Friday, June 10, 2011

Obamanomics

How responsible is Obama for the United States economic problems?

Obama’s economic knowledge is very limited consisting of mostly of Harvard elitist theories of cap and trade and other academia leftist nonsense. The usual university fare for the young and intellectually curious. The theories are fine for a university but laughable to any Austrian economist. The out of school education he received from his mother, grandmother, friends, Islamic influences, and Frank Davis have been leftist, to put it kindly. He was handicapped by his family and a inferior formal education at Harvard from almost the day he entered politics.

Is it any wonder his presidency will be as infamous as Herbert Hoover’s?

Obama has deferred to leftist Keynesian economist and they have led the economy to the precipice of ruin. Christina Romer was the first with her infamous promise that unemployment would not exceed 8%. Austan Goolsbee picked up the Keynesians baton and ran with it. Timothy Geithner is another true believer in the English fairy tales by John Maynard Keynes and his classic work, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money.

Before Republicans criticize Obama and the Democrats too harshly George H. W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush were Keynesians to some extent. W and his advisor, Hank Paulson, was the most fervent believer of the English fairy tales.

To understand these believers first it is important to understand the fundamental differences between Keynesians economist and Austrian economist and why they disagree so vehemently.

The Austrians look at the Keynesians as a bunch of 16th century doctors practicing bloodletting, covering patents with leeches to get rid of the “bad” blood. The Keynesians look at themselves as the enlightened elite who are the intellectual cream of the crop and destined to lead the nation of dullards to the promised economic Valhalla. Keynesians are about 90% of the economist employed and virtually 100% of the economist in government and universities. Keynesians look at Austrian economist as a bunch of nit wits that would be better off unemployed because they do not think correctly. Similar to how Democrats and Republicans look at each other.

Economist Simon Kuznets got the Keynesian momentum going with his GDP formula Y = C + I + G + NX


Economist Simon Kuznets got the bandwagon going in 1934 (Nobel Prize winner 1971) when he created our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) formula that is used to measure economic performance. According to Kuznets the GDP (dependent variable) is made up of four independent variables that are; consumption (C), investment/savings (I), government spending (G) and exports minus imports (NX). This is also sometimes referred to as the aggregate demand curve.

Y = C + I + G + NX

Please notice that the four independent variables in this equation all have equal weight. To a Keynesian government spending adds just as much to the GDP as the other three variables. To an Austrian this is nonsense. Investment and savings are what determine the future living standard. If you are not building factories, roads, electrical capacity, then your future standard of living will suffer.

The Austrian version of the equation would be as follows:

Y = C + (1.05) I + (-) G + NX.

Notice government has a negative sign in front of it because government does not produce anything, it takes from private sector and redistributes private wealth to itself or other favored constituents.

Richard Kahn came up with the multiplier and Keynes expanded the theory in the 1930s. The multiplier is at the heart of Washington economic thought and must be understood if Washington politicians are to be understood.

John Maynard Keynes got a assist from Richard Kahn and Simon Kuznets to create The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money" in 1936."


The theory states that if the federal government spends $100 there is a multiplier affect or that the $100 will create $200 of GDP. The belief is that the $100 is paid to a contractor, who buys materials, who pays workers, who then buy food from the store; the store then buys more food from the farmer and so forth. The result is that the $100 turns into $200 and adds to the GDP.

The second Keynesian belief is that the economy has to be “steered” into full employment or full capacity by federal government and Federal Reserve using “injections” of cash and various stimulus programs.

The Obama January 2009 stimulus package would be an example of a “shovel ready” immediate boost to the economy whereas the Federal Reserves Fall 2010 Quantitative Easing II or QE II would be an example if a “liquidity” injection.

If the economy is at full employment and capacity there is no need to “steer” the economy but if the economy underperforms and there is a GDP “gap” between full capacity and under capacity the intellectual elites in Washington and the Federal Reserve can prescribe the correct amount of stimulus to fix the economy and create full employment much like a doctor would write out a prescription.

So for instance if the 2008 the real GDP was $14.2 trillion and full employment was projected to be $15.2 trillion. The “gap” would be $1 trillion. To a Keynesian the obvious answer is as clear as Rosie O’Donnell’s belly. Spend the correct amount of money, taking into account the multiplier, which will bring the economy back to $15.2 trillion or “full capacity” and employment. This seems logical to the average person and average Keynesian.

Most of Obama's economic education outside universities were lessons from Karl Marx


This is why when the Democrats took over the Congress, Senate, and White House they were so confident that they had the right plan for the economy. The plan was so simple even Obama could understand it. The White House proclaimed loudly that with the January 2009 stimulus package passed unemployment would not go above 8%. It was a done deal.

I calculated the marginal propensity to consume (MPC) and the magic “multiplier” for the 2000s for one of my economics classes.

MPC = change in consumption/change in GDP and the multiplier is 1/1-MPC.

The multiplier according to the Keynesian theory should have been around 3.57. For every federal dollar spent the increase to the GDP should have been 3.57 dollars. This means the Obama stimulus plan should have created about $2.9 trillion in economic growth. The economy would be booming in just a short amount of time! It looks funny now, but they were true believers of what they learned at Harvard and Columbia. Certainly the professors knew what they were talking about. The true believers in the White House certainly thought so.

Bush was the set up man for Obama


Bush, a true Keynesian if there ever was one, started the downward spiral going. He spent $152 billion on tax rebates in 2008, followed by $300 billion to refinance mortgages, followed by the $700 billion for the troubled asset relief program (TARP) and Obama’s $823 stimulus package in January 2009. This was the Keynesian economic theory on steroids.

What should have occurred in the fall 2008 is the economy suffer a very severe recession lasting up to 18 months. If the economy had swallowed that tough economic medicine today the economic growth rate would be 5% to 7%. When a forest burns to the ground it is a devastating event but what happens two years latter? The destruction of the old brings new invigorating growth and creativity. If Bush had stuck to his free market principals and let Wall Street crash and burn we would have a new restructured financial system today better than the old system. Sometimes medicine does not taste good but that does not mean we should avoid taking it.

Using the GDP at that time and added the magic “multiplier” dollars from Bush and Obama to the mix our GDP by the end of 2009 but certainly by 2010 should have been $19.7 trillion! In other words if the Keynesian economic theory was anywhere near valid, lets say only a multiplier of two, the economy would be booming. We would be a full employment. With just a multiplier of two the GDP would be $16 or $17 trillion dollars and full employment.

So what happened?

Unfortunately, the theory and Keynesian economics is complete hog wash.

Will the United States disintegrate into separate nations similar to what happened to the USSR in 1989?


The problem that Keynesians conveniently fail to account for is that if the federal government spends a trillion dollars the money has to come from somewhere. The government has to tax the money from people, borrow the money from people, or print the money that causes inflation and is a hidden tax on the people. In other words the Keynesians only show the good part of government spending and not the bad part where they take money from the people.

Politicians love this because they can, as Obama did, give the money to their favored companies and groups to help with election and re-election campaigns later. Another reason is it is a lot of fun to spend other people’s money.

The theory gives politicians the green light to concentrate wealth and power in Washington and to spend as much as they want and feel good about it. If you were a politician would you not like that kind of a theory? You would get to be a Hollywood star steering the idiot peasants out of harms way and toward economic prosperity. Everyone wants to be a hero. Everyone want to be king. Everyone wants to be a Hollywood star.

Former Goldman Sachs CEO Henry Paulson delivered the billions from the taxpayers to his former employer while at the Treasury Department under Bush.


The second problem with the theory is to a Keynesian the government can spend the money on anything, it does not matter, and it will help the economy equally. To a Keynesian a skateboard park in the middle of Oklahoma is of equal economic benefit to society as cancer research. A Keynesian makes no distinction between the consumption of doctors doing cancer research and a contractor building a skateboard park in the middle of nowhere. This seems insane to any rational human being but the Y =C+I+G+NX equation makes it so. To a Keynesian government spending on wasteful projects is just as important as investment in saving lives.

If that were not bad enough when the government spends money there is always a bureaucracy that siphons money off, sometimes as high as 67 cents of every tax dollar goes toward bureaucracy and red tape. If it were a private charitable company the news media would expose them, and they would go out of business. No billion dollar private charity could have such a poor performance and escape media scrutiny.

Even worse all that money created in the last three years from all the bail outs, Freddie, Fannie, cash for clunkers, mortgage refinancing, and so forth will cause inflation. When the Federal Reserve creates additional money the value of the dollar decrease and the cost of goods and services rise. People ask how do you know there will be inflation. Simple, did the Federal Reserve increase the money supply? Yes. Then there will be inflation. Inflation cannot occur in the extended future if the money supply is stable. This is no great secret to anyone except a Keynesian economist.

Number of banks in the USA over time. Regulation, small competitors leave the industry, gain market share, more revenues, more profits, ask for more regulation in the name of safety and security, repeat as often as needed.


Finally the most devastating part of the Keynesian bail out and money injections is that resources, valuable resources, used to build and create jobs, are misallocated for political proposes instead of being utilized in the private sector.

Why is the private sector so important over government?

Because people employed in the private sector are producing goods and services. Government workers take from the private sector. Government workers do not produce anything. Government workers take resources from the private sector and utilize them in whatever the politicians deem desirable. Producers of wealth verses takers and consumers of wealth. Which one is more important economically?

One of the big economic myths is that if you lay off government workers the economy will be hurt. The exact opposite is true. Government workers COST private sector jobs and divert resources from the productive sector of the economy to the nonproductive sector. This will REDUCE the standard of living for Americans. We need to lay off millions of government workers if we are to save the economy and our nation from ruin.

US Treasury Secretary and former NY Federal Reserve President Timothy Geithner discussing business with Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke


This is not to say we do not need policemen and judges. We need rule of law and stability. That is a legitimate and valuable contribution of government to society. What we do not need is 45% of the GDP consumed by government squandered and wasted to buy votes. Fifteen percent, 15%, is plenty to ensure we have enough resources to ensure the rule of law in a free capitalist society.

People in government and on the left think that everyone is as dumb as they are. We “need” government to tell us how to build a road or regulate our food production. They think that without government food companies would poison their food because it is cheaper to produce and millions would die. They cannot comprehend in a free society any company that engaged it that type of behavior would be almost instantaneously covered up in law suits and bad publicity.

They believe we are 70 IQ dullards that cannot figure out the complexities of designing a road and building it or how to regulate pollution. They fail to understand the power of giving the people property rights. They fail to see that if people had property rights and could sue polluters instead of relying on government to do the job for them there would be no pollution because who in their right mind in a capitalist free society would want to consider the nightmare of thousands of legal actions against them for damages?

Federal Reserve Chairman Benjamin Strong (1914-28) was the set up man for President Herbert Hoovers (1929-33) trip into infamy


In a free capitalist society where property right were enforced there would be LESS pollution because property owners would not tolerate their valuable resources being defiled by a corporation. The left fails to understand the relationship that has always existed between the rich, powerful corporations, and government and they probably never will.

They fail to see how government protects polluters and industry from the citizens through regulations that place enforcement responsibility on the federal government and not the people. Corporations want this regulation and protection from the people and the government is more than willing to provide the legal shield needed to continue so corporations can do as they please.

They fail to see how the federal government creates cartels and enforces the cartels higher profit margins through regulation and corruption. They fail to see the federal government is not on their side. They have been taxed and feed propaganda by the government that took their money and as a reward for getting ripped off they blindly support government policies that favor the wealthy elites in America and against their own financial interest.

They fail to see how regulations from drugs, transportation, health care, automobiles, allow corporations to protect themselves from the public and extract higher profits while reducing competition. The number of banks in the United States has declined from 13.400 to 6,401 from 1988 to 2010. It cost more for smaller banks to comply with regulations than big banks with large administrative staffing. Small start up drug companies cannot afford to wait ten years for the Food and Drug Administration to approve a new drug. It is all a game to the Fortune 500 corporations, they get their politicians to scream about safety and security, pass more regulations, an drive out of business more competitors, gain market share, raise prices, increase profits. Just like that for over a century now. The leftist fail to see what useful idiots they are for the Fortune 500 corporations.

The Central Bank of England Governor Montagu Norman (1920-44) was fixated on returning England to the gold standard at a overvalued rate of $4.80. He persuaded Benjamin Strong to inflate the value of the dollar from 1925 to 1928 creating a real estate and stock market bubble


Austrian economist know that any government burden over 30% is counterproductive. Forget all the hog wash about taxing the rich and social justice. If you do not have a job and are dependent on government there will never be social justice. More government means less social justice to a Austrian economist.

What the 30% number means is that government, federal, state and local government’s share of the GDP should never exceed 30%, preferably 15%. Even at 30% there are damaging affect to economic growth.

If the government share of taxes and consumption was limited to 20%, instead of today’s 45%, including state and local, there would be MORE for the government to consume because the economy would be functioning properly. More voucher schools, hospitals, roads, paychecks, and so forth.

So to answer the question was Obama responsible?

He did drive the final nails into this Keynesian economy. Obama is correct when he blames Bush, but he is so economically ignorant he fails to realize he is doing the EXACT same thing Bush did to destroy our economy. If ever there was a man who should get a refund for his education it would be Obama.

Republican or Democrat, Texan or Hawaiian it makes no difference to the elites in Washington. Different president, same policy.

We have seen the best of the Obama economy. Let me say that again. We have seen the best of the Obama economy. The best we can hope for is another bubble before the collapse.

We have created a money bubble with all the federal spending and borrowing. We have borrowed trillions and invested it into the government sector or non-productive sector of the economy. In 2009 the Obama stimulus bill contained only 12% for infrastructure projects. Simply put we borrow a lot of money and pissed it away.

If we go back and look at our Y = C + I + G + NX equation over the last five years we can see it more clearly. In January 2007 the equation for the was;

GDP = (68.8% of the economy was consumption) + (16.1% was private investment) + (20.1% was government spending), and for this comparison ignore exports and imports.

In 2011 the equation was;

GDP = [68% consumption (up 10.8% in nominal dollar terms)] + [11.9% investment (down 17.4%)] + [23.7% government (up 32.1%) spending], ignoring imports and exports.

From this it is clear what has happened in the last five years. Investment, the most important part of the economy, has declined 26% and government spending, the negative portion of the economy for an Austrian economist, has increased 17.9% in the simplified equation.

So why has consumption stayed about the same at 68% if things are so bad?

We consumed beyond our means by borrowing money from China, Japan and England, and spent it on government workers and projects. The Obama economic plan was nothing more than borrowing money, printing money, and spending it in the hopes that the economy would recover before reality set in. All the “growth” from July 2009 is nothing more than an illusion.

Why is this important now?

The federal credit card just hit its limit. The private bank aka the Federal Reserve is leveraged 53 to 1 and there are no more bullets in the gun. Any more quantitative easing or raising the debt ceiling and monetizing the debt will be meet with swift retaliation from the forces of supply and demand. With even the slightest moderate inflation trillions of red hot cash will come out of the banks holding the cash and flood America like a tsunami. The only silver lining would be if the Federal Reserve went bankrupt.

We have not even hit the payback yet for our irresponsible behavior in Washington. That will come soon.
People forget that in 1929 the economy did not just fall off a cliff. In 1930 the unemployment rate was 8.7%.

Herbert Hoover did much of the damage to create the Great Depression but it was started by Federal Reserve Chairman Benjamin Strong. Strong created his own money bubble in 1925 to 28 when his lifelong friend Montagu Norman, Governor of the Bank of England, politely requested Mr. Strong flood the American financial system with cheap dollars so as to deflate (cheapen) the value of the dollar and inflate the value of the pound. Norman wanted England to return to its prewar glory days where the pound was worth $4.80 and not the post WWI value of $3.50. Strong obliged Norman and created the money bubble that did cheapen the dollar and eventually the conditions for the stock market crash of 1929. Hoover raised taxes, passed tariff increases that cut off trade, created a budget deficit, and generally took a bad situation and made it much worse.

That is where we find ourselves today. Yes Bush did a lot of bad to the economy but Obama is the guy history will remember and the one who led us into the second Great Depression. No one remembers Benjamin Strong. Everyone, even to this day, remembers Hoover. And that will be Obama’s legacy.

What is the bottom line?

One more quantitative easting, one more increase in the debt limit, one more mistake and the house of cards will come crashing down all around us. The progressives will have achieved their goal of bankrupting the country.

We need to rely on local and state government to protect us from Washington. When the USSR became bankrupt the Moscow politicians became a bunch of useless beggars getting money anyway they could. So too will Washington. We need to invest in our local governments to protect us from the thieves in Washington.

How?

Legalize gold and silver. Demand a larger share of the income taxes from Washington to pay for the lack of service. Force Washington to go bankrupt. Demand the end of unfunded mandates, and if worse comes to worse like in the former USSR form separate countries based on the Constitution of the United States as written in 1776. Washington deserve the fate it will receive form the world financial system and from the people it has ripped off for generations.

And when the new nations are formed add 100 amendments limiting the power of the federal government. I would nominate the staff at Ludwig von Misses to perform the honors.

The Federal Reserve is now leveraged 53-to-1

Quite a interesting fact and astounding feat the Federal Reserve has accomplished. The Federal Reserve is so leveraged and has expanded its monetary base so much it is now at 18% of the GDP. The Fed now has $52.6 billion in total capital backing $2.79 trillion in assets. Who wants to invest in that bank? Is it any wonder the Chinese are dumping everything they can while they can. What this means in real terms is the Fed Funds rate will soon be 0.002%. And the Fed is discussing QE III.

Graph prepared by John Hussman of Hussman Funds

The US Dollar continues its slide hitting 73.601. “The head of the international payment department at theChinese forex regulator also warned about the risks of excessive holdings of U.S. dollars.” Translation he is betting the Federal Reserve unveils QE III soon. I would think the Federal Reserve would want to protect its assets and let the economy back into a recession but that might not be a political option.

On a somewhat humorous side note Obama has stopped receiving daily economic briefings. I guess it is pretty tough being a economist around the White House these days. I mean with all that “liquidity” the GDP should be a blistering hot $19.7 trillion by now. I guess even the president realized the Keynesians surrounding him was telling him a bunch of English fairy tales.

Will the dollar permanently go into exile. I think there will be one last rush as Europe collapses and they scurry to a “safe” haven in America. Then the long slide into oblivion with the current economist running the show. Of course we the people could hire some real economist, but that will never happen.

Not the best of times for the US dollar

As reckless and caviler as Bernanke is I do not think he and his board will allow him to go ahead with QE III. If the Fed does that they will be committing financial suicide that would require a tax payer bail out which would be political suicide. Are they willing to risk that? Can anyone imagine Obama and the Democrats going up for re-election in 2012 with another trillion dollar bail out hanging around their neck?

Bernanke knows he is probably out of a job if a Republican wins in 2012. Will he roll the dice on QE III and the hopes of another Keynesian bubble that does not burst until 2013? Will his board let him gamble away any last shred of credibility the Fed has?

This is where the action is, Monetary Base up 200% in last three years

Where are the Jobs?

On the talking heads shows it always annoying that the Democrat political authority will defend fellow Democrats no matter what the evidence is. The latest annoyance was a Democratic operator telling the audience misinformation about jobs Obama has created. The political propagandist always qualifies his or her defense of the Obama job record with the disclaimer that the public cannot count when Obama first became president in January 2009, because that was Bush’s record, and must look at when the Obama recovery started, assumed to be when positive GDP growth occur in July 2009.

Civilian Employment - Population Ratio at a 26-year low, and Obama hacks are bragging about job creation.

Okay fair enough let’s look at the employment data from when the economy “turned around” in July 2009.

From July 2009 to May 2011 private employment has increased from 107,649 (thousands) to 108,916 or an increase of 1.2%. That translates into an annual job growth rate of 8/10ths of one percent a year, all at the cost of increasing the national debt 26% to $14.4 trillion, more important $9.17 trillion in public debt.

The civilian non-institutional population in that time has increased 1.5%. A 1.2% increase in employment and a 1.5% increase in population is not a good trend. In fact it is a horrible trend.

Manufacturing employment has increased 0.2% from July of 2009 to May of 2011. Non-farm jobs have increased 1.5% keeping pace with the population growth.

Civilian Participation Rate at a 26-year low under the Obama Administration


Civilian employment has dropped from July of 2009 to May 2011 from 139,794 (thousands) to 139,779 a decline of 0.01%.

Going through the numbers there is entirely nothing for the Obama Administration to be proud of in creating jobs. At best the billions spent have kept pace with population growth. At worse we are losing ground and millions who want to work cannot find a job.

Leaving aside how the Bureau of Labor Statistics manipulated the politically charged numbers there are a few key numbers that have not been diluted. The first one that is explicitly very telling is the civilian employment-population ratio. This number has declined from 60.6% in January 2009 to 59.3% in July 2009 to 58.4% in May 2011. A drop of 1.5% from July 2009 when the “recovery” began to today.

Is it any wonder people are pessimistic?

Fox News anchor Juan Williams and other Democrats have trouble understanding numbers and concepts like population growth


Another telling statistic is the civilian participation rate. It has gone from 65.7% in January 2009 to 65.5% in July 2009 to today the lowest it has been in 26 years, 64.2%.

So to answer the Democrats and just plain liars on the left, yes there has been a minute amount of job “creation” for our trillions of dollars of deficit spending, which will come back to haunt us, but when the data is look at taken as a whole to include population growth Obama’s economic policies have been a dismal failure, and we have not even seen the consequences of his defect spending yet but we will soon.

If we are ever to have a sane conversation with the Democrats that infest our society with 16th century economic remedies they will have to come to grips with researching and using fact to discus complex subjects like economic policy. Juan Williams will have to look at numbers WITH UNDERSTANDING and not spout off talking points. That will be the day.

This post also appeared in the Florida Political Press on 6-4-2011.

The Federal Reserve’s Delimma

The privatively owned Federal Reserve seems to have gotten itself into quite the financial box these days. By coming to the rescue of its Wall Street buddies the Federal Reserve has essentially put itself into the position that if we have any significant inflation, world economy heats up, investors sell out of bonds and invest significantly into commodities, the Fed will have to cut its profits by selling assets, reducing the monetary base, and driving up interest rates to “tighten” monetary policy and fight inflation. Maybe there is a loving God out there, maybe the Fed will go out of business. Only one problem, despite having no constitutional or congressional approval the Fed is making a special accounting line in its books to transfer the losses to the Treasury Department.

The following appeared in Hussman funds on 4-11-2011.

Charles Plosser and the 50% Contraction in the Fed’s Balance Sheet

John P. Hussman, Ph.D.
All rights reserved and actively enforced.
Reprint Policy

The Federal Reserve choose to "drive" the economy as per Keynesian protocol and may end up someday paying the ultimate price for its foolishness


Last week, an unusual event happened in the money markets that should not escape the attention of investors. The yield on 3-month Treasury bills plunged to less than 5 basis points. As I noted this past January in Sixteen Cents: Pushing the Unstable Limits of Monetary Policy , a collapse in short-term yields to nearly zero is a predictable outcome of QE2, based on the very robust historical relationship between short-term interest rates and the amount of cash and bank reserves (monetary base) that people are willing to hold per dollar of nominal GDP:

“Barring external upward pressures on interest rates, a further non-inflationary expansion of the Fed’s balance sheet of $400 billion, to $2.4 trillion (as contemplated under QE2), would imply the need for 3-month Treasury yields to fall to just 0.05%. Higher rates would be inflationary, because monetary velocity would not be sufficiently restrained. In effect, a further expansion in the monetary base requires that short-term interest rates decline enough to ensure a significant drop in velocity.

Rest of article here.

This is so tragic but the bottom line is if we get inflation, and we will, the silver lining could be if congress can block taxpayers money going to the Federal Reserve to cover their losses we the people might be able to kill the third monopoly bank established in the United States. I know it is a dream but it is one hell of a dream.

On the flip side the Federal Reserve is hoping against all hope that there will be sluggish 3% growth well into the future and interest rates remain low. This is horrible news for the millions unemployed and for any Republican candidate that actually understands the economics involved. Someone like Palin who does not understand economics with the exception she hates government spending and loves drilling would be such a threat. Ron Paul, Gary Johnson if they had popular support. Whoever the economic candidate is that could actually stimulate the economy, and inflation, will be opposed by the Federal Reserve, Wall Street and of course the Washington crowd. The Federal Reserve could be wiped out in a instant if people became optimistic about future economic growth and inflation increased dramatically.

The other option for the Federal Reserve would be to go down printing its way out of insolvency and creating massive amounts of inflation making it the most hated institution in America. A startling option considering congress has a 10% approval rating.

Overall there may be a way for future politicians to end the Fed but it will come at a tremendous cost.

Thursday, June 9, 2011

What kind of pond scum would cheat on this woman?

You know no matter what political party you are with I, in all my years, will never understand how anyone could cheat on these women. Never in my wildest dreams would I, or millions of Americans dream of being married to such a beautiful woman. And yet scum balls like Anthony Wiener cheat on these precious women.

Despicable and disgraceful And I do not care one iota of which political party one is from. Both sides cheat. I hate Hillary's politics but I feel her pain with Bill.

My deepest sympathies for this beautiful lady.

No matter who you are and what your beliefs, when you love someone deeply, and they betray you, may God have mercy on your soul.