Congress: Stop The Budget Madness

The Republican controlled Congress has shredded its promises of fiscal responsibility.  Spineless House and Senate members rubber stamped a stopgap spending bill last week that likely will tack on another $1 trillion to the already bloated national debt.  Conservatives are feeling betrayed.

The House struggled to pass a $1.3 trillion spending package in the wee hours after months of wrangling.  The 2,232-page appropriations bill was rushed to the Senate for approval, allowing legislators little opportunity to wade through the morass of appropriation items.

Many senators admit they did not read every page in the omnibus spending package before it was approved just after midnight. Democrats share in the blame for going along with the compromise, which included funding for many of their pet projects in exchange for votes.

What has not been widely reported is the $1.3 trillion represents a mere down payment on a two-year budget agreement.  The appropriation approved last week only funds the federal government through the current fiscal year, which ends September 30.  Then the drama will begin anew.

News coverage has failed to mention the gargantuan budget only addresses discretionary funding. It does NOT include entitlements, such as Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security.  There also is not one single dime in the budget for interest payments on the inflated national debt.

In bowing to pressure,  the GOP surrendered the high ground of fiscal conservatism. It has no one to blame but itself for the capitulation.  The party is a captive of Washington's chronically dysfunctional budget process.  However, Republicans have the power to fix it but they are cowards.

Almost 44 years ago, Congress approved the Budget Act of 1974 legally requiring members to pass an annual budget. After the president submits a budget proposal, the House and Senate are supposed to adopt their own budget resolutions and follow with spending bills to fund the fiscal plan.

Since the passage of the budget law, Congress has a abysmal record of adhering to its own appropriation deadlines.  Lawmakers have managed to meet their legal deadline just four times in four decades.  For the last six years, not a single appropriation has been enacted by the deadline.

This behavior encourages fiscal irresponsibility.  Senators and representatives are either too lazy, too incompetent or too disorganized to meet their goal.  There is no excuse for what passes as fiscal planning in Washington.  This is reckless chaos.  No business would operate this way.  

Americans have grown weary of the seemingly perpetual threat of a government shutdown as an excuse for abusing the federal budget process.  Members on both sides of the aisle wink at deadlines.  Their disregard for the process is deliberate and dishonest. 

The dirty little secret is that Congress prefers a frenetic pace.  In the final hours, members shoehorn pork barrel projects into the thousands of pages, hoping no one will notice until its too late.  Members votes are often exchanged for pet projects.  It's congressional bribery underwritten by taxpayers.

The midnight scramble also keeps the public from learning the details until the budget has been shoved across the finish line.  Members don't have to handle all those angry calls from constituents.  As soon as the gavel falls, members hotfoot it out of Washington for recess.

The charlatans refuse to face the music for their negligence.  When pressed, they blame the budget process. They blame the opposition party. None of that matters to Americans.  Members jobs are to fulfill their obligation to fund the nation's priorities in a timely, responsible manner.    

Representative Paul Mitchell of Michigan has joined some of his colleagues in demanding more accountability from Congress.  They have proposed a bill that requires Congress to pass a annual budget by June 30.  It's officially called the Protecting Our Children's Future Act (HR5214).

Under the bill's chief provision, if Congress fails to meet the budget deadline, members pay will be withheld. In other words, No Budget, No Pay.  Currently, there is no penalty for Representatives and Senators if they are derelict in their duty to enact appropriation bills on schedule.  

The measure would also streamline the process for passage of appropriations bills in the Senate, which often bogs down the budget process with archaic procedures.  Even when the House meets appropriation deadlines, the Senate drags its feet to force desperate short term measures.

In addition, the legislation would require zero-based budgeting.  Historically Congress uses baseline budgeting, which assumes the previous year's expenditures are the starting point. The new methodology would force the government to justify every dollar of spending each fiscal year.

Republicans hold the majority.  They have the ability to end the unscrupulous budget finagling in Washington.  They can clean up the swampy mess.  If Republicans won't keep their promise of fiscal responsibility, they deserve to be a minority party again. 

Censorship: Social Media Turns Political

Social media is transforming itself into a potent political force. Giants such as Twitter, Facebook and Google are exerting more control over content, employing stealth algorithms to censor or silence conservative voices.  There is a burgeoning backlash about the firms' dominance and influence.

Once social media was dismissed as irrelevant in the political arena.  But modern political campaigns direct their messages at their mushrooming audiences.  Barrack Obama hired an entire team of social media experts.  Hillary Clinton tagged a former Google exec as her chief technology officer.

Social media no longer takes a backseat to legacy media, including television, newspapers and radio. More people turn to social media for news.  Twitter has 157 million users.  Facebook counts 2.6 billion.  Google logs 3.5 billion searches every day.  Social media owns Americans' eyeballs.

A recent Pew Research Center report found 67 percent of all Americans report they obtain at least some of their news from social media.  TV is second with 57 percent.  And it's not just young people on social media.  One-half of Americans over 50 go to social media in search of news.

The Goliaths of social media, including Twitter, Facebook and Google, have virtual monopolies in their segments. As publicly owned companies, they theoretically have every right to foist their ideologies on Americans. However, most people are unaware the content is manipulated.

For example, enterprising undercover journalists recently exposed Twitter's use of guidelines that filtered pro-Trump posts on its site.  In addition, the reporters discovered Twitter was using a technique called "shadow banning" to hide conservative content from public view.

Twitter users were never advised of the deception until news reports shined light on the practice.  Most free speech advocates believe the social media platform should have been upfront about their ideological approach.  But Twitter is not the only social sloth in the covert censorship business. 

Google employs auto-complete algorithms designed to erase certain disparaging and offensive terms from its content.  However, the company admits it's an inexact science.  Users have no idea what is being filtered and why. The search results reflect the biases of those who wrote the algorithm.

A few years ago the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) opted to drop its antitrust lawsuit against Google despite finding its search algorithm was biased.  The exhaustive probe documented the firm promoted its own services at the top of search results to the detriment of its competitors. 

Despite the mountain of evidence, Mr. Obama's FTC dismissed the lawsuit against Google.  Surely it is coincidental that Google executives, led by parent company CEO Eric Schmidt, were frequent and large donors to Mr. Obama's presidential campaigns and Democrat causes.

If Google favored its own products and services, it raises suspicions that the company also adopts the same strategy with political candidates. As an example, the firm can rig the search results to produce the most favorable stories about a candidate to appear on the first page. 

The American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology did a study that showed the results displayed by Google influence political decisions by participants.  The research found this could tip an election by moving voters' opinions of candidates by margins ranging from 37 to 63 percent.

Another Google social media company, You Tube, has been stung with criticism too.  Media sources reported that Google had enlisted "trusted flaggers" to delete questionable video content.  It turns out one group it "entrusted" was the Southern Poverty Law Center, a controversial left-wing outfit.

SPLC promptly labeled many conservatives on YouTube as "extremists," including Dr. Ben Carson and Fox News contributors Laura Ingraham and Judge Jeanine Pirro.  However, the law center found nothing extreme about ANTIFA, a militant protest group with a record of inciting violence. 

For years Facebook has been featuring sponsored news ads in the feeds of its users.  This allowed Russian-backed firms to post fake news about Clinton and Trump on users' feeds.  Now Facebook is trying to clean up the mess it created by cracking down on deception.  But who makes that call?

A hush-hush algorithm is now trolling Facebook weeding out fake news.  Sounds like a good idea.  But the computer nerds at Facebook wrote the algorithm.  And they are mum about what kinds of items might be deemed to be inappropriate for its audience. Transparency be damned.

Why does any of this matter?  The answer is that every political campaign now uses social media to raise funds, hold virtual campaign rallies, advertise the candidates, organize volunteers and motivate voters.  It is a paradigm shift from legacy media to social media as the top election influencer.

But if that's the case, is that a good thing for America?

That question has yet to be answered.  If monopolistic social media behemoths decide to back a single candidate or ideology by censoring information, does that give voters a fair opportunity to make informed political decisions?  Americans need to start worrying about the answer.

Audrey Roy: A Tribute To Mom

The windows in our tiny home rattled as a Louisiana thunderstorm rumbled in the evening sky.  A flash of lighting lit up the faces of Mom and her four children clutching her night gown.  Huddled together in a bedroom, we felt the world might end.  Our fears rose as the storm boiled.

My Dad was driving home in the rainstorm to be with us after a week on the road.  He was the rock, a World War II veteran who stood tall in any disaster.  Mom was his opposite.  Yet on that evening she found strength in prayer.  As she began to pray in the darkened room, her voice soothed our distress.

Our small sounds soon joined hers. We prayed into the night until finally Dad arrived safely.  It was my first experience with the meaning of faith.  It wasn't some religious fantasy.  There was a God who listened, who cared, and answered prayers.  The lesson is embroidered on my heart.

That is one of my most vivid memories of Mom, Audrey Roy.  It happened when I was about six years old, almost 66 years ago.  But I have never, ever forgotten it.  Audrey passed away last week at the age of 96.  Her life was defined by her faith, her unconditional love for her children and my Dad.

Audrey's defining role as mother began in 1946 with the birth of twins.  Their names were Dean and Drew.  We were premature infants born in an era ill equipped technologically to deal with the medical consequences. Tragedy struck three days after our birth.  Dean passed away.

That episode affected Mom her entire life.  She recalled the hospital nurse had roused her out of a deep sleep to share the sad news.  From that day on, whenever she was startled out of a sound sleep, her first thought was a report of another child's death.  It was a secret cross she carried. 

By the time she was 40, Mom had seven children to raise.  She cooked three meals a day, cleaned the dishes, washed and ironed our clothes, supervised baths and always had a baby in her tender arms.  Mom seldom raised her voice, laughed often and treasured each moment with her children.

Despite the daily demands, she never groused or even looked exhausted.  Looking back, I realize I took her dedication for granted.  She had no life outside her kids.  Her entertainment was watching us grow and taking care of our every need.  I have no idea how she did it.

During our youth, the family moved a lot as Dad's career blossomed.  From Louisiana we packed off to two cities in Mississippi and then two towns in Texas.  Each address change created new headaches for Mom who had to find doctors and schools to accommodate her growing family. 

By today's feminist standards, she would be viewed as an unfulfilled women.  But Mom's achievements are beyond measure.  She was the first one to comfort when something hurt.  Or when there was a problem.  Or when things were rough at school.  We were always on her Worry List.

As we began to leave home, Mom shed a few tears, prayed harder and found her passion.  The woman loved playing Bingo. Dad once joked she was the only one he knew who played Bingo for 50 years and never won a game.  That was an exaggeration.  But her wins were few.  Her joys many.

In 2010, Mom moved again at the age of 90 after 47 years in El Campo, Texas.  It had to be traumatic at her age, but she never flinched. She settled in a senior living complex in San Antonio with Dad.  About a week later Dad passed away. His death left her alone for the first time in 67 years.

No one would have blamed Mom for falling apart.  Instead she was determined to carry on.  She had grand kids to cuddle and grown kids to fuss over.  A social worker called her once and inquired if she needed grief counseling.  Mom appeared confused.  "What for?" she inquired.  "I'm fine."

Mom embraced her new lifestyle, making new friends and trying new things.  She began exercise class at age 90, enjoyed watching the NBA Spurs on television and playing games of chance at her senior facility.  It was a humble life but she was a woman of simple tastes.

Well, except when it came to her hair.  Mom had the most beautiful coiffured gray hair I have ever seen.  She treated her hair as a national treasure.  She had a standing weekly hair appointment at the beauty parlor. She fretted over her hair on a windy day.  There was never a strand out of place.

In her final days in a hospital, a nurse appeared to evaluate her mental faculties. She asked Mom a stream of questions, including what year it was; where she lived; did she know where she was right now.  Mom shook her head "no" to each inquiry.  A frown creased the nurse's face.

Finally, my sister Charlene nudged the nurse.  "Ask her when her next hair appointment is," she grinned.  After the nurse posed the question, Mom answered: "I have a hair appointment on Wednesday and then the following Thursday I am getting a perm."  It was classic Mom.

I am going to miss her terribly.  But the lessons she taught me about faith and her examples of humility and service to others will last all my days.  She may be gone but she lives in the hearts of everyone who knew her, especially the children she doted on her entire life. 

Colonoscopy: One Of Life's Joys

A letter arrived bearing the return address of a gastroenterologist.  Never a sign of good news.  With trepidation, I slowly opened the envelope fearing the worst.  Reading the first line of the letter I felt my knees wobble.  It was time for a colonoscopy, the medical equivalent of water boarding.

My last procedure was five years ago, but the memories were permanently etched in my brain. The gruesome colon preparation.  Hours glued to the toilet.  The open flap at the back of my hospital gown.  The humiliation of others peering at my backside.  And those are the good memories.

For the uninitiated, a colonoscopy is a procedure to evaluate the inside of the colon or large bowel.  A gastroneterologist exams the bowel with a colonscope, a four-foot long, flexible tube about the thickness of your finger. There is a camera and a light mounted on the tip of the scope.

All that gear is inserted into the rectum and through the colon.  I know.  That image alone causes your cheeks to quiver.  (Note: If you are eating while reading this, my apologies.)   If there is any good news, it is that you are sedated during the approximately 30-to-60 minute procedure.

When I called the doctor about my appointment, a nurse explained that the preparation had been improved.  No more gallon jugs of foul tasting swill to gulp, she assured me.  I convinced myself it would be like drinking a cork-tainted Bordeaux.  An oenophile might blanch but I could do it.   

I scheduled my colonoscopy many months in the future hoping the American Cancer Society would decree that the procedure was obsolete.  A scientist had created a smartphone app that could examine your bowel just by waving the device over your body.  I believe in miracles.

But the day before the procedure arrived with no news of a scientific breakthrough. The instructions made it clear that fasting was required for 24 hours prior to the colonoscopy.  No solids.  Just jiggly Jello and clear liquid broth.  I swallowed so much Jello my blue eyes turned lime green.

At 5 p.m., I stared at the package of powder to be mixed with water.  The moment of truth.  I stirred the witch's brew in a glass and raised it to my lips.  With each gulp, my taste buds were under assault.  It was like drinking whale-polluted ocean water with extra salt added.

My stomach began gurgling almost immediately.  The noise was deafening after a few minutes.  I raced to the bathroom, lugging copies of John Grisham's entire collection of novels.  I was going to be in there a while.  Too bad the room wasn't soundproofed.

At 2 a.m., I swigged a final dose to start another colon cleanse.  Arriving at the outpatient facility, I looked like I was the loser of a mixed martial arts match.  I was hungry, sleepy and dopey. Think Cinderella's friends.  I was ushered into a tiny, curtained room and handed a hospital gown.

I pulled on the gown as I listened to other victims' moans.  One lady on the gurney next to me foolishly announced she wanted no anesthesia for the procedure.  I tugged at the sleeve of the nurse at my side.  "I'll take hers and mine," I whispered.  "And bring me a sleeping pill."

I was wheeled outside the vault-like rooms where the colonoscopy exams are preformed.  There was a line of gurneys with people eyeing each other.  Everyone in that holding pattern was praying for an eleventh hour reprieve.  Then a nurse fetched me and glided me into the Colonoscopy Cavern.

"Turn on your side and push out your tush," she instructed.  All I could think about was target practice at a gun range.  I hope the gastro guy found the bulls eye.  The anesthesiologist arrived with the drug cocktail.  The next think I remember was waking up in recovery with Dianna by my side.

She smiled at me as I emerged from my fog.  My stomach growled back at her.  My last meal had been more than 30 hours ago.  All I could think about was breakfast. I have no idea what perfume Dianna was wearing, but I swear it was Eau de Bacon. 

Once the doctor appeared bedside he pronounced my colon a fine specimen.  I felt relieve but I hallucinated that I glimpsed a waffle in his pants pocket.  As I left the outpatient facility, I was struck how painless the invasive procedure was.  If only some genius could think of a better prep solution.

And then I had a brainstorm.  Why couldn't patients chugalug a couple of blenders of prune puree?  It wouldn't taste so awful and it would produce the same results.  I have written letters to a couple of medical groups.  So far none have responded.  My guess is the medical profession prefers torture. 

School Shootings: Ban Violence Now

Our nation remains numbed by the horrific shooting at a Florida high school.  The random murder of innocent children is so evil we cannot comprehend it.  In our grief, we fumble for answers and motives but none make sense. How can they?  Our despair leaves us feeling helpless and hopeless.

This is becoming an all too familiar nightmare.  Since 1990, there have been 70 shootings at kindergartens, elementary, middle and high schools killing more than 150 children and adults, according to a Wall Street Journal review of federal statistics.

In the aftermath of each shooting, a pattern emerges.  Police missed the telltale signs of a troubled individual prone to violence.  School kids and often teachers knew the shooter was a ticking time bomb. Yet no one stopped the youth from his deadly desire.  That should haunt every American.

In the hunt for answers, the narrative always shifts to gun control.  It is the false-hope solution.  There is no evidence gun control stops violence.  Countries such as Belgium, France and the Netherlands have stricter gun control laws but their mass shooting rates are as high as the U.S. 

Pandering politicians often single out Australia as a shining example to emulate.  In 1987, Australia launched a buyback program for certain lethal weapons.  More than a million guns were confiscated. Since then, gun ownership in Australia has grown three times faster than the population.

Guns aren't the villain.  Guns have always been a part of America.  What has changed is the media's cultural appropriation of weapons and death.  Influential media--music, movies, video games, Internet and social media--celebrate guns and violence.  The evidence is all around us, but we ignore it.

Consider that as this is written there are scores of rap songs with lyrics about weapons and killing. A current rap song contains this line: "I gotta gun and your family will be resting with you." From raw country to gangsta rap to hardcore hip hop, lyrics and music videos glorify violence and guns.

Exposure to such swill pollutes young souls.  A 2017 study shared by JAMA Pediatrics concluded that "children who see movie characters use guns are more likely to use guns themselves." Even movies rated PG-13, often contain brutal killings, guns, bloody fights and wanton destruction.

The National Center for Health Research (NCHR) has published a number of studies that document playing violent video games increases aggressive thoughts, feelings and behavior in real life.  In fact, researchers have concluded video games are more harmful than movies because they are interactive.

Social media is the newest platform for gratuitous violence.  Young people on social media and the Internet are exposed to a steady stream of dehumanizing, graphically violent, ghastly images.  Teens spend nearly nine hours every day consuming media.  Nine hours. Think about that.

Americans have no excuse for claiming they are unaware of the cultural rot.  As early as 2000, the American Psychiatric Association and the Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry cited more than 1,000 studies asserting the connection between media violence and behavior.

How many more young people have to become addicted to violence peddled in music, movies, social media and video games until we act?  Before we ban a single gun, our children would be safer and less troubled if America outlawed gun killings, violence and graphic mayhem in media.

Hollywood glitterati, musicians and others will protest that freedom of expression protects their right to hawk violence.  These hypocrites are the first to clamor for banning guns but the last to take ownership of their contributions to the problem.  Why do we allow them to skirt responsibility?

In addition to banning violent gun images and words, America should compel the news media to quit making celebrities out of criminals whose only claim to fame is killing human beings.  Their names and faces should only appear after they are charged.  And then never again in public.

Perhaps, this latest slaughter of children will be the wake up call that finally shakes Americans out of their tendency to fall for easy solutions.  Every American who wants to protect children should fight to clean up the raw sewage that is being dumped on our impressionable kids by irresponsible media.

How long must we wait until America tackles this festering problem?   

Why Stocks Are Riding Market Roller Coaster

Just when the US stock market appeared to be defying gravity, it tumbled back to Earth with a resounding thud. Jittery investors rubbernecking at the Dow and S&P market numbers gulped Alka Seltzer. Panic gripped Wall Street traders who triggered a massive sell off of stocks.

Even before the dust settled, everyone from small individual investors to institutional fund giants were asking the same question: “Is the Bull Market over?”

That question dangled over the market as stocks began a roller coaster ride recently, giving new meaning to the word volatility.  After the end of the bear market in March 2009, stocks have soared into record breaking territory, making this the second longest Bull Market in history.

But the recent gyrations have Wall Street analysts calling the downdraft a correction, a term reserved for a 10 percent drop in market averages. A  20% slide would have signaled the start of a Bear Market.  Last week the market rallied, but the gut-wrenching steep swings may not be over.

Despite the conventional market wisdom, the gyrations are a product of the Federal Reserve’s experimental policy over the last eight years. The Fed propped up the stock market during President Obama’s tenure by lowering interest rates while increasing the supply of money.

Under former Fed Chairman Ben Bernacke, the country embarked on an unprecedented monetary experiment.  The strategy was to repress  the bond market by lowering interest rates, nudging investors into riskier assets such as stocks.  The policy worked as assets prices rose.

Everything from real estate to junk bonds and stocks gained as the Fed drove interest rates to nearly zero while purchasing longer term securities issued by the federal government. At the same time, the Fed flooded financial institutions with capital to promote increased lending.

As a result of the the Fed’s unprecedented maneuvering, stocks leapfrogged to new highs.  However, the market was built on quicksand.  There was no underlying growth to support rising stock prices. Economical fundamentals were soft.  The result was overheated stock prices.

After Bernacke stepped down, new chair Janet Yellen followed Bernacke’s script endorsed by Mr. Obama.  In the twilight of Obama’s reign, when the economy began showing signs of a pulse, Yellen acquiesced and signaled a modest plan for raising interest rates.

Many leading economists were stumped by Yellen’s slow pace.  The experts believed it was time to unwind the Fed’s asset purchases and allow interest rates to move upward at a faster clip.  Despite the lack of economic evidence to continue to weigh down interest rates, Yellen clung to her policy.

The reason for her recalcitrance is the stock market was the one gem in an otherwise dismal economic performance under Mr. Obama. Fed chairs always insist their monetary decisions are unaffected by politics. Don’t believe it.  Everything in Washington is influenced by politics.

That’s why this recent market nosedive should be named the Obama Correction.  The Fed’s policy, which some claim saved the financial industry from collapse, resulted in the slowest recovery from a recession in U.S. history.  Stock traders became rich, but the average American saw far less benefit. 

The good news is the United States economy is shaking off its long malaise.  The Gross Domestic Product (GDP), a measurement of economic growth, hit 3.2 percent in the second quarter and finished the third at 2.6 percent.  GDP numbers for 2017 will be released February 28.

Unemployment has dipped to historic lows. Wages are showing signs of inching upward. Corporate profits are now energized by top line revenue growth.  And more firms are raising their profit estimates for future quarters, an indication there are better days ahead.

Of course, economic growth has a down side for the market.  Analysts are now hand-wringing about interest rates putting a damper on consumer borrowing and spending.  Wall Street is also spooked about fears of inflation as growth inevitably leads to a tight labor market and higher wages.

Even with an improving economy, no Bull Market lasts forever.  The longest Bull Market in history was from October, 1987 to March of 2,000, a period of 4,494 days when the Dow Jones Industrial Average reached 308 all-time highs and spiked 582%.

The current Bull run is approaching 3,000 days.  The average Bull Market lasts about nine years (3,282) days and adds 480%.  Looking at those numbers, the current Bull has room to grow, having added 260% in under eight years.  This Bull may yet become the longest in U.S. market history.

Auto Revolution: Shocking Electric Car Forecast

The electric car industry may be poised for a shocking sales jolt.  By 2050, research indicates there may be as many as one billion electric vehicles gliding silently on roads worldwide. That's the prediction of Morgan Stanley, one of the world's leading global financial services firms.

In a report dated September 28, 2017, the Morgan team forecasts advances in battery technology and growing consumer acceptance will fuel rapid sales growth during the next three decades.  Under their scenario, electrics would comprise as much as 90 percent of all sales by mid-century.

Thirty-years is a long horizon, but there are headwinds that make the prediction a stretch.  For one thing, at the end of last year there were only 1,039,988 electric powered vehicles on roads. In the U.S., the number was 199,826.  Today electrics account for less than 1 percent of vehicle sales.

Promoters of electrics autos tout the fact U.S. sales are increasing at prodigious rates.  The number of battery electric vehicles (BEV) in use have nearly quadrupled in five years from 2012 to 2017.  But there were a scant 52,607 produced in 2012.  Consumer adoption has been nothing to brag about.

Electrics enjoy one major advantage over gasoline powered cars.  The federal government doles out a tax credit of $7,500 to incentivize BEV purchases.  Some sates, such as California, tack on a rebate  of up to $7,000. Car manufacturers worry what will happen to sales if the subsidies evaporate.

Despite the government incentive, cost remains a barrier  to many consumers. Electrics are more expensive than their combustion engine siblings with similar features.  Market leader Tesla carries a price tag of more than $50,000 with some models costing north of $100,000.

Then there is the issue of battery distance.  Tesla leads the pack with 335 miles on a single charge for its Model 585D. A Chevy Bolt EV has a range of 238 miles. Ford's Focus Electric taps out at 115 miles.  The KIA Soul EV can travel 120 miles between charges.

When an electric car runs out of juice, there are few places to recharge.  Currently, there are 16,541 charging stations in the country.  Most are located in four states: California, Texas, Florida and New York.  Good luck finding one in Montana.  There are more than 121,000 gas stations nationwide.

The top four selling electrics in the U.S. last year were Tesla, Chevy Bolt EV, Toyota Prius, Chevy Volt and Nissan Leaf in that order.  The vehicle that led all sales in the country was the gas-gulping Ford F Series pickup with 896,764, more than all electrics combined.  Let that sink in.

Electric enthusiasts point to China as the shining example for the future.  Eleven percent of all vehicle sales in that country were BEV's, according to the most recent report.  China registered 352,000 new electric cars in 2016 alone.  The government is building 150,000 charging stations.

China’s Communist regime has gone one step further..  It  has announced plans to the phase out of new combustion engine vehicles entirely. No date has been set, but the United Kingdom and France both have approved bans on the sale of new gasoline powered vehicles beginning  in 2040.

But the threat of a ban has not disrupted China's auto market.  BEV's still account for a sliver of the 28 million automobiles and trucks purchased by Chinese in 2016.  Yet electric boosters are forecasting more than 5,000,000 electric cars will be traveling China's roadways by 2020.

China alone has tackled the cost hurdle, producing an ultra-affordable gasoline alternative.  The country manufacturers low-speed electric mini-cars that sell for $5,000 and max out at 40 miles per hour. The golf-cart looking cars are powered by a lead-acid battery. But it's decidedly low tech.

Despite the skepticism of consumers, automobile manufacturers are going all in for electric.  Global automobile firms have earmarked $90 billion to develop plug-in electric vehicles.  Some researchers are convinced that investments will equal consumer adoption.  The assumption may be flawed.

Bill Ford Jr., the executive chairman of Ford Motor Company, marveled at the the many electric car prototypes that were being introduced at the recent North American International Auto Show in Detroit. He was impressed with the volume but admitted he had a nagging concern.

Mr. Ford mused, "The only question is will the customer be there with us?" His point was Ford and its competitors are rushing headlong into electric vehicles and spending the equivalent of the GDP of a small country to bring more BEV's to market even as customer response has been tepid.

Will  that change once there are millions of shiny electric vehicles sitting on auto dealers showroom floors? Consumers hold the answer to the multi-billion dollar question and many appear reluctant to part with their combustion powered vehicles, especially in a era of falling gasoline prices.

In light of that reality, how long will it be before politicians in Washington decide they know better than consumers and force Americans to give up their gasoline powered cars in favor of electric vehicles?