• Taxes: The 10 Worst States for Retirees By E.J. Smith
• Trump The War Monger? By Richard C. Young
• Boots Back on the Ground By Richard C. Young
• Why Ted Cruz Won the Debate By E.J. Smith
• Simple, Efficient and Fair Taxation By Debbie Young
• Bye, Bye, Bye, Bye By Richard C. Young
• John Harwood Condescending and Obnoxious By Debbie Young
• Who Owns the South China Sea Islands? By Richard C. Young
• Abolish the IRS, as We Know It By Richard C. Young

Kiplinger has released an interactive map of the country ranking the states by their tax-friendliness to retirees.

The 10 worst states for retirees are:

10) New York
9) New Jersey
8) Nebraska
7) California
6) Montana
5) Oregon
4) Minnesota
3) Rhode Island
2) Connecticut
1) Vermont

See the interactive map here.

Kiplinger explains the rankings here.

The American Conservative’s Daniel Larison gives readers the results of a survey looking at the hawkish or dovish position of Republican candidates. Mr. Trump leads the hawk pack while Rand Paul ranks as the least hawkish.

Do you believe the survey? Does any voter really have a good handle on what Donald Trump might do in any given situation? I, for one, do not. Which is why I feel confident that Mr. Trump will not be the Republican candidate for president.

How about Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio running near the top of the hawk list? Everything I have heard Mr. Cruz say on foreign policy allows me to believe that he has little in the way of historical perspective on the subject. Cruz wants voters to believe that he is a confirmed hawk. This is no doubt the case and is why I do not want to see Cruz as the Republican nominee. As for Rubio, he leads the hawk pack. His best buddies in the senate would appear to be, at least on the surface, McCain and Graham, perhaps the two most strident hawks in the Senate. Rubio, with his Obamaish-thin presidential resume, canned-speech, campaign-trail effort and super-hawk foreign policy attitude rule him out as a credible presidential candidate.

How about Jeb? I would pay no attention to Jeb’s campaign-trail foreign policy rhetoric. The facts are these: Jeb’s father and brother both will tell you that the second Iraq war intervention was a mistake and a big one. Family friend and former national security advisor Brent Scowcroft strongly advised George W. Bush not to go after Saddam Hussein. And Scowcroft’s prescient advice was dismissed by the Bush administration and its chief war drum beaters Cheney and Rice. Jeb Bush has gotten the message and would be a lot less likely to drag America into another foreign intervention than would Trump, Rubio or Cruz.

Neocon cheerleaders like Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer will roll out the Rubio bandwagon and paint Jeb as a faltering weakling. But they know full well that Jeb has read the Scowcroft book as well as enough history to fully understand the folly of foreign entanglements.

As to Rand Paul, he has doomed his presidential run by mixing his message in order to gain the Republican nomination. Paul is the furthest thing from a hawk, but his middle-of-the-road position on foreign policy has caused many of his key supporters to jump ship. Rand Paul is done.

Now what? It is not a pretty picture for Republicans. But the Democrats are in even worse shape looking at a face-off between a pathological liar and a socialist.

Related video:

Are American voters aware that the Obama administration has authorized a boots-back-on-the-ground strategy in Syria? And do voters understand that the goal is to defeat Bashar Assad, who the Russians are backing with some serious air power that is causing thousands to flee?

American voters should be up in arms as to why Congress has not been asked to sign off on  such military intervention. Americans should demand answers as to just who is going to replace Assad if he is taken out of the picture.

Is a direct military confrontation with Russia over a country that is of no fundamental national security interest to the United States a strategy in which the majority of Americans wish to engage?

You could see the momentum shift his way, the key to win any election, as Ted Cruz stole the show last night by calling out the elephant in the room–the three CNBC moderators. That’s moderators with an “S” for S-M-U-G. “The questions that have been asked so far in this debate illustrate why the American people don’t trust the media,” said Cruz. Apparently being smug is a prerequisite to be a starter on the NBC junior varsity team. And it doesn’t translate to real Americans.

Ted Cruz is speaking a language Americans relate to and he’s doing it without seriously dipping into his war chest loaded with cash. He’s likable, he’s sick and tired of Washington, and he’s not out of touch. I’m all ears.

I love Cruz’s op-ed in this morning’s WSJ “A Simple Flat Tax for Economic Growth” calling for a 10% income tax and a 16% business tax. He talks about the potential growth for the economy:

President Reagan knew that after years of economic stagnation the country was ready for a big change, and he knew that he would win if the people had their say.

And the people were right. The Reagan tax cut led to what the late Robert Bartley, then editor of The Wall Street Journal, dubbed “The Seven Fat Years”—the period from 1983-89 when the economy soared by an average of 4.4% a year, including one year by 7.3%. The economy grew by nearly a third, disposable income increased 20%, and 18 million new jobs were created.

This could be the elixir to help get Millennials into the game. When I was at Babson, I had an internship with one of the more successful entrepreneurs in the history of the school. I had dinner the night before my first day with some Babson alumni who had worked for him. They told me stories about how he was successful at everything he did: How his timing was excellent, his execution the best, and on and on. He graduated Babson and hit the ground running. As we were getting up one of the guys said:

“It also didn’t hurt that he was 24 in ’84”

Ted Cruz has a simple tax plan that he claims will spur robust economic growth and job creation and raise after-tax income. Perhaps the best part of Mr. Cruz’s Tax Plan is that it would allow people to file their taxes on a postcard or phone app and eliminate “the rat’s nest of complex tax requirements, credits and loopholes.”

• For a family of four, no taxes (income or payroll) on the first $36,000 of income.

• Above that level, a 10% flat tax on all individual income from wages and investment.

• No death tax, alternative minimum tax or ObamaCare taxes.

• Elimination of the payroll tax and the corporate income tax, to be replaced by a 16% Business Flat Tax. This would tax companies’ gross receipts from sales of goods and services, less purchases from other businesses, including capital investment. Simple, efficient, fair.

• A Universal Savings Account, which would allow every American to save up to $25,000 annually on a tax-deferred basis for any purpose.

For more details on Ted Cruz’s proposed Simple Tax, which according to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, would boost the size of the economy, add 4.9 million jobs, and increase average wages by 12.2%, go here.

The winner of last night’s Republican debate was Ted Cruz.

Just like a Chuck Berry John B. Goode performance at an Alan Freed Brooklyn Paramount Theatre stage show, Ted Cruz carried the night. Donald Trump, with his Jerry Lee Lewis like best effort, threatened to, at any minute,  burn down the house.  Carly Fiorina gave her best, measured Connie Francis interpretation. Chris Christie performed in Fats Domino style, solid but not the pacesetter. Marco Rubio took a viewer back to the polished days of Paul Anka, but, of course no match for Chuck or Jerry Lee. Ben Carson brought Brook Benton to mind, mellow and professional but standing in the shadows of the front-line guys. Rand Paul reminded me, in musical terms, of Joey Dee from the Starlighters—a nice presence in a small corner of the big stage, but not a good match against the big boys. Jeb Bush was Bobby Vee like. Remember “Rubber Ball”? How insipid and second tier.

The whole show was pathetically hosted by an over-matched John Harwood who Trump, Cruz and Christie kicked around like a beach ball at a Jimmy Buffett concert.

In the end, Ted Cruz made the case for small government that Rand Paul has been trying to unsuccessfully deliver. And Cruz made the case well enough to draw enthusiastic audience response for a number of his laser like comments. Ted is going to quietly and methodically gain traction much to the chagrin of the big government, establishment dinosaurs.

In the third GOP debate, the ideological hostility was painstakingly obvious. As Peggy Noonan writes in the WSJ, the browbeating and interruptions were meant to throw candidates off course.

Since Chris Christie has called climate change undeniable, asked Mr. Harwood, what would he do about it? Mr. Christie said his solutions would not be the usual Democratic ones involving more taxes and more power to Washington.

“What should we do?” Mr. Harwood pressed.

“What we should do is invest in all types of energy, John—”

“You mean government?” Harwood interrupted.

Christie: “I got to tell you the truth, even in New Jersey what you’re doing is called rude.”

The CNBC moderators seemed intent on trivializing the field. Here’s how Ted Cruz pushed back at John Haywood’s obnoxious tone:

The questions that have been asked so far in this debate illustrate why the American people don’t trust the media. This is not a cage match. And if you look at the questions—“Donald Trump, are you a comic-book villain?” “Ben Carson, can you do math?” “John Kasich, will you insult two people over here?” “Marco Rubio, why don’t you resign?” “Jeb Bush, why have your numbers fallen?” How about talking about the substantive issues the people care about?”

He continued, over a moderator/interrupter: “I’m not finished yet. The contrast with the Democratic debate, where every fawning question from the media was, “Which of you is more handsome and why?”

Again he barreled past an interrupter: “Let me be clear. The men and women on this stage have more ideas, more experience, more common sense than every participant in the Democratic debate.”

Pressed to answer the original question, Mr. Cruz said he’d be happy to. But Mr. Harwood turned to another candidate.

“So you don’t want to hear the answer, John?” Mr. Cruz challenged.

“You used your answer on something else,” said Mr. Harwood, curtly.

Read more here from Peggy Noonan, who urges future moderators to be tough, to be incisive, “but don’t be a high-handed snot, don’t wear your bias on your sleeve.”

Pat Buchanan makes it clear that we do not. As Pat writes, the islands are not our vital  interest. A naval clash with China over these islands makes little sense for America.

Each of the China Sea claimants—Beijing, Taipei, Manila, and Hanoi—have maps going back decades and even centuries to support their claims. The U.S. can show opposition to Beijing excesses, if need be, suggests Pat, by “ imposing tariffs on all goods made in China. China’s oligarchs will understand that message.”

China’s artificial island in the South China Sea.

The Ted Cruz Flat Tax Plan will work for America.

Cruz’s plan would abolish the IRS as we know it and end the use of the tax code as a political weapon, with a simple tax code that is “transparent and resistant to corruption.”

The personal income tax rate would be 10% after a $ 10,000 standard deduction and a $ 4,000 personal exemption. Deductions for charitable contributions and mortgage interest payments are preserved.

The Payroll Tax would be eliminated.

The Corporate Income Tax would be replaced by a 16% Business Flat Tax. The tax would be based on revenues minus expenses such as equipment, computers and other business investments.

Death Tax: Eliminated.