on advancing American interests around the world rather than solving all the worlds problems, regime change, and nation building. Ted Cruz was the only real conservative in the race, I wrote and told everyone who would listen. I never declared myself #NeverTrump, because I made it clear I am #NeverHillary, but I said we would definitely be much better off as a country to nominate and elect Ted Cruz as our next president. I argued these issues with Trump supporters as much as anyone did, including with close friends who were and are Trump supporters.
And then April 27 came. For a moment, time stood still. I was in shock. A friend called, before I could read any news online or hear it on the radio or television, and asked me, did you hear that Ted Cruz is going to announce Carly Fiorina as his running mate today? I said he’s going to announce what, and my friend repeated the news. After a few seconds of digesting the news, I asked, is that real? I thought this could be an April Fool’s joke 26 days late. I was assured it was for real. I asked, what was Ted Cruz smoking when he came up with this idea?
The announcement was wrong on so many levels. It looked so desperate and amateur hour a move. It was a move made only by a losing campaign, picking someone who had come in seventh place in the presidential nomination contest this year, picking up very little support along the way. In no way would such a weak and losing candidate bring anything to the ticket for Ted Cruz. Strategically, the timing and the choice of Carly Fiorina was a terrible decision.
Politically, this choice invalidated just about every reason I so strongly supported Ted Cruz, because Carly Fiorina is not anything that Ted Cruz in fact is. I ranked Fiorina at the very bottom of just about all the 17 candidates that ran this, including even Jeb Bush, because she’s not a conservative, she’s not an outsider, she’s not a reformer, and she is corrupt, tied to cronyism, and bought and paid for and connected to the establishment. To pick Carly Fiorina as his running mate, is just as bad as if Cruz had picked Jeb Bush or Lindsey Graham. If Ted Cruz really thinks Fiorina is qualified to be vice president, how can I be confident, or tell others, he will make great appointments to the Supreme Court or cabinet positions? Suddenly I lost confidence in Ted Cruz to make good decisions after how badly he blundered on the Carly Fiorina decision.
Up until exactly nine days ago today, I supported Ted Cruz for president as much as anyone, argued for his candidacy with anyone, and really believed he was the best candidate for the GOP nomination, and to actually be the president. The he made the pick of Carly Fiorina, quite prematurely, as his would-be running mate if he won the nomination, and the GOP convention went along with Fiorina being the candidate for vice president. It is no coincidence that, just six days after making this colossal blunder of a running mate announcement, and the totally non-Cruz type individual he chose to be the running mate, moderate and squishy Carly Fiorina, Cruz has no choice but to suspend his campaign after being destroyed and losing all 57 Indiana delegates to Donald Trump, just days after Nate Silver’s Polls Plus forecast had Ted Cruz winning the state. Let’s not mince words, and let’s be honest enough to admit it, the Fiorina choice had more than anything else, any other factors, in ending Cruz’s 2016 quest for the GOP nomination. I know there will be some fellow Ted Cruz supporters that don’t want to hear this, or read it, but it’s time for us to be honest with ourselves, and learn the lessons, and not just keep telling us those things that make us feel better, in a false way. Ted Cruz made the mistakes that lost this nomination battle. Donald Trump is not the problem here, nor is he to blame.
Ted Cruz, himself, was the strongest asset his campaign had, as the strong conservative candidate who, as an almost unknown first term senator before that, attracted as much support as he did in this campaign for president. But it was also Ted Cruz, and those he appointed or hired to run his campaign, that made all the mistakes, including the delegate strategy that created such bad optics, the choice to not emphasize a Middle Class Prosperity message that clearly would have won this campaign, and then in the end, the Carly Fiorina decision that was the last straw of a desperate and losing campaign. Ted Cruz made these mistakes, not Donald Trump.
Those are the lessons of the 2016 Ted Cruz for president campaign. We can learn from them and be better prepared for next time. Or we can bash Trump supporters, and those who call for Republicans to unify behind the GOP nominee, and keep our heads in the sands and be doomed to repeat those mistakes next time.
Obamacare failure evident with exit of UnitedHealth
The exit of UnitedHealth from the 34 Obamacare exchanges where it has been selling medical insurance policies signals the likely and eventual failure of the Affordable Care Act. Due to $650 million in cited losses in 2016, UnitedHealth’s departure will leave many consumers only one or two health insurance choices at their Obamacare exchanges. This exit is likely to drive up the cost of insurance plans sold at the exchanges.
There are some key problems with the way Obamacare is functioning that doom it to failure. Enrollees in health insurance via the Obamacare exchanges, according to the Blue Cross Blue Shield Assocation, cost about 22 percent more to cover than those who have employer-based health insurance. While UnitedHealth didn’t offer the lowest-priced insurance plans, it still failed to make a profit participating in offering plans on the exchanges.
Other insurance carriers, 70 percent of them, are sustaining losses participating in the Obamacare exchanges and are likely to withdraw from them as well. This will inevitably lead to higher premiums for the health insurance plans that will continue to be offered on the exchanges, and with the enrollees of the departed carriers enrolling in the remaining plans, the predicted “death spiral” of Obamacare seems quite likely.
This development follows the failure of more than one dozens of the state-based Obamacare exchanges, including the politically spectacular failure of Cover Oregon in that state. The states whose exchanges have failed, have joined the over-loaded and challenged federal Healthcare.gov exchange instead. Some states, including Oregon and Maryland, have sued the IT firms involved in developing their failed state exchanges.
The real problems with the United States health care system, including the number of citizens who lacked coverage and the expenses and bureaucracy involved in being covered, had very real solutions that could have been enacted by Congress, but none of those solutions involved engineering a complete takeover of the health insurance industry, more or less, by the federal government. Congress could have cut costs with market-based reforms that would allow competition and customer choice, and it could have allowed sale of insurance plans across state lines, and it might have also enacted a far more modest and cost-effective program to cover those who lacked coverage and couldn’t afford themselves to purchase it. But they opted, on strictly party-line votes and relying entirely on support of only Democrats in the Congress and the Senate, to pass the so-called Affordable Care Act that President Barack Obama signed into law.
At every level, except for the 13 million who allegedly gained coverage under the plan (most of them federally subsidized at taxpayer expense), Obamacare has been an epic failure. Any other attempt to re-invent in the form of a big government program, a system as complex as health care that has been far better performed by the free market, would be expected by competent economist to be a complete failure. The disaster that is Obamacare should be no surprise to anyone, and especially the critics of the variations of the Affordable Care Act, when it was debated in Congress, who predicted it would be a complete failure.
It is becoming more clear, with this news that UnitedHealth is exiting Obamacare, that President Obama’s so-called signature health care reform, is an epic failure. It is only a matter of time before the public sees, and also experiences first hand, how badly failed it is before Congressional members of both parties will have no choice but to repeal Obamacare and figure out how to truly reform health care. The sooner that day comes, the better for the American people.
The choice of Carly Fiorina invalidates most reasons for supporting Ted Cruz
After the announcement today of Carly Fiorina, by Ted Cruz, as his running mate, I no longer can support this candidacy and the candidate advancing any further in this year’s 2016 presidential contest for the GOP nomination for president. This is a move that, in my mind, almost completely invalidates all the reasons for supporting Cruz in this race. And remember, I declared my support not long ago to #NeverHillary and I still stick to that. I will never support anything, anyone, or otherwise that helps Hillary Clinton become president.
For several months I have supported Ted Cruz for president, advised everyone who would listen to vote for him in the primaries, and then I voted for him in the primary myself on March 1. I made the case so many times for nominating yet another first term senator for president, who although not perfect, had many qualities that made him the best choice for the nomination this year among the candidates who were running. I made the case many times how much he’s a solid conservative Republican who would do what needs to be done as president, and appoint great choices for Supreme Court justices, and federal judges, all the positions in the cabinet and all the other appointments that presidents make. I believed that he, as much as anyone else, understands that personnel is policy, and the people a president appoints are every much as important as the policies the administration will advocate and advance.
The first key personnel choice, that is usually made by nominees who are assured of winning the nomination as opposed to a candidate who has not yet won that nomination, is the choice of a running mate to be the candidate for vice president, the second highest office in the land. The key qualification for a candidate for vice president, since they can become president, is being qualified to be president. This choice also is the candidate’s first chance to prove that they have solid and sound judgment, and that they understand that personnel is policy. So what do we get from Ted Cruz’s first appointment, as someone who would be president, for the second spot? We get someone who most Republican voters have rejected, this year, for president, namely Carly Fiorina. Almost no one deemed her to be qualified for president, therefore, why would anyone suggest she is qualified to run for vice president? Why did Ted Cruz come to this judgment and select her to be his running mate?
I will not mince words. This running mate choice by Ted Cruz today is an abominably terrible choice. It is the wrong candidate for vice president, announced at the most wrong time, and done for all the wrong reasons. This choice, and its timing, strikes out on all counts. This has been described as a desperate “hail Mary” by pundits. They’re right, it’s a hail Mary that was intercepted in the end zone and returned for a touchdown by the opposing team. Use all the sports cliches you want, but this very terrible call by Ted Cruz is game, set, and match for Donald Trump, who will win the GOP nomination this year. I cannot support this nomination in any way. I am not leaving the Cruz campaign, to paraphrase Ronald Reagan referring to his departure from the Democrat Party, the Cruz campaign has left me, and millions of others, behind with this completely un-smart decision to announce Carly Fiorina as his running mate today.
What was the major reason for supporting Ted Cruz and opposing Donald Trump for the nomination? Consistent, courageous, constitutional, conservative reigniting the promise of America? Remember that? Was it for real or just talk? And we were told how un-conservative Donald Trump is. A candidate promising a consistent, courageous, constitutional, and conservative administration should know that personnel is policy, and creating and building such an administration would start, when the choice is announced at the right time, with an announcement of a candidate for the nomination for vice president who fits that description. Congressman Dave Brat would be perfect. But I know not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and someone like South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley or New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez would have been an excellent choice.
But also-ran presidential candidate, and abysmally failed former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, is the best that Ted Cruz can come up with? Really? First, Fiorina is not a conservative. Not even close, as President Obama said. Not. Even. Close. She wasn’t successful in the business world, she was a disaster as CEO of HP and then got fired by the board. She was an epic failure as Republican nominee for California Senator against Sen. Barbara Boxer. She failed badly as a presidential candidate this year, coming in something like seventh place in a field of 16 candidates. How does the seventh place also-ran candidate some how bring energy and balance to a Ted Cruz presidential ticket? Is this for real? Is this a really bad April fools joke announced 26 days too late? Is this possibly the worst running mate choice ever made by someone who has chance (quickly fading after this announcement) of winning the nomination of one of the two major parties for president? Maybe George McGovern’s choice of Thomas Eagleton in 1972 was perhaps a more unwise choice.
If this is the best that Ted Cruz can come up with, in making his first major personnel decision, what kind of appointments will he make as president? How can I assume he knows what are good choices for justices, judges, and cabinet appointments if he actually thinks anointing Carly Fiorina for vice president is a good choice? This appointment is a joke. If you had told me four months ago that any candidate would have picked Carly Fiorina for vice president, I would have asked, are you predicting that is who Donald Trump’s choice will be? If you had told me that Ted Cruz would nominate Carly Fiorina for vice president, I would have asked you, what are you smoking? Now I’m asking what is Ted Cruz been smoking?
This choice destroys every main reason for supporting Ted Cruz for president. He has appointed someone who is clearly not qualified for the office, and someone who is clearly not a conservative and is clearly less conservative than any of the other candidates still in the race for the GOP nomination this year. Ted Cruz was the only remaining candidate not named Donald Trump who still had some outside chance of winning the GOP nomination for president. Now that clearly will not happen. Ted Cruz will lose many supporters with this move, and Donald Trump will easily win most of the remaining delegates on his way to exceeding the needed 1237 delegates and winning the nomination. I strongly hope that Trump will make a better nomination for vice president when the time comes, because clearly he will be the 2016 GOP nominee for president.
Defeating, and saving the country from, Hillary Clinton is the highest objective for November. I don’t want the sophistry about Donald Trump being just as liberal as Hillary Clinton, because it’s clearly not true, even if Trump may not be as conservative as many of us would prefer. But he is going to be a Republican nominee, and unifying behind his candidate in Cleveland will be necessary for defeating Hillary Clinton.
Ted Cruz has, with the announcement of this incredibly bad choice for a running mate, reached the same stage of the process that Bernie Sanders has reached in the Democrat nominating process. They should both withdraw, and for the sake of their respective parties unifying for November, support the presumptive nominee of their parties. Staying in the race beyond this point for either of them can on decrease the odds that their party’s nominee wins in November. For our side, the Republican Party nomination contest, that means it’s time for Kasich and Cruz to step out and support the nominee who has been chosen by the highest number of voters, and pledged delegates, in the nominating process.
There is no doubt that Trump will reach 1237 delegates, and legitimately win the GOP nomination by the party’s nominating rules. That being the case, it’s time to unite behind the nominee and beat Hillary Clinton in November. We have a nominee and it’s time for all Republicans to support the Republican nominee, Donald Trump, to beat Hillary in November.
The GOP Delegate Process has revealed the need for reform
The battle for the GOP nomination this year has been perhaps the most divisive contest yet. We have seen a degree of passion by supporters of candidates that seems unmatched by what we’ve seen in the recent past. In the process of the primaries and caucuses of this year, we’ve also spirited campaigns run by Donald Trump and Ted Cruz for the nomination, not to mention the other candidates who also ran. But in the end, the GOP will need to nominate a candidate and hope to unite behind the nominee and defeat Hillary Clinton in November.
The stress of this hotly contested fight for the nomination has revealed some shortcomings in the GOP delegate process and this has highlighted the need for some reform going forward after this election year. Ted Cruz trails Donald Trump substantially in pledged and elected delegates, and he his staff and supporters skulking around in the bowels of the GOP delegate process to win uncommitted delegates, those not pledged to support primary or caucus winners, or other delegates that can somehow be won by means other than winning primary or caucus votes from registered voters. Cruz can engage in this strategy under the rules, but many voters and supporters of other candidates perceive this to be wrong if Ted Cruz is gaining support of delegates he didn’t win at the polls when voters turned out for primaries and caucuses.
When the voters in Louisiana participated in their GOP primary, Trump defeated Cruz by 3.6 percent of the vote, with Marco Rubio coming in third place. The 46 delegates of the state were allocated 18 each for Trump and Cruz based on their vote totals, and five delegates to Marco Rubio for coming in third place. Then there were also five uncommitted delegates, and I’m not sure why the state’s GOP delegate rules left those uncommitted rather than also allocating those to the candidates based on the peoples’ votes. All five uncommitted delegates were won by Cruz, who also won over the five Rubio delegates. So while Trump won primary in Louisiana 41.4 percent to 37.8 percent, Cruz comes out with 28 delegates to Trump’s 18 delegates. Cruz played by the rules to win those delegates, but it looks grossly unfair that Trump wins the state and Cruz wins more delegates.
Cruz is winning delegates in other places, and by other means, which is giving openings for supporters of Trump to say the process is rigged and unfair, and accuse Cruz of gaming the system to win delegates he hasn’t won by the voters in primaries and caucuses. Any perception, or reality, that the GOP delegate process is not fair and just will undermine the confidence of voters in the GOP delegate and nominating process. The very legitimate issues that have being raised by this process require some very reform. I have some ideas I”ll share here for some basic reforms that will improve this process and dramatically increase our confidence in the integrity and basic fairness of this process in the future.
In most instances, the delegates are only pledged to vote for the candidate they were elected to support on the first ballot at the Republican National Convention, and after that, they can vote for anyone in most instances on any ballots taking place after the first ballot. Additionally, they are free to vote for convention rules that benefit anyone, and not necessarily the rules their pledged candidate wants passed. And furthermore, the actual delegates don’t even have to be supporters of the candidate who won the primary or caucus, they are more likely to be party insiders. This year, that means many of these delegates being sent to Cleveland as delegates for Trump or Cruz are not actually Trump or Cruz supporters.
The first change that needs to be made in the GOP delegate process is, the actually delegates selected need to be supporters of the candidate who won those delegates, preferably actual supporters of that candidate selected by that candidate or their campaign. In the instance where a candidate hasn’t name enough Republicans to be their delegates, the party should select them but they should be pledged to vote for that candidate who won those delegates (based on primary or caucus votes) on all ballots or until the candidate releases delegates or withdraws from the campaign. There should also be no uncommitted delegates or so-called “super delegates.” Every delegate from each states should be allocated based on the votes cast in the primaries and caucuses, either proportionally or winner-take-all, whichever each states chooses to allocate their delegates based on the votes.
The individual states can also enact other rules, such as placing a minimum percent of votes received before a candidate is allocated delegates. In some states, a candidate must win 15 or 20 percent of votes to win delegates, which narrows down how many candidates the delegates will be split between. The states can choose to allocate delegates by winner-take-all, either state-wide or by congressional districts or other units. Some states could even use instant-runoff-voting to narrow down the number of candidates getting over a certain percent of the vote, or to allocate all the delegates to the top two or three vote-getters in the process. Whatever rules are adopted, it should be considered what best represents the voters casting their voters, while also arriving at a process where a candidate ultimately has a chance of winning enough votes to become the choice of the voters of the party.
The purpose of reforming the system should be to create a system where the choice of the voters become the party’s nominee, and one in which the legitimate winner under the rules is also the candidate the voters chose and therefore is also perceived legitimately to have won the nomination. Reforming the GOP delegate process in this way will make it more likely the party can unite around a candidate who becomes the nominee. This also makes it more likely Republicans can nominate a candidate who can win the general election running against the nominee of the Democrats. That, after all, is the reason why we nominate a candidate, to have our choice actually getting elected to the office. We don’t run issue campaigns, we support our candidate to actually win the office.
Ted Cruz presidency in the first 100 days
A Ted Cruz presidency, as least in the first hundred days, would be primarily efforts to repeal and reverse the economically and socially damaging policies of the current president, Barack Obama, that was quite accurately labeled “The Great Destroyer” in a book by that title by David Limbaugh, as well as efforts to advance public policies that would bring about a strong economic recovery and begin the repairing of the social fabric of our county, as well as a return to an American-interests-first foreign policy.
Ted Cruz has enormous support among Republicans voters because he’s a mainstream but consistent conservative who is an economic conservative as well as social conservative while also being a strong national security conservative. Ted Cruz will implement a plan to protect Americans from extreme Muslim-influenced terrorism while eradicating ISIS. During the campaign, Cruz has made it clear the policy of apologizing for America will end, and we’ll see a return of the Reagan policy that says we win, and enemies of America around the world will lose. Ronald Reagan won the Cold War, and President Ted Cruz will likewise win the war on terrorism.
First, after delivering a quite Reaganesque inauguration address, President Ted Cruz will be ready on day one to sign several executive orders, including many that would reverse so many of the unconstitutional and destructive “executive actions” signed by President Barack Obama. Many needless regulations and other damaging policies of the current administration would be reversed on day one by President Cruz.
Ted Cruz will propose to Congress his simple flat tax plan, where everyone pays 10 percent, and gets a $10,000 standard deduction and a $4000 personal exemption. The IRS would be abolished, and the thousands of pages of tax forms will be replaced with a one-page tax form we’ll all fill out to pay our taxes. The plan will lower everyone’s taxes, help bring about solid economic growth, and create millions of high-paying jobs.
President Cruz will submit to the Congress a strong Balanced Budget Amendment, because the federal government, like our own households, needs to learn how to live within it means and stop spending money that it doesn’t have. And Ted Cruz knows that, despite more than 100 million Americans being unemployed, the federal government is going to take in more than $3 trillion in income tax revenue this year, a record amount, and it proves the government is squeezing excessively too much tax revenue from hard working Americans. Cruz knows that major tax relief for the middle class of America, which his plan will accomplish, will bring about strong economic growth.
Like Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, President Cruz will seek to reduce the size, scope, and intrusiveness of the federal government by eliminating five federal government departments that aren’t needed, or are not provided for in the Constitution. President Ted Cruz will propose eliminating the IRS and the Departments of Education, Energy, Commerce, and Housing and Urban Development. Additionally, Cruz will eliminate a number of other needless Agencies, Bureaus, Commissions and other programs that benefit the special interests groups and their corrupt cronies at taxpayer expense. As Senator, Ted Cruz proposed eliminating the rogue and out-of-control Consumer Financial Protection Bureau created under the Dodd-Frank banking regulation law, and he will submit that to Congress as president.
As president, Ted Cruz will re-institute President Reagan’s Grace Commission to root out waste, fraud, and abuse of federal spending under many areas of the federal government, and implement thousands of cost-cutting and revenue-enhancing ideas to bring about more efficient better government rather than bloated and inefficient bigger government. Additionally, President Cruz will fully empower and unleash the very effective Recovery Audit Contractors program to examine all payments from and root out all the waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicare, Medicaid, and all other federal health care programs.
From day one, Ted Cruz will send Congress legislation to repeal Obamacare and replace it with legislation that will reform health care by moving toward a number of free market concepts. President Cruz will replace Obamacare with a plan including Health Savings Accounts for all, elimination of the provisions against affordable catastrophic health insurance plans, tort reform that would eliminate frivolous lawsuits and bring down the costs of medical malpractice insurance for doctors, and the allowing of purchasing of medical insurance across state lines to create a real health care marketplace, as opposed to a failed Washington D.C. web site the administration fraudulently calls a “marketplace” for health insurance under Obamacare.
President Cruz would pursue strong regulatory reform that would get needless regulations out of the way of American businesses from being able to create good paying rewarding employment opportunity. And with the repeal of Obamacare that destroyed tens of millions of full-time jobs by converting them to part-time jobs, full-time employment will come back again under a strong economic recover we will see within the first term of the presidency of Ted Cruz.
President Ted Cruz will implement an all-of-the-above energy policy that would involving drilling and fracking for our own sources of oil, natural gas, and clean-burning coal so we truly will become energy-independent rather than reliant on the likes of Saudi Arabia and other Middle East countries. Ted Cruz will not subsidize expensive and un-marketable renewable energy, but under the robust economy that his policies will create, it won’t be long before market-viable renewable energy will be created by the private sector, under the President Ted Cruz, that will come about much sooner than any big government subsidized renewable energy program will ever create.
American will be back again, under President Ted Cruz. He will appoint Supreme Court Justices and federal judges that will uphold The Bill of Rights and all of our Constitutionally protected freedoms. Under Ted Cruz, American will win again and the entire world will know it. Peace and stability around the globe will return when the world’s lone superpower, the United States of America, will once again step up to the role of being the world’s leading advocate of peace, prosperity, and justice around the world. As Dinesh D’Souza chronicles in the documentary America: Imagine the World Without Her, the United States has much to be proud of in our history, and American Exceptionalism is very real, and will once against be celebrated under President Ted Cruz, as it was under President Ronald Reagan.
And the free market economy, which as Ryan Houck of FreeMarketAmerica says of it in his great viral video, “the free market is the only force in human history to uplift the poor, establish the middle class and create lasting prosperity.” The Free Market truly is the only way we can have a large and growing middle class and have prosperity within reach of the highest percentage of our population that desire it. Socialism can never do this, and only fails when we run out of other people’s money to steal from Peter and pay it to Paul, and Ted Cruz understands economics quite well and knows this.
It would be clear in the first 100 days, that the policies advanced by Ted Cruz as president will help improve the quality of life of all Americans. Ted Cruz as president will truly reignite the promise of America. Ted Cruz will truly bring back the American Dream.